Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

How Appraisal Model Allows to Distinguish Intergroup Conspiracy Theories from Other Forms of Hate Speech

How Appraisal Model Allows to Distinguish Intergroup Conspiracy Theories from Other Forms of Hate... PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2024, VOL. 35, NOS. 3–4, 216–222 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2024.2442919 COMMENTARIES How Appraisal Model Allows to Distinguish Intergroup Conspiracy Theories from Other Forms of Hate Speech Michał Bilewicz Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland In 2019, during a Jewish holiday, a German right-wing of reality, to allow some group(s) to enact a harmful, self-- extremist carried out a brutal attack in the city of Halle, kill- serving agenda” (Nera & Schopfer, € 2023), are inherently ing two people at the entrance to a synagogue and injuring intergroup in nature. However, not all such theories expli- two others. The perpetrator left behind a manifesto express- citly implicate specific national or ethnic groups. Some tar- ing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as the motivation for get prominent individuals (e.g., Bill Gates or George Soros), his actions. Several months later, German Chancellor Angela obscure events (e.g., the assassination of Princess Diana), Merkel addressed the Jewish community, condemning the political organizations (e.g., Pizzagate/QAnon), or even rising tide of hate: “Insults, threats, or conspiracy theories extraterrestrial beings (e.g., reptilian conspiracy theories). are openly directed against Jewish citizens. Many statements Nevertheless, conspiracy theories directed at particular social on social media are dripping with hate and incitement. We or ethnic groups pose the gravest threat to the safety and must never remain silent about this” (Moulson, 2020). well-being of minorities. For this reason, psychologists have This tragic incident exemplifies a broader trend of modern defined “intergroup conspiracy theories” as a distinct subcat- hate crimes where conspiracy theories play a pivotal role. egory of conspiratorial beliefs (Jolley et al., 2020). Scholars, political figures, and religious leaders alike have Intergroup conspiracy theories can be considered antece- repeatedly highlighted the connection between conspiracy the- dents of prejudice in two significant ways: (1) conspiracy ories, hate speech, and their potential to incite prejudice and beliefs strongly predict discriminatory attitudes and behav- intergroup violence. Extensive psychological research supports iors, and (2) exposure to such theories can incite intergroup the idea that intergroup conspiracy theories are significant hostility and prejudice. drivers of prejudice and hostility between groups (Bilewicz Research has demonstrated that belief in intergroup con- et al., 2013; Endtricht & Kanol, 2024; Imhoff, 2015; Jolley spiracy theories correlates with various forms of prejudice et al., 2020; Schrader et al., 2024; Srol et al., 2022). Similarly, and discrimination. For instance, Bilewicz et al. (2013) robust evidence underscores the influence of hate speech in found that anti-Semitic conspiracy beliefs predicted legal fostering prejudice and discrimination (Fasoli et al., 2015; discrimination against Jews, social distancing from them, Leader et al., 2009; Mullen & Rice, 2003; Soral et al., 2018). biases in material reparations, and reluctance to vote for Despite these well-documented connections, no compre- candidates of Jewish ancestry. Remarkably, these conspira- hensive model currently addresses the specific roles of inter- torial stereotypes exerted a stronger predictive influence group conspiracy theories and hate speech as distinct yet than any other stereotypes about Jewish people. Additional interconnected catalysts for prejudice, discrimination, and studies have confirmed that intergroup conspiracy theories intergroup violence. In this article, I propose that an about Jews foster social and economic discrimination (Kofta appraisal perspective on conspiracy theories (Pummerer et al., 2020), provoke negative emotions toward Jewish indi- et al., this issue) offers a valuable framework for understand- viduals (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012), and reduce ing the nuanced differences between these two critical ante- willingness to cooperate with Israel (Kofta & Sedek, 2005). cedents of prejudice. At the same time, distinguishing These effects are particularly pronounced during periods of between intergroup conspiracy theories and other non-con- social and political instability, such as election campaigns spiratorial forms of hate speech can help reduce certain (Bilewicz & Sedek, 2015; Kofta & Sedek, 2005). ambiguities in the appraisal model of conspiracy theories. Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories is another key factor driving prejudice and discrimination. Robust evidence indicates that such exposure amplifies intergroup hostility. Intergroup Conspiracy Theories as Antecedents of For example, Jolley et al. (2020) found that individuals Prejudice and Discrimination exposed to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories exhibited electoral Conspiracy theories, broadly defined as “claims that the discrimination against Jews and increased prejudice toward public is being pervasively lied to regarding some aspect(s) five other ethnic and national groups. This spillover effect of CONTACT Michał Bilewicz [email protected] Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw, Poland. � 2025 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. COMMENTARIES 217 anti-Semitic conspiracy theories has been corroborated in Combining insights from studies on both the use and other studies (Kofta & Sedek, 2005). Additionally, exposure to exposure to hate speech, Bilewicz and Soral (2020) proposed intergroup conspiracy theories has been linked to heightened an epidemic model demonstrating how widespread hate anti-immigrant prejudice (Jolley et al., 2020) and even anti- speech can foster societal prejudice. Using agent-based mod- immigrant violence, particularly among individuals with eling, they illustrated how individual acts of hate speech, highly hierarchical worldviews (Schrader et al., 2024). when proliferated, contribute to the normalization and even- Intergroup conspiracy theories significantly contribute to tual dominance of prejudiced attitudes at the societal level. the emergence and perpetuation of prejudice and discrimin- In conclusion, the evidence strongly suggests that hate ation, both through their predictive influence on attitudes speech not only reflects existing prejudices but also actively and behaviors and their capacity to incite hostility upon shapes and amplifies them, both at individual and collective exposure. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for levels. addressing the social harm caused by such beliefs. The Appraisal Perspective on Two Causes of Hate Speech as an Antecedent of Prejudice and Prejudice and Discrimination Discrimination Both intergroup conspiracy theories and hate speech serve While hate speech can include elements of conspiracy theo- as significant sources of prejudice and discrimination. In ries, it typically consists of derogatory language without many cases, conspiracy theories are expressed through hate such narratives. The Council of Europe (1997) broadly speech, and some verbal expressions of hate speech, particu- defines hate speech as “all forms of expression that spread, larly anti-Semitic rhetoric, are rooted in conspiratorial nar- incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti- ratives, such as the theory of a global Jewish plot (Bilewicz, Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.” 2021). Both hate speech and conspiracy theories incite non- Historically, psychological terminology has varied, referring normative collective actions, including riots, abuses, and vio- to hate speech with terms such as “antilocutions” (Allport, lence against targeted groups (Imhoff et al., 2021; 1954), “discriminatory speech acts” (Graumann & Pummerer, 2022; Soral et al., 2018). Despite these similar- Wintermantel, 1989), and “derogatory group labels” ities, crucial differences exist between these two antecedents (Carnaghi & Maass, 2007; Simon & Greenberg, 1996). of prejudice, particularly regarding the distinct appraisals Similarly to intergroup conspiracy theories, hate speech upon which they are based (see: Table 1). also contributes to prejudice and discrimination in two Appraisal theories focus on how individuals interpret ways: (1) individuals who use derogatory language are more their environment—evaluating whether objects or events likely to develop deeper prejudices and engage in intergroup help or harm them, signal superiority or inferiority, are con- aggression, and (2) exposure to hate speech can provoke dis- trollable or uncontrollable. These interpretations determine criminatory attitudes and behaviors in others. the resulting emotional responses (Moors et al., 2013). In Gordon Allport (1954) captured the progression from intergroup contexts, collective emotions arise from apprais- speech to action with a vivid metaphor: “Although most als of outgroups’ status, perceived control, and potential barking does not lead to biting, yet there is never a bite threats (Mackie et al., 2008). For instance, Pummerer et al. without previous barking” (p. 57). Archival studies support (this issue) suggest that specific appraisals associated with this notion, indicating that simplistic, derogatory rhetoric conspiracy theories—such as certainty vs. uncertainty, high about immigrants often precedes their societal exclusion and vs. low control, and pleasant vs. unpleasant experiences— discrimination (Mullen & Rice, 2003). Similarly, linguistic can predict emotional outcomes, including fear, anger, pride, markers of radicalization suggest that hate speech can serve schadenfreude, and disgust. as an early warning signal for intergroup violence (Cohen According to Pummerer et al. (this issue), the emphasis et al., 2014). Research on Islamophobia further reveals that on different aspects of conspiracy theories can evoke varied individuals who normalize online hate speech develop more emotions and behaviors, shaped by appraisals of control, prejudiced interpretations of Muslim radicalization (Soral certainty, and pleasantness. However, this does not seem to et al., 2020). be the case of intergroup conspiracy theories. In case of The impact of hate speech exposure is well-documented. intergroup conspiracy theories, appraisals of control, cer- Early studies demonstrated that derogatory labels activate ster- tainty, and pleasantness remain consistent. Such theories eotypes and lead to discriminatory judgments (Kirkland et al., typically portray a malevolent, powerful group acting sys- 1987). Exposure to homophobic hate speech fosters discrimin- tematically, which elicits feelings of low control, high ation and increases dehumanization by the heterosexual certainty, and unpleasantness (Kofta et al., 2020). majority (Fasoli et al., 2015, 2016), ultimately undermining The sense of satisfaction derived from solving a the well-being of LGBT individuals (Bianchi et al., 2017; “mysterious plot” or reclaiming control seems absent in Zochniak et al., 2023). Prolonged exposure to hate speech has intergroup conspiracy theories. This is because these theories been shown to