Since the millennium, there has been a considerable growth in the interest in conspiracy theories (CTs) ([2]; [12]; [17]; [29]; [24]; [33]; [34]; [37]; [38]; [39]). This interest includes CTs about particular issues, like climate change ([8]) and Covid ([20]) as well as business ([15]). These theories can be classified or categorised into particular areas/topics, like aviation, deaths and disappearances, espionage, governments, medicine, science and technology. Various researchers have looked at religious conspiracy theories and the role of a person’s religiousness in supporting those theories ([1]; [31]). We developed and looked at the convergent validity of CT issues around the Hamas/Israeli conflict in this research project.

[19] noted that studies in the field tend to concern generic or specific CTs. They reviewed the data on individual correlates of believing in CTs, including bright and dark-side personality variables and socio-political attitudes. They noted that: “Conspiracies appear to appeal to those who feel disconnected from society, who are unhappy or dissatisfied with their circumstances, who possess a subjective worldview that includes unusual beliefs, experiences and thoughts, and do not feel in control of their life. The endorsement of them challenges existing power structures in society. Furthermore, those with higher levels of clinically relevant traits such as paranoid thought and schizotypy endorse them” (p. 10).

[10] examined a number of CTs and found two categories: where “the various external variables reveal two broader substantive dimensions—one dealing with left-right politics, and the other anti-social orientations and behaviours—that are largely unrelated to one another” (p. 263). Various factors or “motives” have been suggested to explain beliefs in conspiracy theories. [9] essentially categorised these as eitherepistemic (e.g., tendency toward intuitive rather than analytic thinking), existential (e.g., powerlessness, anxiety, alienation), andsocial (e.g., collective narcissism).

More recently [40] showed that CTs were stable over time. They noted that people developing beliefs in a succession of conspiracy theories are often characterised as falling down a “rabbit hole” and that if they do, it is typically one with a rather gradual slope.

In the present research, we attempt a highly topical study about a major international issue, namely the Hamas/Israeli conflict(H/IC). Most researchers in this field tend to concentrate on CTs regarding specific topics, many in medicine. Several groups have become increasingly concerned about the spread of CTs, as they relate to issues such as obedience to the law, political activities of one sort or the other, alongside pro- and anti-social behaviour. CTs are now seen as “spreading like wildfire” because of social media. This study explores a CT, which can be considered relatively new following its increase in public attention: the Hamas/Israeli Conflict.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and gender differences for the ten Hamas items (6 = Strongly Agree; 1 = Strongly Disagree).

Table 2. Pearson correlations between study variables.

*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, Gender: 1 = Male, 2 = Female; Age: in Years; Degree: 1 = Yes, 2 = No.

Table 3. Regressions of demographic and personality variables onto conspiracy theory variables.

Table 1 shows the items and sex differences. Two things are noticeable: first, as expected, endorsement of the items is low, only two above three on the six-point scale. Next, there were multiple significant sex differences, with females scoring higher than males on half.

Table 2 displays the correlations between the major variables. The three CTs were positively and significantly correlated, as expected. The four Tetrad scores were also positively associated. There were five significant correlates of the H/IC score: sex, age, Machiavellianism, Psychopathy and Self-Esteem. The three CT were highly correlated: 46 < r< 0.83.

Table 3 reveals the results of the regressions. In the first regression the Hamas scale was the criterion (independent) variable. For the H/IC CT, there were three significant factors, accounting for a third of the variance. It was endorsed more by females, those with low self-esteem, and believers in General CTs. The regression was repeated without the two other CTs (General and Medical). This was significant (F (11, 299) = 7.08, p< 0.001, Adj R² = 0.18. Three variables were significant: Gender (t= 6.36, p< 0.001), Psychopathy (t= 2.14, p< 0.05), and Self-esteem (t= 2.70, p< 0.01).

The regression onto the General CT showed that five variables were significant, accounting for around a sixth of the variance. Gender (t = 2.62, p < 0.01) and education (t = 3.41, p < 0.001) were the strongest predictors. The regression onto the Medical CT conveyed that six variables were significant, accounting for sixteen percent of the variance. In all, six factors were significant, particularly Gender (t= 2.97, p< 0.01) and Education (t= 3.67, p< 0.001). Two of the Dark Triad measures were also significant: Narcissism and Psychopath.

