Deeper Down the Rabbit Hole: How Technology Conspiracy Beliefs Emerge and Foster a Conspiracy Mindset

Conspiracy theories, which allege that powerful groups hatch malicious plots, are increasingly recognized as a threat to contemporary society. Although research acknowledges the role of information technology (IT) in spreading such theories, the understanding of conspiracy beliefs related to technology, their formation, and their effects remains limited. Building on theoretical insights on conspiracy beliefs and information systems (IS) research dealing with the impact of individuals’ perceptions of technology, we theorize on technology conspiracy beliefs. We define technology conspiracy beliefs as an individual’s endorsement of an unverified narrative that purports that an organization issuing technology is using that technology to secretly pursue evil goals. We then develop the TECONMIND (technology-conspiracy-mindset) model, which suggests that an individual’s perceptions of a technology’s characteristics (performance expectancy, effort expectancy, and perceived risks) and its issuer’s characteristics (perceived malevolence and perceived power) can lead to the formation of technology conspiracy beliefs. Moreover, the model proposes a reciprocal relationship between technology conspiracy beliefs and a broader conspiracy mindset. Accordingly, we expect technology conspiracy beliefs to foster a conspiracy mindset, which in turn, promotes further technology conspiracy beliefs. We provide empirical evidence for the prevalence of technology conspiracy beliefs and then test this model in two studies—a multiwave field study and an experiment—that support our central propositions. Our study contributes to IS research in three ways. First, by developing a conceptual understanding of technology conspiracy beliefs, we introduce an IT artifact-centered concept that allows researchers to explore a previously overlooked dark side of technology. Second, we establish a reciprocal relationship between technology conspiracy beliefs and conspiracy mindsets, indicating that the endorsement of technology conspiracy beliefs can set in motion a vicious cycle in which individuals increasingly interpret their environment using conspiracy theories. Third, we provide an initial understanding of which perceived technology and issuer characteristics make technologies prone to become objects of conspiracy beliefs. Our findings should sensitize technology developers and policymakers as to how their decisions can instigate or mitigate technology conspiracy beliefs, which have significant long-term societal consequences.