increase social distance toward minorities are rooted in well-established historical stereotypes, making (Soral et al., 2018), reduce empathetic responses (Pluta et al., them less “mysterious” (Winiewski et al., 2015). Even when 2023), and desensitize individuals to verbal aggression against the ostensibly powerful group is overthrown, physically marginalized groups (Soral et al., 2018, 2024). eradicated, or forced into exile, they are still depicted 218 COMMENTARIES Table 1. Different appraisals, worldview foundations, and stereotypes underlying two sources of discrimination and preju- dice: intergroup conspiracy theories and non-conspiratorial hate speech. Intergroup conspiracy theories Hate speech Status Appraisal Status Challenging Status Maintaining Perceptions of the Outgroup High Control/Competence Low Control/Competence Perceptions of the Ingroup Low Control/Competence High Control/Competence Position of the Ingroup Disadvantaged Advantaged Worldview Basis Authoritarian (RWA) Social Darwinist (SDO) Outgroup Stereotype (SCM) Envious Contemptuous Note. RWA: Right-Wing Authoritarianism; SDO: Social Dominance Orientation; SCM: Stereotype Content Model. as covertly maintaining their influence, perpetuating the Muslims are strongly linked to symbolic threats and fears of belief in their hidden domination. Therefore, even effective a “clash of civilizations” (Uenal, 2016). Similarly, anti- confrontation with alleged source of threat does not allow to Western conspiracy theories among Muslims in Indonesia regain a sense of personal control. correlate with collective angst and perceived threats A key distinction between hate speech and intergroup (Mashuri & Zaduqisti, 2015). Antisemitic conspiracy theories conspiracy theories lies in their underlying appraisals. While also stem from fear and anxiety (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013). hate speech expresses explicit hostility toward derogated Such emotions typically emerge from a sense of low control “inferior” outgroups, intergroup conspiracy theories are and powerlessness (Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Pummerer et al., based on perceptions of threat by attributing covert, malevo- this issue). lent intentions to “superior” groups. This distinction shapes When individuals feel deprived of control, they often the emotions and actions they elicit. Based on the model exaggerate the perceived power and control of others—a proposed by Pummerer et al. (this issue), non-conspiratorial phenomenon known as compensatory control (Kay et al., hate speech could be interpreted as grounded in appraisals 2009; Kay & Eibach, 2013). This explains why people experi- of high control, relatively high certainty, and unpleasantness. encing powerlessness may view certain groups as highly Recent works differentiate between “upward” and organized and influential. Although meta-analyses have not “downward” conspiracy theories (Nera et al., 2021, 2022), consistently linked general control deprivation to conspiracy and this distinction seems to guide Pumerrer et al.’s (this beliefs (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020), the strongest effects issue) appraisal model of conspiracy theories. “Upward” appear in studies focusing on specific intergroup conspiracy conspiracy theories target powerful entities (e.g., govern- theories. This aligns with compensatory control theory, ments or corporations), while “downward” theories sup- which predicts that control deficits are more likely to result posedly blame marginalized groups (e.g., Jews, Muslims, in attributing power to specific agents rather than perceiving immigrants, or gender activists). However, the concept of a general excessive control in the environment. Research on “downward” conspiracy theories contradicts the core essence focal enemyship also supports this, showing that a deficit of of conspiratorial thinking: attributing hidden control and control enhances beliefs in the conspiratorial power of per- influence to the target group. Even when focusing on margi- ceived political enemies rather than more general percep- nalized groups, conspiracy theorists often perceive these tions of control (Sullivan et al., 2010). groups as wielding disproportionate power and secretly Individuals experiencing powerlessness often view minor- manipulating societal outcomes. ity groups as exerting excessive control over resources, polit- From an appraisal theory perspective, conspiracy theories ics, or media. Conspiratorial antisemitism exemplifies this always involve outgroups perceived as powerful and control- pattern. Studies indicate that a sense of powerlessness, rather ling, regardless of their actual social or political status. This than mere uncertainty, is a primary driver of antisemitic allows to portray discriminated minorities as “privileged elit- conspiracy beliefs (Kofta et al., 2020). Additional antecedents es” and justify aggression against them. This “upward bias” include relative deprivation (Bilewicz et al., 2013; Bilewicz & differentiates intergroup conspiracy theories from other Krzeminski, 2010; van Prooijen et al., 2018) and subjective forms of hate speech, which may not necessarily involve victimhood (Antoniou et al., 2020; Bilewicz & Stefaniak, such appraisals of covert power or control. 2013; Skrodzka et al., 2022). All these antecedents seem to While both hate speech and intergroup conspiracy theo- reflect the powerlessness and appraisal of low control of the ries fuel prejudice and discrimination, their unique appraisal ingroup. structures lead to different emotional and behavioral out- Intergroup appraisals are closely linked to the content of comes. Recognizing these differences is crucial for a better group stereotypes. Peter Glick (2002, 2005) suggested that understanding of the sources of prejudice and intergroup scapegoating minorities often involves conspiratorial beliefs hostility. rooted in ambivalent stereotypes. Groups accused of con- spiring are typically perceived as highly competent but lack- ing in warmth. Archival research and correlational studies Intergroup Conspiracy Theories and the Appraisal support this, showing that conspiracy theories about Jews of High Power, Control, and Competence are associated with perceptions of high competence and low Intergroup conspiracy theories often arise from perceived warmth, including low perceived sociability and morality of threats. Research shows that conspiracy theories about Jews (Durante et al., 2010; Winiewski et al., 2015). COMMENTARIES 219 Studies focused on individual differences highlights a increases contempt rather than other recognizable emotions strong and consistent link between right-wing authoritarian- in reaction to outgroups (Bilewicz et al., 2025). ism (RWA) and intergroup conspiracy theories, with mixed Research highlights a crucial difference between the emo- evidence for social dominance orientation (SDO) (Bilewicz tional underpinnings of hate speech and intergroup conspir- et al., 2013; Grzesiak-Feldman, 2015; Grzesiak-Feldman & acy theories. Comparative studies in Germany, the United Irzycka, 2009; Swami, 2012). The tendency for authoritarians Kingdom, and Poland show that perceptions of low compe- to believe in conspiracies targeting groups like Jews, tence in target groups predict hate speech use against these Germans, or Russians—perceived as powerful—can be groups (Soral et al., 2018, in press). This effect is mediated explained by the egalitarian aspect of authoritarianism. by contempt, even toward groups traditionally accused of Strong leaders and authorities are seen as reducing group conspiracies (like Jewish people) and those less often viewed conspiratorially (such as welfare recipients). inequalities and neutralizing perceived threats to the com- When it comes to individual differences, the acceptance munity. Conversely, SDO predicts intergroup conspiracy theories primarily about low-status groups, such as immi- of hate speech correlates strongly with social dominance grants and Arabs (Schrader et al., 2024). This pattern aligns orientation (SDO), which reflects a social Darwinist with the broader observation that authoritarianism fosters mindset justifying the ingroup’s dominance over outgroups. prejudice toward powerful groups, while SDO targets margi- In contrast, it negatively correlates with right-wing authori- nalized, lower-status groups, which are rarely the focus of tarianism (RWA), an ideology emphasizing egalitarian sub- mission to authority (Bilewicz et al., 2017). This aligns with intergroup conspiracy theories (Asbrock et al., 2010). findings that SDO predicts prejudice against “underdog” Contrary to the suggestions of Pummerer et al. (this issue), intergroup conspiracy theories involve appraisals of high groups, while RWA tends to focus on perceived powerful power, control, and competence in targeted groups, driven by threats (Asbrock et al., 2010). perceptions of threat and appraisal of ingroup powerlessness. Hate speech is rooted in appraisals of low power, control, People believing in such theories would not get satisfaction or and competence, leading to contempt toward marginalized schadenfreude from regained control when the ostensibly groups. This distinguishes it from intergroup conspiracy the- powerful group collapses, because of the persistence of an ories, which involve perceptions of high power and control. Contrary to Pummerer et al. (this issue), I propose that such underlying stereotype that portrays the group as strong, weal- emotions as disgust and contempt are specific to non- thy and clever, regardless of its objective standing. conspiratorial forms of hate speech, that are distinctive from intergroup conspiracy theories. Understanding these differ- Hate Speech and the Appraisal of Low Power, ing emotional foundations helps explain the distinct psycho- Control, and Competence logical mechanisms driving various forms of prejudice and discrimination. The term hate speech implies a central role for the emotion of hate in derogatory language directed at outgroup members. Traditionally, hate arises from feelings of helplessness and a Potential Consequences of Intergroup Conspiracy lack of control (Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; Sternberg, 2005). It Theories and Hate Speech is often directed at more powerful targets, stemming from humiliation and a desire for retaliation (Fischer et al., 2018). Understanding the distinct appraisals underlying intergroup However, emerging evidence suggests that hate speech target- conspiracy theories and hate speech illuminates their ing minority groups is driven less by hate and more by con- unique roles in fostering discrimination and intergroup tempt (Bilewicz et al., 2017; Soral et al., 2017, in press). violence. It is essential to recognize that the emotion of While some researchers view contempt as a subset of envy, which arises from appraisals of high competence and hate (Fischer et al., 2018), the two emotions have distinct control, often drives confrontation. In contrast, contempt, appraisal patterns. Contempt arises from perceptions of stemming from perceptions of low competence and power- superiority and is often directed by those in power toward lessness, generally leads to avoidance rather than direct marginalized or less powerful groups (Fischer & Giner- confrontation (Fischer et al., 2022). These specific emo- Sorolla, 2016; Gervais & Fessler, 2017). This emotion tions result in different