There has been enormous expansion in the CT literature over the past decade. One area of such research involves documenting the range of existing CTs and attempting to classify them. As new events occur, new theories arise, hence the focus of this study. One question is the similarity in their correlates: that is, are the demographic, cognitive and trait correlates of all/any CTs much the same or are they specific to various theories?

The endorsement of the three CTs was, as predicted, significantly positive supporting the “monological belief system” argument, a view stating that once an individual has adopted a conspiracist worldview, new conspiracy theories are assimilated more easily and quickly because they support that particular worldview ([18]; [10]). This suggests a CT world view, which happily integrates theories about new events into a belief system. However, it was interesting to note that the correlation between the general and health CT was effectively twice the size of the correlations with the H/IC theory.

At the time of this study (February 2024), the H/IC was worldwide news, with many global demonstrations. As is always the case, many new CTs arose around the origin and conduct of the H/IC. One issue is how rapidly CTs about a particular issue arise, peak, and then perhaps fade from consciousness, much like the CT concerning the Malaysian airline disappearance, where the cause and whereabouts of 239 passengers remain unknown ([3]).

The correlational analyses evidently displayed that some factors were unrelated to the endorsement of all CTs. Surprisingly, neither religion nor BJWs were significantly correlated. The explanation for the religious factor is that this research population consisted mainly of people with no religion or strict beliefs. In this study the mean score on a nine-point scale was 2.32 (SD = 1.96) indicating that the vast majority were agnostics or atheists. Given that this CT is particularly related to religion this may account for the fact that variables was not significant in either the correlations or regression. However, as [11] also showed usually left-right political orientations are not systematically related to conspiracism. Similarly, [21] argued the relationship between religious beliefs and CTs was highly complex and the simple measure of religious beliefs in this study may have been too restricting.

Equally, it was surprising that political beliefs were unrelated to the H/IC CT. There has been a great deal of interest and research on the relationship between political beliefs and CTs ([23]; [22]). A possible reason for this is that this issue is not central to the beliefs or consciousness of the predominantly non-religious European sample used in this study, though this may have changed over the period since this data was collected.

In the correlational results, four factors were significantly associated with the endorsement of the H/IC CT. It indicated that younger more than older, females more than males, and those who scored higher on Machiavellianism and Psychopathy tended to endorse the new CT. When the regression included the other CTs, it showed that sex, General CTs, and self-esteem accounted for a third of the variance. However, upon removing the other CTs, Psychopathy became significant. Indeed, Psychopathy correlated with the endorsement of all three CTs. This might be a consequence of the worldview maintained by those scoring high on this dimension; that is, they see others as anti-social, competitive, and as selfish as they are.

The role of self-esteem/evaluation was interesting. It aligned with previous research in that lower scores related to more support of H/IC CT. It has been suggested that Conspiracy Theorists are generally social outsiders who often feel powerless and alienated, which no doubt leads to them having lower self-esteem ([35]). However, it is intriguing to note that self-esteem did not significantly correlate with the other two CTs.

There are notable consistencies and inconsistencies in the regression results for the three different CTs. The only consistently significant variable was sex. For the Health and General CTs, education, Narcissism and the BJW were significant, indicating that less well-educated people with higher Narcissism were more likely to endorse these two CTs. As predicted, those more likely to Believe the World is Just did not endorse either theory.

In all, six factors were significant in the regression on Health CTs, accounting for a fifth of the variance. Results align with hypotheses and previous research, indicating that females more than males, less rather than better educated, politically conservative rather than liberal, those scoring higher on Narcissism and Psychopathy, and those less likely to Believe the World is Just are more likely to endorse Health CTs.

Sceptics and cynics might ask, “Why yet another study” on yet another “new” conspiracy theory? What does this study and those similar offer the research in this field? First, the study partly supported the conspiracist worldview idea that people are happy to accept and integrate any and all new CTs into their mindset. The question is, which theories are totally or even partly, accepted and which are rejected? It may be that a function of particular theories interests them more than others. Thus, a new Medical CT may be more easily integrated than a CT surrounding a new event with an entirely new function. Further research would be beneficial to deliver some insight into the abovementioned questions.

As ever, this study had limitations particularly in what we did not know about the participants such as their particular religious and political beliefs, as well as their interest in knowledge about the conflict. Ideally we would have had a larger, more representative sample, and more comprehensive measures of their religious and political beliefs.