阴谋论：30万新西兰人真的相信加拿大正在建造一支变异的超级浣熊军队吗？
Conspiracy theories: do 300,000 Kiwis really believe Ca…
Surveys may overestimate belief in conspiracy theories because of trolls and jokers – but genuine believers can still cause real-world harm.
调查可能因为网络喷子和戏谑者而高估了对阴谋论的信仰——但真正的信徒仍然可能造成现实世界的伤害。
Four percent of Americans – roughly 12 million people – believe that “lizard people” secretly control the Earth. At least, that was the finding of an infamous 2013 public opinion survey.
美国四分之一的人口——大约1200万人——相信“蜥蜴人”秘密控制着地球。至少，这是2013年一项臭名昭著的民意调查得出的结论。
Do so many people really believe such outlandish claims? Or do results like these partly reflect people giving silly answers or deliberately skewing surveys for fun?
这么多人真的相信这些荒谬的说法吗？还是像这样的结果部分反映了人们给出愚蠢的答案，或者为了娱乐而故意歪曲调查结果？
US psychiatrist Alexander Scott believes the latter plays a significant role.
美国精神病学家亚历山大·斯科特（Alexander Scott）认为后者起着重要作用。
Using the survey as an example, he coined the term “the Lizardman constant” to describe the idea that a certain amount of noise and trolling will always exist in surveys about unusual beliefs.
以这项调查为例，他创造了“蜥蜴人常数”（the Lizardman constant）一词，用来描述在关于非主流信仰的调查中，一定量的噪音和骚扰将始终存在于其中。
As Scott warned: “Any possible source of noise – jokesters, cognitive biases, or deliberate misbehaviour – can easily overwhelm the signal.”
斯科特警告说：“任何可能的噪音来源——戏谑者、认知偏差或故意不当行为——都能轻易地淹没信号。”
As researchers who study uncommon beliefs such as conspiracy theories, we wanted to investigate how this kind of cheeky trolling can muddy the waters.
作为研究阴谋论等非主流信仰的学者，我们希望调查这种爱开玩笑的骚扰是如何使情况变得模糊的。
Trolls and true believers
骗子与真信徒
Building on earlier Australian research, we surveyed New Zealanders to test how common dishonest or joking responses were in conspiracy theory surveys.
基于早期的澳大利亚研究，我们对新西兰人进行了调查，以测试在阴谋论调查中，不诚实或开玩笑式的回答有多普遍。
We did this in two ways. First, we directly asked people a yes/no question at the end of the survey:
我们通过两种方式进行。首先，我们在调查结束时直接向人们提出了一个是/否的问题：
“Did you respond insincerely at any earlier point in this survey? In other words, did you give any responses that were actually just joking, trolling, or otherwise not indicating what you really think?”
“在本次调查的任何先前时间点，你是否不诚实地回答了问题？换句话说，你是否给出了任何实际上只是开玩笑、捣乱或以其他方式不表明你真实想法的回答？”
Second, we included in the survey a “conspiracy theory” so ridiculous we could assume most, if not all, people who said they believed it were taking the mickey.
其次，我们在调查中加入了一个如此荒谬的“阴谋论”，以至于我们可以假设声称相信它的大多数，甚至所有人都只是在开玩笑。
We asked them if they believed:
我们问他们是否相信：
The Canadian Armed Forces have been secretly developing an elite army of genetically engineered, super intelligent, giant raccoons to invade nearby countries.
加拿大武装部队正在秘密开发一支由基因工程的、超级聪明的巨型浣熊组成的精英军队，意图入侵附近的国家。
In our representative online sample of 810 New Zealanders, 8.3% of respondents confessed to being insincere in the survey.
在我们对810名新西兰人的代表性在线样本中，8.3%的受访者承认他们在调查中是不诚实的。
Another 7.2% said they thought the Canadian raccoon army theory was probably or definitely true. That proportion – similar to findings from Australia – would equate to more than 300,000 adult New Zealanders.
另外7.2%的人表示他们认为加拿大浣熊军队的理论可能是或绝对真实的。这一比例——与澳大利亚的研究结果相似——相当于超过30万新西兰成年人。
To complicate things slightly, there was some overlap between those admitting to insincere answers and those claiming to believe the raccoon conspiracy. Combined, 13.3% of respondents fell into one or both groups – roughly one in eight people not appearing to take the survey seriously.