forms of harm: contemptuous, justifies oppressive social hierarchies and fosters intergroup dehumanizing stereotypes are typically associated with pas- discrimination (Fischer et al., 2018). According to the sive harm, while envious prejudice tends to provoke active Stereotype Content Model, contempt is evoked by groups aggression (Cuddy et al., 2007). Both intergroup conspiracy theories and hate speech can seen as both low in warmth and low in competence (Cuddy et al., 2007). incite violent, non-normative collective action (Imhoff et al., Hate speech functions primarily to demean, dehumanize, 2021; Pummerer, 2022; Soral et al., 2018). However, the and distance outgroups (Fasoli et al., 2016; Soral et al., nature and objectives of the violence they inspire differ sig- 2018). Large-scale survey studies confirm that contempt, not nificantly. In the case of intergroup conspiracy theories, the hate, is the stronger predictor of hate speech across various primary aim is to strip the targeted group of its perceived forms—homophobic, anti-Roma, antisemitic, and resources and dismantle its alleged dominance over the Islamophobic (Winiewski et al., 2016). Furthermore, facial ingroup. Consequently, discrimination rooted in conspiracy affect studies reveal that prolonged exposure to hate speech theories often manifests as financial exclusion (e.g., 220 COMMENTARIES boycotting businesses, discriminatory laws) or electoral dis- addressing the specific emotional and cognitive appraisals crimination (e.g., refusing to support political candidates that fuel each form of intergroup hostility, one could create from the targeted group) (Bilewicz et al., 2013; Jolley et al., more targeted interventions to reduce prejudice and con- 2020). Historically, violence and even genocides against such front radicalization. groups have been framed as acts of economic revenge or social justice (Snyder, 2016). For instance, recent attacks on Disclosure statement Jews have been often portrayed by sympathizers of the per- petrators as acts of restorative justice (Haidar, 2023), similar No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). to other conspiracy-motivated crimes where violence is justi- fied by conspiratorial narratives (Baele, 2019). Funding In contrast, discrimination driven by non-conspiratorial hate speech follows a different trajectory. A prominent This work was supported by the Polish National Science Center Grant OPUS awarded to Michał Bilewicz. Grant Number: 2023/49/B/HS6/ example is anti-immigrant law enforcement policies that result in human rights abuses. Prolonged exposure to hate speech has been shown to increase support for extreme meas- ures such as torture, unrestricted surveillance, and forced ORCID deportations of immigrants and refugees (Soral et al., 2018). Michał Bilewicz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5027-1691 Additionally, hate speech often fosters social distance, leading to a lack of acceptance of derogated outgroup members in everyday settings, such as neighborhoods, workplaces, or References family environments (Bilewicz et al., 2017; Papcunov� a et al., Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading/Addison- 2023; cf. Schafer et al., 2024; Soral et al., 2018). Wesley. The appraisal perspective on conspiracy beliefs Antoniou, G., Dinas, E., & Kosmidis, S. (2020). Collective victimhood (Pummerer et al., this issue) presents an ambivalent view of and social prejudice: A post-holocaust theory of anti-Semitism. conspiracy theories, both in terms of behavior and emotion. Political Psychology, 41(5), 861–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops. Behaviorally, conspiracy theories are seen as prompting both Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right-wing authoritar- withdrawal and confrontation, both aggression and commu- ianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of gen- nity building. Emotionally, they are linked to both fear and eralized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of anger, both pride and disgust. Although such an ambivalent Personality, 24(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.746 view might be plausible for more general conspiratorial Baele, S. J. (2019). Conspiratorial narratives in violent political actors’ language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(5–6), 706– mindset, in case of intergroup conspiracy theories it does 734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19868494 not seem justified. The immanent paradox of Pummerer Bianchi, M., Piccoli, V., Zotti, D., Fasoli, F., & Carnaghi, A. (2017). et al. (this issue) model, at least in the domain of intergroup The impact of homophobic labels on the internalized homophobia relations, may stem from a conceptual conflation between and body image of gay men: The moderation role of coming-out. intergroup conspiracy stereotypes and other forms of non- Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(3), 356–367. https:// conspiratorial hate speech. In some instances, intergroup doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16654735 Bilewicz, M. (2021). Explaining the Jew-hatred: The structure and psy- conspiracy theories and non-conspiratorial hate speech chological antecedents of antisemitic beliefs. In C. Tileagă, M. might even target the same groups, yet lead to substantially Augoustinos, & K. Durrheim (Eds.), The Routledge international different consequences. handbook of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping (pp. The proposed modification of Pummerer et al. (this 136–149). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. issue) model highlights two distinct pathways to discrimin- Bilewicz, M., Kaminska, � O. K., Winiewski, M., & Soral, W. (2017). From disgust to contempt-speech: The nature of contempt on the ation and intergroup hostility: one stemming from inter- map of prejudicial emotions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 20– group conspiracy theories and the other from hate speech 21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000686 unrelated to such theories. Notably, intergroup conspiracy Bilewicz, M., & Krzeminski, I. (2010). Anti-Semitism in Poland and theories need not always be expressed as hate speech. Many Ukraine: The belief in Jewish control as a mechanism of scapegoat- exist as non-verbalized, implicit social schemas, which can ing. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2), 234–243. Bilewicz, M., & Sedek, G. (2015). Conspiracy stereotypes: Their socio- be activated during crises or political mobilizations (Kofta & psychological antecedents and consequences. In M. Bilewicz, A. Sedek, 2005). Conversely, much derogatory language por- Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 3– trays outgroups as weak and repugnant rather than powerful 22). Routledge. and conspiratorial, as exemplified in anti-immigrant or Bilewicz, M., & Soral, W. (2020). Hate speech epidemic. The dynamic Islamophobic rhetoric (Soral et al., 2020). Although inter- effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political group conspiracy theories and hate speech are obviously dis- radicalization. Political Psychology, 41(S1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10. 1111/pops.12670 tinctive phenomena, they are both causing prejudice, Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Marchlewska, M., & Winiewski, M. (2017). discrimination and intergroup violence, albeit based on dif- When authoritarians confront prejudice. Differential effects of SDO ferent appraisals. and RWA on support for hate-speech prohibition. Political Recognizing these differences is crucial for developing Psychology, 38(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12313 effective early warning mechanisms to prevent radicalization � Bilewicz, M., Swiderska, A., Kuster, D., Soral, W., Winiewski, M., & and violence against minority and immigrant groups. By Wypych, M. (2025). Emotional core of hate speech: Contempt COMMENTARIES 221 promotes the spread of verbal aggression toward minority groups. Graumann, C. F., & Wintermantel, M. (1989). Discriminatory speech Manuscript Submitted for Publication. acts: A functional approach. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Bilewicz, M., & Stefaniak, A. (2013). Can a victim be responsible? Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Antisemitic consequences of victimhood-based identity and competi- Changing conceptions (pp. 183–204). Springer. tive victimhood in Poland. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility: An Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 69–77). Lexem. conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32(1), 100–118. https://doi. Bilewicz, M., Winiewski, M., Kofta, M., & Wojcik, � A. (2013). Harmful org/10.1007/s12144-013-9165-6 ideas. The structure and consequences of antisemitic beliefs in Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2015). Are the high authoritarians more prone Poland. Political Psychology, 34(6), 821–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/ to adopt conspiracy theories? The role of right-wing authoritarian- pops.12024 ism in conspiratorial thinking. In M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, & W. Carnaghi, A., & Maass, A. (2007). In-group and out-group perspectives Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 99–121). Routledge. in the use of derogatory group labels: Gay versus fag. Journal of Grzesiak-Feldman, M., & Irzycka, M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarian- Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 142–156. https://doi.org/10. ism and conspiracy thinking in a Polish sample. Psychological 1177/0261927X07300077 Reports, 105(2), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.2.389-393 Cohen, K., Johansson, F., Kaati, L., & Mork, J. C. (2014). Detecting lin- Haidar, E. (2023). Decolonizing the Palestinian mind. LeftWord. guistic markers for radical violence in social media. Terrorism and Imhoff, R. (2015). Beyond (right-wing) authoritarianism: Conspiracy mentality as an incremental predictor of prejudice. In M. Bilewicz, Political Violence, 26(1), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553. 2014.849948 A. Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. Council of Europe. (1997). Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the 122–142). Routledge. Committee of Ministers to Member States on “Hate Speech”. https:// Imhoff, R., Dieterle, L., & Lamberty, P. (2021). Resolving the puzzle of rm.coe.int/1680505d5b conspiracy worldview and political activism: Belief in secret plots Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors decreases normative but increases nonnormative political engage- from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and ment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 71–79. Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619896491 92.4.631 Jolley, D., Meleady, R., & Douglas, K. M. (2020). Exposure to inter- Durante, F., Volpato, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). Using the stereotype group conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across content model to examine group depictions in fascism: An archival groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/ approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 465–483. 