What happens when some stories told to explain the world stop being just stories—and begin reshaping democracy itself?
This question sits at the heart of TaCT‑FoRSED research, brought vividly to life in a series of recent presentations: from Carol Galais’ thought‑provoking talk at Pint of Science: “Ideas que se mueven” to academic discussions at the European Political Science conference (EPSS), and Stefan Christoph’s comparative work on democratic identity and conspiracism presented at the DVPW three‑country conference.
Together, these contributions highlight a simple but powerful point: conspiracy thinking is not just about what people believe—it is about who they are, how they feel, and how they engage with democracy.
A night at the pub: why conspiracy theories matter
At Pint of Science, Carol Galais took research out of the lecture hall and into the public sphere—into a bar, where conversations about science meet everyday experience.
Her talk explored how conspiracy theories function as narratives that simplify complex realities by attributing events to hidden plots by powerful actors.
But the key question she raised goes beyond why people believe such narratives. Instead, it focuses on consequences:
- How do conspiracy beliefs affect trust in institutions?
- What happens to democratic legitimacy when suspicion becomes the norm?
- And how do these beliefs shape political participation?
Drawing on recent empirical research, Galais showed that conspiracy thinking is linked to broader patterns in public opinion, including institutional distrust and democratic disengagement.
Far from being marginal or harmless, these beliefs have real implications for how democracies function and how citizens relate to them.
From public engagement to experimental evidence
At EPSS, Galais extended this discussion with experimental work on conspiracist rhetoric and its effects.
Under the title ‘What Lies Beneath: Unpacking the Narrative Elements of Conspiracism and Their Democratic Consequences’, she discussed research currently being carried out with colleagues Marc Guinjoan, Alejandro Fernández-Roldán and Blai Blanchet.
Through experimental design, this research moves beyond simple correlation to better understand the prevalence, drivers, and democratic impacts of conspiracy beliefs across various European countries.
- Measuring prevalence: Estimating true belief in sensitive narratives (e.g., COVID‑19 population‑reduction, chemtrails) using indirect questioning.
- Identifying harmful narrative traits: Testing which components (intentionality, secret elites, victimhood, etc.) most affect democratic attitudes.
- Testing debunking strategies: Evaluating whether discrediting via factual approaches or descriptive or injunctive social‑norm‑based approaches is more effective in reducing belief after exposure to a conspiracy narrative.
- Testing prebunking strategies: Assessing whether text inoculation or video inoculation is more effective in reducing susceptibility to the same conspiracy narrative.
Conspiracism as identity, not just belief
A complementary perspective comes from Stefan Christoph’s comparative research, presented at the DVPW three‑country conference.
His work pushes the discussion one step further: conspiracism should be understood not only as a belief system, but as a form of political identity.
According to this framework, conspiracist thinking:
- Promotes a simplified good-versus-evil worldview
- Undermines pluralistic understandings of society
- Fuels polarization and mistrust towards democratic institutions
This identity-based perspective is critical. It explains why conspiracy theories are often resistant to correction: they are not just ideas to be debunked, but components of how individuals make sense of themselves and others.
It also helps explain why traditional “fact-checking” approaches are often insufficient.
The democratic challenge – and opportunity
Together, these contributions further the core mission of TaCT-FoRSED.
Conspiracy theories are not just a communication problem. They are a democratic challenge.
But they are also a window into something deeper: how citizens make sense of uncertainty, how identities are formed, and how trust is built – or broken – in modern democracies.
Understanding these processes is the first step.
The next is turning that understanding into strategies that strengthen democratic resilience – not by simplifying the world, but by helping citizens navigate its complexity.
