Emotions and Violence Legitimation in Conspiracy Narratives

This blog post is a condensed version of a recently published article in New Media + Society. To read the full article click here.

The mainstreaming of conspiracy theories has coincided with a troubling rise in real-world violence. From attacks on infrastructure to mass shootings justified by extremist beliefs, conspiracy narratives increasingly translate into violent actions. Alternative technology platforms like Parler offer space for conspiracy narratives to spread largely without content moderation.

However, not all conspiracy narratives lead to violent acts and the range of violence differs. For example, anti-5G conspiracy narratives are associated primarily with arsons and harassment of key workers, whilst great replacement conspiracy narratives have been associated with larger acts of violence like mass shootings. In this research I examined whether conspiracy narratives utilise emotions like anger, contempt, and disgust differently and whether this was associated with discussions of violence, threat, and hate. 

Legitimating violence in conspiracy narratives

As a non-normative action, violence can only become a viable path of action when it is encouraged and legitimized by narratives in a network.  “Violent talk” reinforces the values of violence and its importance as a cultural and political practice, thus legitimizing violence as a viable and even desirable pathway for addressing grievances. Narratives can further legitimate violence by delegitimizing the outgroup, effectively excluding them from the group to which norms and values apply. Dehumanization of the outgroup via comparisons to animals and implications of disease is therefore a key strategy for delegitimization, as it degrades the outgroup. This can involve stripping members of their human characteristics or invoking a contamination avoidance response, for example, by labeling a group as “dirty,” “diseased,” or implying they are animals, thus making violence an acceptable course of action. For example, great replacement conspiracy narratives utilize grievances about socioeconomic hardship by blaming immigrants and the UN. Consequently, these narratives propose that eliminating the scapegoated outgroup will relieve the experienced hardship, for example, by freeing up jobs and reducing pressures on the housing market.

Social networks, such as those encountered on social media platforms, can further spread and endorse these narratives, leading to increased identification with extreme communities and reduced inhibitions against the use of violence. “Violent talk” can help to socialize individuals into extreme communities by communicating values and norms, identifying and dehumanizing targets of violence, and glorifying perpetrators of violence.

Emotions as pathways to violence

Group-based emotions, and in particular perceived inequality and injustice, are powerful motivators of collective action. The ANCODI model proposes that historical narratives and reactions to events result in emotions of anger, contempt, and disgust that work together to motivate action, devalue the other group, and legitimize violence against outgroup members. These emotions become integral to the group’s narratives, thus providing guidelines for making appraisals about the outgroup and accelerating action. For example, initial anger around mask mandates turned to narratives invoking disgust for those wearing masks and encouraging harassment of those wearing masks, even after mask mandates were lifted. Anger, contempt, and disgust are each associated with distinct action tendencies. Anger is typically directed at a situational grievance that the ingroup experiences for which they blame the outgroup, thus driving action against those deemed responsible. Contempt and disgust, on the other hand, focus on the disposition of the outgroup members. Contempt deems the target as inferior and unworthy of esteem and is marked by exclusion tendencies that intend to punish the excluded. Disgust, on the other hand, deems the target to be “contaminated” (e.g., through comparisons to animals or implications of disease, instilling a contamination avoidance response rooted in existential threat and excluding the target to the point of elimination.

Differences in emotions between conspiracy narratives

We examined text posts related to five conspiracies on Parler: flat earth, anti-5G, false flag, anti-vaccine, and great replacement narratives. These narratives have been associated with a range of violence, from non-violent flat earth narratives to great replacement narratives which are associated with a range of violent acts.

Using dictionary analyses, we found that these narratives used anger, contempt, and disgust emotions differently. Anger, contempt, and disgust were highest for narratives that were associated with more violent events (e.g., false flag or great replacement narratives) and lowest for flat earth narratives. Disgust words were highest in great replacement narratives, which differed significantly only from antivaccine narratives.  We also found that expression of anger, contempt, and disgust, was correlated with  expressions of violence, threat, and hate. This suggests that narratives associated with more offline violence may be using anger, contempt, and disgust to address situational grievances, as well as delegitimize an outgroup.

This work highlights the important role of emotion in legitimizing violence and poses implications for early-stage prevention efforts, which can utilize grievance-focused counternarratives to divert those interested in more harmful narratives.