10.1111/bjop.12385 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.637 Kay, A. C., & Eibach, R. P. (2013). Compensatory control and its Endtricht, R., & Kanol, E. (2024). Conspiracy beliefs and negative atti- implications for ideological extremism. Journal of Social Issues, tudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence 69(3), 564–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12029 Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). from Germany. PloS One, 19(11), e0312418. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0312418 Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our insti- Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Carnaghi, A. (2015). Labelling and discrimin- tutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, ation: Do homophobic epithets undermine fair distribution of 18(5), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x Kirkland, S. L., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1987). Further evi- resources? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12090 dence of the deleterious effects of overheard derogatory ethnic Fasoli, F., Paladino, M. P., Carnaghi, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., & Bain, labels: Derogation beyond the target. Personality and Social P. G. (2016). Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets Psychology Bulletin, 13(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/ leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men. 0146167287132007 Kofta, M., & Sedek, G. (2005). Conspiracy stereotypes of Jews during European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 237–248. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.2148 systemic transformation in Poland. International Journal of Fischer, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Contempt: Derogating others Sociology, 35(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2005. while keeping calm. Emotion Review, 8(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/ 11043142 Kofta, M., Soral, W., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). What breeds conspiracy 10.1177/1754073915610439 Fischer, A., Halperin, E., Canetti, D., & Jasini, A. (2018). Why we hate. antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty Emotion Review, 10(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/175407 in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of Personality and Social 3917751229 Psychology, 118(5), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183 Fischer, A., Roseman, I. J., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2022). Contempt: The Leader, T., Mullen, B., & Rice, D. (2009). Complexity and valence in emotional rejection of those who are beneath our standards. In M. ethnophaulisms and exclusion of ethnic out-groups: What puts the Jacobsen (Ed.), Emotions in culture and everyday life (pp. 166–182). “hate” into hate speech? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Routledge. 96(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013066 Fitness, J., & Fletcher, G. J. (1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of close relationships: A prototype and cognitive appraisal analysis. emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 942–958. https:// Emotion, 14(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.942 Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions Gervais, M. M., & Fessler, D. M. (2017). On the deep structure of and intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, social affect: Attitudes, emotions, sentiments, and the case of 2(5), 1866–1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x Mashuri, A., & Zaduqisti, E. (2015). The effect of intergroup threat and “contempt. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e225. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X16000352 social identity salience on the belief in conspiracy theories over ter- Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves’ clothing. In R. rorism in Indonesia: Collective angst as a mediator. International Erber & L. Newman (Eds.) Understanding genocide: The social psych- Journal of Psychological Research, 8(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10. ology of the Holocaust. (pp. 113–142) Oxford University Press. 21500/20112084.642 Glick, P. (2005). Choice of scapegoats. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future develop- (pp. 244–261) Blackwell. ment. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Golec de Zavala, A., & Cichocka, A. (2012). Collective narcissism and 1754073912468165 anti-Semitism in Poland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Moulson, G. (2020). Merkel slams anti-Semitism ‘disgrace’ on Jewish 15(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211420891 group’s 70th. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/race-and- 222 COMMENTARIES ethnicity-angela-merkel-berlin-anti-semitism-germany-f1824f9dd8c49 Snyder, T. (2016). Black earth: The Holocaust as history and warning. 805034eed40f5a4b5ac Crown. Mullen, B., & Rice, D. R. (2003). Ethnophaulisms and exclusion: The Soral, W., Liu, J., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). Media of contempt: Social media consumption predicts normative acceptance of anti-Muslim behavioral consequences of cognitive representation of ethnic immi- hate speech and islamoprejudice. International Journal of Conflict grant groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1056– and Violence (IJCV), 14, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3774 1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254505 Soral, W., Bienkowski, � M., & Bilewicz, M. (in press). Hate speech on Nera, K., Bertin, P., & Klein, O. (2022). Conspiracy theories as oppor- the map of stereotype content: Verbal aggression is targeted at con- tunistic attributions of power. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, tempt-evoking outgroups. Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 101381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101381 1864-9335/a000562 Nera, K., & Schopfer, € C. (2023). What is so special about conspiracy Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Exposure to hate theories? Conceptually distinguishing beliefs in conspiracy theories speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive from conspiracy beliefs in psychological research. Theory & Behavior, 44(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21737 Psychology, 33(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/ � � Srol, J., Cavojov� a, V., & Ballov� a Miku� skov� a, E. (2021). Finding some- one to blame: The link between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, preju- Nera, K., Wagner-Egger, P., Bertin, P., Douglas, K. M., & Klein, O. dice, support for violence, and other negative social outcomes. (2021). A power-challenging theory of society, or a conservative Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 726076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. mindset? Upward and downward conspiracy theories as ideologically 2021.726076 distinct beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4-5), Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Understanding and combating hate. In R. J. 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2769 Sternberg (Ed.), The psychology of hate (pp. 37–49). American Papcunov� a, J., Marton� cik, M., Fed� akov� a, D., Kentos, M., & Adamkovi� c, Psychological Association. M. (2023). Perception of hate speech by the public and experts: Stojanov, A., & Halberstadt, J. (2020). Does lack of control lead to con- Insights into predictors of the perceived hate speech towards spiracy beliefs? A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social migrants. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(7), Psychology, 50(5), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2690 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0191 Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2010). An existential Pluta, A., Mazurek, J., Wojciechowski, J., Wolak, T., Soral, W., & function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to Bilewicz, M. (2023). Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocog- personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. nitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 434–449. https:// Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023- doi.org/10.1037/a0017457 31146-1 Swami, V. (2012). Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: Pummerer, L. (2022). Belief in conspiracy theories and non-normative The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Frontiers in behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101394. https://doi.org/ Psychology, 3, 280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101394 Uenal, F. (2016). The secret Islamization of Europe: Exploring the inte- Sch€ afer, S., Rebasso, I., Boyer, M. M., & Planitzer, A. M. (2024). Can grated threat theory—Predicting Islamophobic conspiracy stereo- we counteract hate? Effects of online hate speech and counter types. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 10, 93–108. speech on the perception of social groups. Communication Research, van Prooijen, J. W., Staman, J., & Krouwel, A. P. (2018). Increased 51(5), 553–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231201091 conspiracy beliefs among ethnic and Muslim minorities. Applied Schrader, T., Jolley, D., Jolley, R. P., & Krahenbuhl, S. (2024). Cognitive Psychology, 32(5), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp. Upholding social hierarchies: Social dominance orientation moder- ates the link between (intergroup) conspiracy exposure and violent � Winiewski, M., Hansen, K., Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Swiderska, A., & extremism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online Bulska, D. (2016). Contempt speech, hate speech: Report from publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241247985 research on verbal violence against minority groups. Stefan Batory Simon, L., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Further progress in understanding Foundation. the effects of derogatory ethnic labels: The role of preexisting atti- Winiewski, M., Soral, W., & Bilewicz, M. (2015). Conspiracy theories tudes toward the targeted group. Personality and Social Psychology on the map of stereotype content: Survey and historical evidence. In Bulletin, 22(12), 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962 M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of con- spiracy (pp. 23–41). Routledge. Skrodzka, M., Kende, A., Farag� o, L., & Bilewicz, M. (2022). Zochniak, K., Lewicka, O., Wybranska, � Z., & Bilewicz, M. (2023). “Remember that we suffered!” The effects of historical trauma on Homophobic hate speech affects well-being of highly identified anti-Semitic prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(5), LGBT people. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12862 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231174569 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Psychological Inquiry Taylor & Francis

How Appraisal Model Allows to Distinguish Intergroup Conspiracy Theories from Other Forms of Hate Speech

Bilewicz, Michał
Psychological Inquiry , Volume 35 (3-4): 7 – Oct 1, 2024
Download PDF
7 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/how-appraisal-model-allows-to-distinguish-intergroup-conspiracy-07xQUj2Avn

References (77)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
© 2025 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
ISSN
1047-840X
eISSN
1532-7965
DOI
10.1080/1047840X.2024.2442919
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY 2024, VOL. 35, NOS. 3–4, 216–222 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2024.2442919 COMMENTARIES How Appraisal Model Allows to Distinguish Intergroup Conspiracy Theories from Other Forms of Hate Speech Michał Bilewicz Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland In 2019, during a Jewish holiday, a German right-wing of reality, to allow some group(s) to enact a harmful, self-- extremist carried out a brutal attack in the city of Halle, kill- serving agenda” (Nera & Schopfer, € 2023), are inherently ing two people at the entrance to a synagogue and injuring intergroup in nature. However, not all such theories expli- two others. The perpetrator left behind a manifesto express- citly implicate specific national or ethnic groups. Some tar- ing anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as the motivation for get prominent individuals (e.g., Bill Gates or George Soros), his actions. Several months later, German Chancellor Angela obscure events (e.g., the assassination of Princess Diana), Merkel addressed the Jewish community, condemning the political organizations (e.g., Pizzagate/QAnon), or even rising tide of hate: “Insults, threats, or conspiracy theories extraterrestrial beings (e.g., reptilian conspiracy theories). are openly directed against Jewish citizens. Many statements Nevertheless, conspiracy theories directed at particular social on social media are dripping with hate and incitement. We or ethnic groups pose the gravest threat to the safety and must never remain silent about this” (Moulson, 2020). well-being of minorities. For this reason, psychologists have This tragic incident exemplifies a broader trend of modern defined “intergroup conspiracy theories” as a distinct subcat- hate crimes where conspiracy theories play a pivotal role. egory of conspiratorial beliefs (Jolley et al., 2020). Scholars, political figures, and religious leaders alike have Intergroup conspiracy theories can be considered antece- repeatedly highlighted the connection between conspiracy the- dents of prejudice in two significant ways: (1) conspiracy ories, hate speech, and their potential to incite prejudice and beliefs strongly predict discriminatory attitudes and behav- intergroup violence. Extensive psychological research supports iors, and (2) exposure to such theories can incite intergroup the idea that intergroup conspiracy theories are significant hostility and prejudice. drivers of prejudice and hostility between groups (Bilewicz Research has demonstrated that belief in intergroup con- et al., 2013; Endtricht & Kanol, 2024; Imhoff, 2015; Jolley spiracy theories correlates with various forms of prejudice et al., 2020; Schrader et al., 2024; Srol et al., 2022). Similarly, and discrimination. For instance, Bilewicz et al. (2013) robust evidence underscores the influence of hate speech in found that anti-Semitic conspiracy beliefs predicted legal fostering prejudice and discrimination (Fasoli et al., 2015; discrimination against Jews, social distancing from them, Leader et al., 2009; Mullen & Rice, 2003; Soral et al., 2018). biases in material reparations, and reluctance to vote for Despite these well-documented connections, no compre- candidates of Jewish ancestry. Remarkably, these conspira- hensive model currently addresses the specific roles of inter- torial stereotypes exerted a stronger predictive influence group conspiracy theories and hate speech as distinct yet than any other stereotypes about Jewish people. Additional interconnected catalysts for prejudice, discrimination, and studies have confirmed that intergroup conspiracy theories intergroup violence. In this article, I propose that an about Jews foster social and economic discrimination (Kofta appraisal perspective on conspiracy theories (Pummerer et al., 2020), provoke negative emotions toward Jewish indi- et al., this issue) offers a valuable framework for understand- viduals (Golec de Zavala & Cichocka, 2012), and reduce ing the nuanced differences between these two critical ante- willingness to cooperate with Israel (Kofta & Sedek, 2005). cedents of prejudice. At the same time, distinguishing These effects are particularly pronounced during periods of between intergroup conspiracy theories and other non-con- social and political instability, such as election campaigns spiratorial forms of hate speech can help reduce certain (Bilewicz & Sedek, 2015; Kofta & Sedek, 2005). ambiguities in the appraisal model of conspiracy theories. Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories is another key factor driving prejudice and discrimination. Robust evidence indicates that such exposure amplifies intergroup hostility. Intergroup Conspiracy Theories as Antecedents of For example, Jolley et al. (2020) found that individuals Prejudice and Discrimination exposed to anti-Semitic conspiracy theories exhibited electoral Conspiracy theories, broadly defined as “claims that the discrimination against Jews and increased prejudice toward public is being pervasively lied to regarding some aspect(s) five other ethnic and national groups. This spillover effect of CONTACT Michał Bilewicz [email protected] Faculty of Psychology, University of Warsaw, Stawki 5/7, 00-183 Warsaw, Poland. � 2025 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent. COMMENTARIES 217 anti-Semitic conspiracy theories has been corroborated in Combining insights from studies on both the use and other studies (Kofta & Sedek, 2005). Additionally, exposure to exposure to hate speech, Bilewicz and Soral (2020) proposed intergroup conspiracy theories has been linked to heightened an epidemic model demonstrating how widespread hate anti-immigrant prejudice (Jolley et al., 2020) and even anti- speech can foster societal prejudice. Using agent-based mod- immigrant violence, particularly among individuals with eling, they illustrated how individual acts of hate speech, highly hierarchical worldviews (Schrader et al., 2024). when proliferated, contribute to the normalization and even- Intergroup conspiracy theories significantly contribute to tual dominance of prejudiced attitudes at the societal level. the emergence and perpetuation of prejudice and discrimin- In conclusion, the evidence strongly suggests that hate ation, both through their predictive influence on attitudes speech not only reflects existing prejudices but also actively and behaviors and their capacity to incite hostility upon shapes and amplifies them, both at individual and collective exposure. Understanding these mechanisms is crucial for levels. addressing the social harm caused by such beliefs. The Appraisal Perspective on Two Causes of Hate Speech as an Antecedent of Prejudice and Prejudice and Discrimination Discrimination Both intergroup conspiracy theories and hate speech serve While hate speech can include elements of conspiracy theo- as significant sources of prejudice and discrimination. In ries, it typically consists of derogatory language without many cases, conspiracy theories are expressed through hate such narratives. The Council of Europe (1997) broadly speech, and some verbal expressions of hate speech, particu- defines hate speech as “all forms of expression that spread, larly anti-Semitic rhetoric, are rooted in conspiratorial nar- incite, promote, or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti- ratives, such as the theory of a global Jewish plot (Bilewicz, Semitism, or other forms of hatred based on intolerance.” 2021). Both hate speech and conspiracy theories incite non- Historically, psychological terminology has varied, referring normative collective actions, including riots, abuses, and vio- to hate speech with terms such as “antilocutions” (Allport, lence against targeted groups (Imhoff et al., 2021; 1954), “discriminatory speech acts” (Graumann & Pummerer, 2022; Soral et al., 2018). Despite these similar- Wintermantel, 1989), and “derogatory group labels” ities, crucial differences exist between these two antecedents (Carnaghi & Maass, 2007; Simon & Greenberg, 1996). of prejudice, particularly regarding the distinct appraisals Similarly to intergroup conspiracy theories, hate speech upon which they are based (see: Table 1). also contributes to prejudice and discrimination in two Appraisal theories focus on how individuals interpret ways: (1) individuals who use derogatory language are more their environment—evaluating whether objects or events likely to develop deeper prejudices and engage in intergroup help or harm them, signal superiority or inferiority, are con- aggression, and (2) exposure to hate speech can provoke dis- trollable or uncontrollable. These interpretations determine criminatory attitudes and behaviors in others. the resulting emotional responses (Moors et al., 2013). In Gordon Allport (1954) captured the progression from intergroup contexts, collective emotions arise from apprais- speech to action with a vivid metaphor: “Although most als of outgroups’ status, perceived control, and potential barking does not lead to biting, yet there is never a bite threats (Mackie et al., 2008). For instance, Pummerer et al. without previous barking” (p. 57). Archival studies support (this issue) suggest that specific appraisals associated with this notion, indicating that simplistic, derogatory rhetoric conspiracy theories—such as certainty vs. uncertainty, high about immigrants often precedes their societal exclusion and vs. low control, and pleasant vs. unpleasant experiences— discrimination (Mullen & Rice, 2003). Similarly, linguistic can predict emotional outcomes, including fear, anger, pride, markers of radicalization suggest that hate speech can serve schadenfreude, and disgust. as an early warning signal for intergroup violence (Cohen According to Pummerer et al. (this issue), the emphasis et al., 2014). Research on Islamophobia further reveals that on different aspects of conspiracy theories can evoke varied individuals who normalize online hate speech develop more emotions and behaviors, shaped by appraisals of control, prejudiced interpretations of Muslim radicalization (Soral certainty, and pleasantness. However, this does not seem to et al., 2020). be the case of intergroup conspiracy theories. In case of The impact of hate speech exposure is well-documented. intergroup conspiracy theories, appraisals of control, cer- Early studies demonstrated that derogatory labels activate ster- tainty, and pleasantness remain consistent. Such theories eotypes and lead to discriminatory judgments (Kirkland et al., typically portray a malevolent, powerful group acting sys- 1987). Exposure to homophobic hate speech fosters discrimin- tematically, which elicits feelings of low control, high ation and increases dehumanization by the heterosexual certainty, and unpleasantness (Kofta et al., 2020). majority (Fasoli et al., 2015, 2016), ultimately undermining The sense of satisfaction derived from solving a the well-being of LGBT individuals (Bianchi et al., 2017; “mysterious plot” or reclaiming control seems absent in Zochniak et al., 2023). Prolonged exposure to hate speech has intergroup conspiracy theories. This is because these theories been shown to increase social distance toward minorities are rooted in well-established historical stereotypes, making (Soral et al., 2018), reduce empathetic responses (Pluta et al., them less “mysterious” (Winiewski et al., 2015). Even when 2023), and desensitize individuals to verbal aggression against the ostensibly powerful group is overthrown, physically marginalized groups (Soral et al., 2018, 2024). eradicated, or forced into exile, they are still depicted 218 COMMENTARIES Table 1. Different appraisals, worldview foundations, and stereotypes underlying two sources of discrimination and preju- dice: intergroup conspiracy theories and non-conspiratorial hate speech. Intergroup conspiracy theories Hate speech Status Appraisal Status Challenging Status Maintaining Perceptions of the Outgroup High Control/Competence Low Control/Competence Perceptions of the Ingroup Low Control/Competence High Control/Competence Position of the Ingroup Disadvantaged Advantaged Worldview Basis Authoritarian (RWA) Social Darwinist (SDO) Outgroup Stereotype (SCM) Envious Contemptuous Note. RWA: Right-Wing Authoritarianism; SDO: Social Dominance Orientation; SCM: Stereotype Content Model. as covertly maintaining their influence, perpetuating the Muslims are strongly linked to symbolic threats and fears of belief in their hidden domination. Therefore, even effective a “clash of civilizations” (Uenal, 2016). Similarly, anti- confrontation with alleged source of threat does not allow to Western conspiracy theories among Muslims in Indonesia regain a sense of personal control. correlate with collective angst and perceived threats A key distinction between hate speech and intergroup (Mashuri & Zaduqisti, 2015). Antisemitic conspiracy theories conspiracy theories lies in their underlying appraisals. While also stem from fear and anxiety (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013). hate speech expresses explicit hostility toward derogated Such emotions typically emerge from a sense of low control “inferior” outgroups, intergroup conspiracy theories are and powerlessness (Lerner & Keltner, 2000; Pummerer et al., based on perceptions of threat by attributing covert, malevo- this issue). lent intentions to “superior” groups. This distinction shapes When individuals feel deprived of control, they often the emotions and actions they elicit. Based on the model exaggerate the perceived power and control of others—a proposed by Pummerer et al. (this issue), non-conspiratorial phenomenon known as compensatory control (Kay et al., hate speech could be interpreted as grounded in appraisals 2009; Kay & Eibach, 2013). This explains why people experi- of high control, relatively high certainty, and unpleasantness. encing powerlessness may view certain groups as highly Recent works differentiate between “upward” and organized and influential. Although meta-analyses have not “downward” conspiracy theories (Nera et al., 2021, 2022), consistently linked general control deprivation to conspiracy and this distinction seems to guide Pumerrer et al.’s (this beliefs (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020), the strongest effects issue) appraisal model of conspiracy theories. “Upward” appear in studies focusing on specific intergroup conspiracy conspiracy theories target powerful entities (e.g., govern- theories. This aligns with compensatory control theory, ments or corporations), while “downward” theories sup- which predicts that control deficits are more likely to result posedly blame marginalized groups (e.g., Jews, Muslims, in attributing power to specific agents rather than perceiving immigrants, or gender activists). However, the concept of a general excessive control in the environment. Research on “downward” conspiracy theories contradicts the core essence focal enemyship also supports this, showing that a deficit of of conspiratorial thinking: attributing hidden control and control enhances beliefs in the conspiratorial power of per- influence to the target group. Even when focusing on margi- ceived political enemies rather than more general percep- nalized groups, conspiracy theorists often perceive these tions of control (Sullivan et al., 2010). groups as wielding disproportionate power and secretly Individuals experiencing powerlessness often view minor- manipulating societal outcomes. ity groups as exerting excessive control over resources, polit- From an appraisal theory perspective, conspiracy theories ics, or media. Conspiratorial antisemitism exemplifies this always involve outgroups perceived as powerful and control- pattern. Studies indicate that a sense of powerlessness, rather ling, regardless of their actual social or political status. This than mere uncertainty, is a primary driver of antisemitic allows to portray discriminated minorities as “privileged elit- conspiracy beliefs (Kofta et al., 2020). Additional antecedents es” and justify aggression against them. This “upward bias” include relative deprivation (Bilewicz et al., 2013; Bilewicz & differentiates intergroup conspiracy theories from other Krzeminski, 2010; van Prooijen et al., 2018) and subjective forms of hate speech, which may not necessarily involve victimhood (Antoniou et al., 2020; Bilewicz & Stefaniak, such appraisals of covert power or control. 2013; Skrodzka et al., 2022). All these antecedents seem to While both hate speech and intergroup conspiracy theo- reflect the powerlessness and appraisal of low control of the ries fuel prejudice and discrimination, their unique appraisal ingroup. structures lead to different emotional and behavioral out- Intergroup appraisals are closely linked to the content of comes. Recognizing these differences is crucial for a better group stereotypes. Peter Glick (2002, 2005) suggested that understanding of the sources of prejudice and intergroup scapegoating minorities often involves conspiratorial beliefs hostility. rooted in ambivalent stereotypes. Groups accused of con- spiring are typically perceived as highly competent but lack- ing in warmth. Archival research and correlational studies Intergroup Conspiracy Theories and the Appraisal support this, showing that conspiracy theories about Jews of High Power, Control, and Competence are associated with perceptions of high competence and low Intergroup conspiracy theories often arise from perceived warmth, including low perceived sociability and morality of threats. Research shows that conspiracy theories about Jews (Durante et al., 2010; Winiewski et al., 2015). COMMENTARIES 219 Studies focused on individual differences highlights a increases contempt rather than other recognizable emotions strong and consistent link between right-wing authoritarian- in reaction to outgroups (Bilewicz et al., 2025). ism (RWA) and intergroup conspiracy theories, with mixed Research highlights a crucial difference between the emo- evidence for social dominance orientation (SDO) (Bilewicz tional underpinnings of hate speech and intergroup conspir- et al., 2013; Grzesiak-Feldman, 2015; Grzesiak-Feldman & acy theories. Comparative studies in Germany, the United Irzycka, 2009; Swami, 2012). The tendency for authoritarians Kingdom, and Poland show that perceptions of low compe- to believe in conspiracies targeting groups like Jews, tence in target groups predict hate speech use against these Germans, or Russians—perceived as powerful—can be groups (Soral et al., 2018, in press). This effect is mediated explained by the egalitarian aspect of authoritarianism. by contempt, even toward groups traditionally accused of Strong leaders and authorities are seen as reducing group conspiracies (like Jewish people) and those less often viewed conspiratorially (such as welfare recipients). inequalities and neutralizing perceived threats to the com- When it comes to individual differences, the acceptance munity. Conversely, SDO predicts intergroup conspiracy theories primarily about low-status groups, such as immi- of hate speech correlates strongly with social dominance grants and Arabs (Schrader et al., 2024). This pattern aligns orientation (SDO), which reflects a social Darwinist with the broader observation that authoritarianism fosters mindset justifying the ingroup’s dominance over outgroups. prejudice toward powerful groups, while SDO targets margi- In contrast, it negatively correlates with right-wing authori- nalized, lower-status groups, which are rarely the focus of tarianism (RWA), an ideology emphasizing egalitarian sub- mission to authority (Bilewicz et al., 2017). This aligns with intergroup conspiracy theories (Asbrock et al., 2010). findings that SDO predicts prejudice against “underdog” Contrary to the suggestions of Pummerer et al. (this issue), intergroup conspiracy theories involve appraisals of high groups, while RWA tends to focus on perceived powerful power, control, and competence in targeted groups, driven by threats (Asbrock et al., 2010). perceptions of threat and appraisal of ingroup powerlessness. Hate speech is rooted in appraisals of low power, control, People believing in such theories would not get satisfaction or and competence, leading to contempt toward marginalized schadenfreude from regained control when the ostensibly groups. This distinguishes it from intergroup conspiracy the- powerful group collapses, because of the persistence of an ories, which involve perceptions of high power and control. Contrary to Pummerer et al. (this issue), I propose that such underlying stereotype that portrays the group as strong, weal- emotions as disgust and contempt are specific to non- thy and clever, regardless of its objective standing. conspiratorial forms of hate speech, that are distinctive from intergroup conspiracy theories. Understanding these differ- Hate Speech and the Appraisal of Low Power, ing emotional foundations helps explain the distinct psycho- Control, and Competence logical mechanisms driving various forms of prejudice and discrimination. The term hate speech implies a central role for the emotion of hate in derogatory language directed at outgroup members. Traditionally, hate arises from feelings of helplessness and a Potential Consequences of Intergroup Conspiracy lack of control (Fitness & Fletcher, 1993; Sternberg, 2005). It Theories and Hate Speech is often directed at more powerful targets, stemming from humiliation and a desire for retaliation (Fischer et al., 2018). Understanding the distinct appraisals underlying intergroup However, emerging evidence suggests that hate speech target- conspiracy theories and hate speech illuminates their ing minority groups is driven less by hate and more by con- unique roles in fostering discrimination and intergroup tempt (Bilewicz et al., 2017; Soral et al., 2017, in press). violence. It is essential to recognize that the emotion of While some researchers view contempt as a subset of envy, which arises from appraisals of high competence and hate (Fischer et al., 2018), the two emotions have distinct control, often drives confrontation. In contrast, contempt, appraisal patterns. Contempt arises from perceptions of stemming from perceptions of low competence and power- superiority and is often directed by those in power toward lessness, generally leads to avoidance rather than direct marginalized or less powerful groups (Fischer & Giner- confrontation (Fischer et al., 2022). These specific emo- Sorolla, 2016; Gervais & Fessler, 2017). This emotion tions result in different forms of harm: contemptuous, justifies oppressive social hierarchies and fosters intergroup dehumanizing stereotypes are typically associated with pas- discrimination (Fischer et al., 2018). According to the sive harm, while envious prejudice tends to provoke active Stereotype Content Model, contempt is evoked by groups aggression (Cuddy et al., 2007). Both intergroup conspiracy theories and hate speech can seen as both low in warmth and low in competence (Cuddy et al., 2007). incite violent, non-normative collective action (Imhoff et al., Hate speech functions primarily to demean, dehumanize, 2021; Pummerer, 2022; Soral et al., 2018). However, the and distance outgroups (Fasoli et al., 2016; Soral et al., nature and objectives of the violence they inspire differ sig- 2018). Large-scale survey studies confirm that contempt, not nificantly. In the case of intergroup conspiracy theories, the hate, is the stronger predictor of hate speech across various primary aim is to strip the targeted group of its perceived forms—homophobic, anti-Roma, antisemitic, and resources and dismantle its alleged dominance over the Islamophobic (Winiewski et al., 2016). Furthermore, facial ingroup. Consequently, discrimination rooted in conspiracy affect studies reveal that prolonged exposure to hate speech theories often manifests as financial exclusion (e.g., 220 COMMENTARIES boycotting businesses, discriminatory laws) or electoral dis- addressing the specific emotional and cognitive appraisals crimination (e.g., refusing to support political candidates that fuel each form of intergroup hostility, one could create from the targeted group) (Bilewicz et al., 2013; Jolley et al., more targeted interventions to reduce prejudice and con- 2020). Historically, violence and even genocides against such front radicalization. groups have been framed as acts of economic revenge or social justice (Snyder, 2016). For instance, recent attacks on Disclosure statement Jews have been often portrayed by sympathizers of the per- petrators as acts of restorative justice (Haidar, 2023), similar No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). to other conspiracy-motivated crimes where violence is justi- fied by conspiratorial narratives (Baele, 2019). Funding In contrast, discrimination driven by non-conspiratorial hate speech follows a different trajectory. A prominent This work was supported by the Polish National Science Center Grant OPUS awarded to Michał Bilewicz. Grant Number: 2023/49/B/HS6/ example is anti-immigrant law enforcement policies that result in human rights abuses. Prolonged exposure to hate speech has been shown to increase support for extreme meas- ures such as torture, unrestricted surveillance, and forced ORCID deportations of immigrants and refugees (Soral et al., 2018). Michał Bilewicz http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5027-1691 Additionally, hate speech often fosters social distance, leading to a lack of acceptance of derogated outgroup members in everyday settings, such as neighborhoods, workplaces, or References family environments (Bilewicz et al., 2017; Papcunov� a et al., Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading/Addison- 2023; cf. Schafer et al., 2024; Soral et al., 2018). Wesley. The appraisal perspective on conspiracy beliefs Antoniou, G., Dinas, E., & Kosmidis, S. (2020). Collective victimhood (Pummerer et al., this issue) presents an ambivalent view of and social prejudice: A post-holocaust theory of anti-Semitism. conspiracy theories, both in terms of behavior and emotion. Political Psychology, 41(5), 861–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops. Behaviorally, conspiracy theories are seen as prompting both Asbrock, F., Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Right-wing authoritar- withdrawal and confrontation, both aggression and commu- ianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of gen- nity building. Emotionally, they are linked to both fear and eralized prejudice: A longitudinal test. European Journal of anger, both pride and disgust. Although such an ambivalent Personality, 24(4), 324–340. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.746 view might be plausible for more general conspiratorial Baele, S. J. (2019). Conspiratorial narratives in violent political actors’ language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 38(5–6), 706– mindset, in case of intergroup conspiracy theories it does 734. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X19868494 not seem justified. The immanent paradox of Pummerer Bianchi, M., Piccoli, V., Zotti, D., Fasoli, F., & Carnaghi, A. (2017). et al. (this issue) model, at least in the domain of intergroup The impact of homophobic labels on the internalized homophobia relations, may stem from a conceptual conflation between and body image of gay men: The moderation role of coming-out. intergroup conspiracy stereotypes and other forms of non- Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(3), 356–367. https:// conspiratorial hate speech. In some instances, intergroup doi.org/10.1177/0261927X16654735 Bilewicz, M. (2021). Explaining the Jew-hatred: The structure and psy- conspiracy theories and non-conspiratorial hate speech chological antecedents of antisemitic beliefs. In C. Tileagă, M. might even target the same groups, yet lead to substantially Augoustinos, & K. Durrheim (Eds.), The Routledge international different consequences. handbook of discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping (pp. The proposed modification of Pummerer et al. (this 136–149). Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. issue) model highlights two distinct pathways to discrimin- Bilewicz, M., Kaminska, � O. K., Winiewski, M., & Soral, W. (2017). From disgust to contempt-speech: The nature of contempt on the ation and intergroup hostility: one stemming from inter- map of prejudicial emotions. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, 20– group conspiracy theories and the other from hate speech 21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X16000686 unrelated to such theories. Notably, intergroup conspiracy Bilewicz, M., & Krzeminski, I. (2010). Anti-Semitism in Poland and theories need not always be expressed as hate speech. Many Ukraine: The belief in Jewish control as a mechanism of scapegoat- exist as non-verbalized, implicit social schemas, which can ing. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2), 234–243. Bilewicz, M., & Sedek, G. (2015). Conspiracy stereotypes: Their socio- be activated during crises or political mobilizations (Kofta & psychological antecedents and consequences. In M. Bilewicz, A. Sedek, 2005). Conversely, much derogatory language por- Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 3– trays outgroups as weak and repugnant rather than powerful 22). Routledge. and conspiratorial, as exemplified in anti-immigrant or Bilewicz, M., & Soral, W. (2020). Hate speech epidemic. The dynamic Islamophobic rhetoric (Soral et al., 2020). Although inter- effects of derogatory language on intergroup relations and political group conspiracy theories and hate speech are obviously dis- radicalization. Political Psychology, 41(S1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10. 1111/pops.12670 tinctive phenomena, they are both causing prejudice, Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Marchlewska, M., & Winiewski, M. (2017). discrimination and intergroup violence, albeit based on dif- When authoritarians confront prejudice. Differential effects of SDO ferent appraisals. and RWA on support for hate-speech prohibition. Political Recognizing these differences is crucial for developing Psychology, 38(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12313 effective early warning mechanisms to prevent radicalization � Bilewicz, M., Swiderska, A., Kuster, D., Soral, W., Winiewski, M., & and violence against minority and immigrant groups. By Wypych, M. (2025). Emotional core of hate speech: Contempt COMMENTARIES 221 promotes the spread of verbal aggression toward minority groups. Graumann, C. F., & Wintermantel, M. (1989). Discriminatory speech Manuscript Submitted for Publication. acts: A functional approach. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Bilewicz, M., & Stefaniak, A. (2013). Can a victim be responsible? Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice: Antisemitic consequences of victimhood-based identity and competi- Changing conceptions (pp. 183–204). Springer. tive victimhood in Poland. In B. Bokus (Ed.), Responsibility: An Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 69–77). Lexem. conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32(1), 100–118. https://doi. Bilewicz, M., Winiewski, M., Kofta, M., & Wojcik, � A. (2013). Harmful org/10.1007/s12144-013-9165-6 ideas. The structure and consequences of antisemitic beliefs in Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2015). Are the high authoritarians more prone Poland. Political Psychology, 34(6), 821–839. https://doi.org/10.1111/ to adopt conspiracy theories? The role of right-wing authoritarian- pops.12024 ism in conspiratorial thinking. In M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, & W. Carnaghi, A., & Maass, A. (2007). In-group and out-group perspectives Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 99–121). Routledge. in the use of derogatory group labels: Gay versus fag. Journal of Grzesiak-Feldman, M., & Irzycka, M. (2009). Right-wing authoritarian- Language and Social Psychology, 26(2), 142–156. https://doi.org/10. ism and conspiracy thinking in a Polish sample. Psychological 1177/0261927X07300077 Reports, 105(2), 389–393. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.105.2.389-393 Cohen, K., Johansson, F., Kaati, L., & Mork, J. C. (2014). Detecting lin- Haidar, E. (2023). Decolonizing the Palestinian mind. LeftWord. guistic markers for radical violence in social media. Terrorism and Imhoff, R. (2015). Beyond (right-wing) authoritarianism: Conspiracy mentality as an incremental predictor of prejudice. In M. Bilewicz, Political Violence, 26(1), 246–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/09546553. 2014.849948 A. Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of conspiracy (pp. Council of Europe. (1997). Recommendation No. R (97) 20 of the 122–142). Routledge. Committee of Ministers to Member States on “Hate Speech”. https:// Imhoff, R., Dieterle, L., & Lamberty, P. (2021). Resolving the puzzle of rm.coe.int/1680505d5b conspiracy worldview and political activism: Belief in secret plots Cuddy, A. J., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors decreases normative but increases nonnormative political engage- from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and ment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(1), 71–79. Social Psychology, 92(4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619896491 92.4.631 Jolley, D., Meleady, R., & Douglas, K. M. (2020). Exposure to inter- Durante, F., Volpato, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2010). Using the stereotype group conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across content model to examine group depictions in fascism: An archival groups. British Journal of Psychology, 111(1), 17–35. https://doi.org/ approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(3), 465–483. 10.1111/bjop.12385 https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.637 Kay, A. C., & Eibach, R. P. (2013). Compensatory control and its Endtricht, R., & Kanol, E. (2024). Conspiracy beliefs and negative atti- implications for ideological extremism. Journal of Social Issues, tudes towards outgroups in times of crises: Experimental evidence 69(3), 564–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12029 Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). from Germany. PloS One, 19(11), e0312418. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0312418 Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our insti- Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Carnaghi, A. (2015). Labelling and discrimin- tutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, ation: Do homophobic epithets undermine fair distribution of 18(5), 264–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01649.x Kirkland, S. L., Greenberg, J., & Pyszczynski, T. (1987). Further evi- resources? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(2), 383–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12090 dence of the deleterious effects of overheard derogatory ethnic Fasoli, F., Paladino, M. P., Carnaghi, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., & Bain, labels: Derogation beyond the target. Personality and Social P. G. (2016). Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets Psychology Bulletin, 13(2), 216–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/ leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men. 0146167287132007 Kofta, M., & Sedek, G. (2005). Conspiracy stereotypes of Jews during European Journal of Social Psychology, 46(2), 237–248. https://doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.2148 systemic transformation in Poland. International Journal of Fischer, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Contempt: Derogating others Sociology, 35(1), 40–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207659.2005. while keeping calm. Emotion Review, 8(4), 346–357. https://doi.org/ 11043142 Kofta, M., Soral, W., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). What breeds conspiracy 10.1177/1754073915610439 Fischer, A., Halperin, E., Canetti, D., & Jasini, A. (2018). Why we hate. antisemitism? The role of political uncontrollability and uncertainty Emotion Review, 10(4), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/175407 in the belief in Jewish conspiracy. Journal of Personality and Social 3917751229 Psychology, 118(5), 900–918. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000183 Fischer, A., Roseman, I. J., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2022). Contempt: The Leader, T., Mullen, B., & Rice, D. (2009). Complexity and valence in emotional rejection of those who are beneath our standards. In M. ethnophaulisms and exclusion of ethnic out-groups: What puts the Jacobsen (Ed.), Emotions in culture and everyday life (pp. 166–182). “hate” into hate speech? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Routledge. 96(1), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013066 Fitness, J., & Fletcher, G. J. (1993). Love, hate, anger, and jealousy in Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). Beyond valence: Toward a model of close relationships: A prototype and cognitive appraisal analysis. emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cognition & Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 942–958. https:// Emotion, 14(4), 473–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300402763 doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.942 Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions Gervais, M. M., & Fessler, D. M. (2017). On the deep structure of and intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, social affect: Attitudes, emotions, sentiments, and the case of 2(5), 1866–1880. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x Mashuri, A., & Zaduqisti, E. (2015). The effect of intergroup threat and “contempt. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, e225. https://doi. org/10.1017/S0140525X16000352 social identity salience on the belief in conspiracy theories over ter- Glick, P. (2002). Sacrificial lambs dressed in wolves’ clothing. In R. rorism in Indonesia: Collective angst as a mediator. International Erber & L. Newman (Eds.) Understanding genocide: The social psych- Journal of Psychological Research, 8(1), 24–35. https://doi.org/10. ology of the Holocaust. (pp. 113–142) Oxford University Press. 21500/20112084.642 Glick, P. (2005). Choice of scapegoats. In J. Dovidio, P. Glick, & L. Moors, A., Ellsworth, P. C., Scherer, K. R., & Frijda, N. H. (2013). Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport Appraisal theories of emotion: State of the art and future develop- (pp. 244–261) Blackwell. ment. Emotion Review, 5(2), 119–124. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Golec de Zavala, A., & Cichocka, A. (2012). Collective narcissism and 1754073912468165 anti-Semitism in Poland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Moulson, G. (2020). Merkel slams anti-Semitism ‘disgrace’ on Jewish 15(2), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211420891 group’s 70th. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/race-and- 222 COMMENTARIES ethnicity-angela-merkel-berlin-anti-semitism-germany-f1824f9dd8c49 Snyder, T. (2016). Black earth: The Holocaust as history and warning. 805034eed40f5a4b5ac Crown. Mullen, B., & Rice, D. R. (2003). Ethnophaulisms and exclusion: The Soral, W., Liu, J., & Bilewicz, M. (2020). Media of contempt: Social media consumption predicts normative acceptance of anti-Muslim behavioral consequences of cognitive representation of ethnic immi- hate speech and islamoprejudice. International Journal of Conflict grant groups. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(8), 1056– and Violence (IJCV), 14, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.4119/ijcv-3774 1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254505 Soral, W., Bienkowski, � M., & Bilewicz, M. (in press). Hate speech on Nera, K., Bertin, P., & Klein, O. (2022). Conspiracy theories as oppor- the map of stereotype content: Verbal aggression is targeted at con- tunistic attributions of power. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, tempt-evoking outgroups. Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1027/ 101381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101381 1864-9335/a000562 Nera, K., & Schopfer, € C. (2023). What is so special about conspiracy Soral, W., Bilewicz, M., & Winiewski, M. (2018). Exposure to hate theories? Conceptually distinguishing beliefs in conspiracy theories speech increases prejudice through desensitization. Aggressive from conspiracy beliefs in psychological research. Theory & Behavior, 44(2), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21737 Psychology, 33(3), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/ � � Srol, J., Cavojov� a, V., & Ballov� a Miku� skov� a, E. (2021). Finding some- one to blame: The link between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, preju- Nera, K., Wagner-Egger, P., Bertin, P., Douglas, K. M., & Klein, O. dice, support for violence, and other negative social outcomes. (2021). A power-challenging theory of society, or a conservative Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 726076. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg. mindset? Upward and downward conspiracy theories as ideologically 2021.726076 distinct beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 51(4-5), Sternberg, R. J. (2005). Understanding and combating hate. In R. J. 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2769 Sternberg (Ed.), The psychology of hate (pp. 37–49). American Papcunov� a, J., Marton� cik, M., Fed� akov� a, D., Kentos, M., & Adamkovi� c, Psychological Association. M. (2023). Perception of hate speech by the public and experts: Stojanov, A., & Halberstadt, J. (2020). Does lack of control lead to con- Insights into predictors of the perceived hate speech towards spiracy beliefs? A meta-analysis. European Journal of Social migrants. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 26(7), Psychology, 50(5), 955–968. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2690 489–498. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2022.0191 Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2010). An existential Pluta, A., Mazurek, J., Wojciechowski, J., Wolak, T., Soral, W., & function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to Bilewicz, M. (2023). Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocog- personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. nitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(3), 434–449. https:// Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4127. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023- doi.org/10.1037/a0017457 31146-1 Swami, V. (2012). Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: Pummerer, L. (2022). Belief in conspiracy theories and non-normative The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Frontiers in behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101394. https://doi.org/ Psychology, 3, 280. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101394 Uenal, F. (2016). The secret Islamization of Europe: Exploring the inte- Sch€ afer, S., Rebasso, I., Boyer, M. M., & Planitzer, A. M. (2024). Can grated threat theory—Predicting Islamophobic conspiracy stereo- we counteract hate? Effects of online hate speech and counter types. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 10, 93–108. speech on the perception of social groups. Communication Research, van Prooijen, J. W., Staman, J., & Krouwel, A. P. (2018). Increased 51(5), 553–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/00936502231201091 conspiracy beliefs among ethnic and Muslim minorities. Applied Schrader, T., Jolley, D., Jolley, R. P., & Krahenbuhl, S. (2024). Cognitive Psychology, 32(5), 661–667. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp. Upholding social hierarchies: Social dominance orientation moder- ates the link between (intergroup) conspiracy exposure and violent � Winiewski, M., Hansen, K., Bilewicz, M., Soral, W., Swiderska, A., & extremism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online Bulska, D. (2016). Contempt speech, hate speech: Report from publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302241247985 research on verbal violence against minority groups. Stefan Batory Simon, L., & Greenberg, J. (1996). Further progress in understanding Foundation. the effects of derogatory ethnic labels: The role of preexisting atti- Winiewski, M., Soral, W., & Bilewicz, M. (2015). Conspiracy theories tudes toward the targeted group. Personality and Social Psychology on the map of stereotype content: Survey and historical evidence. In Bulletin, 22(12), 1195–1204. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962 M. Bilewicz, A. Cichocka, & W. Soral (Eds.), The psychology of con- spiracy (pp. 23–41). Routledge. Skrodzka, M., Kende, A., Farag� o, L., & Bilewicz, M. (2022). Zochniak, K., Lewicka, O., Wybranska, � Z., & Bilewicz, M. (2023). “Remember that we suffered!” The effects of historical trauma on Homophobic hate speech affects well-being of highly identified anti-Semitic prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 52(5), LGBT people. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 42(4), 341–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12862 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X231174569

Journal

Psychological Inquiry – Taylor & Francis

Published: Oct 1, 2024

There are no references for this article.