为了使情况稍微复杂一些，那些承认不诚实回答的人与那些声称相信浣熊阴谋论的人之间存在一些重叠。总计，13.3%的受访者属于其中一个或两个群体——大约八分之一的人看起来没有认真对待这次调查。
Importantly, these respondents were also much more likely to endorse other conspiracy theories, inflating estimates of how widespread those beliefs really are.
重要的是，这些受访者更有可能支持其他阴谋论，这夸大了这些信念的实际普及程度。
For instance, 6.5% of the full sample endorsed the claim that governments around the world are covering up the fact that 5G mobile networks spread coronavirus.
例如，全样本中6.5%的人支持了政府在世界各地掩盖5G移动网络传播冠状病毒这一说法。
But once we removed the insincere responders, that figure dropped by more than half to 2.7%.
但是，当我们剔除不诚实的回答者后，这一数字下降了一半多，为2.7%。
Across 13 different conspiracy theories, the estimated proportion of believers fell substantially once those respondents were excluded.
在13种不同的阴谋论中，一旦排除这些受访者，相信者的大致比例就大幅下降了。
Another interesting insight from our study was that people endorsing contradictory conspiracy theories were much more likely to show signs of responding insincerely.
我们研究的另一个有趣发现是，支持矛盾的阴谋论的人更有可能表现出不诚实回答的迹象。
Previous studies have found some people appear to believe conspiracy theories that directly contradict each other. In our survey, for example, some participants agreed both that COVID-19 is a myth and that governments are covering up the fact that 5G networks spread the virus.
先前的研究发现，一些人似乎相信相互矛盾的阴谋论。在我们的调查中，例如，一些参与者同时同意COVID-19是一种神话，并且政府正在掩盖5G网络传播病毒的事实。
But nearly three-quarters of those respondents also showed signs of joking or dishonest answers.
但近四分之三的这些受访者也表现出开玩笑或不诚实的回答的迹象。
This suggests genuinely believing contradictory conspiracy theories may be less common than previously thought.
这表明，真正相信相互矛盾的阴谋论可能比以前认为的要少见。
Not every conspiracy believer is joking
并非所有阴谋论信徒都在开玩笑
Our findings add further weight to the idea that surveys may overestimate how many people truly believe some conspiracy theories – thanks, in part, to trolls.
我们的研究结果进一步支持了这样一个观点：调查可能高估了有多少人真正相信某些阴谋论——这部分归功于网络喷子（trolls）。
But does that mean all conspiracy theory research is bunk?
但这是否意味着所有阴谋论研究都是胡闹？
Fortunately not. Most research in this area is not focused on counting conspiracy believers, but on understanding why people hold these beliefs and what effects they can have.
幸运的是，不是。该领域的大多数研究并不侧重于计算阴谋论信徒的数量，而是侧重于理解人们为何持有这些信念以及它们可能产生的影响。
We tested several well-established findings from earlier conspiracy theory research to see whether they still held up once insincere respondents were removed from the data.
我们测试了早期阴谋论研究中的一些既定发现，以查看在从数据中移除不真诚的受访者后，这些发现是否仍然成立。
For example, previous studies have found that people who endorse conspiracy theories are more likely to see the world as a dangerous and threatening place.
例如，先前的研究发现，那些支持阴谋论的人更有可能将世界视为一个危险和威胁性的地方。
We found the same pattern. In fact, removing insincere respondents made little difference to the broader relationships identified in earlier research.
我们发现了同样的模式。事实上，移除不真诚的受访者对早期研究中确定的更广泛关系影响甚微。
Nevertheless, we recommend that future surveys include ways to gauge whether respondents are answering sincerely and account for this in the analysis. At the very least, researchers should acknowledge that trolls and joking responses can distort their results.
尽管如此，我们建议未来的调查应包括衡量受访者是否真诚回答的方式，并在分析中考虑这一点。至少，研究人员应该承认网络喷子和开玩笑的回答可能会扭曲他们的结果。
While our research suggests some people are taking the mickey in surveys, it also shows a significant minority genuinely appear to believe some of these claims.
虽然我们的研究表明一些人在调查中是在开玩笑，但它也显示出一个重要的少数群体确实似乎相信这些说法中的一些内容。
In some cases – such as believing authorities are covering up the fact that the Earth is flat – this may be relatively harmless. But other conspiracy beliefs can lead to real-world harm.
在某些情况下——例如相信当局正在掩盖地球是平坦的事实——这可能相对无害。但其他阴谋论信念可能导致现实世界的伤害。
Good-quality research is essential for understanding how sincere believers end up down these rabbit holes, and how those beliefs influence real-world behaviour.
高质量的研究对于理解真诚的信徒是如何陷入这些兔子洞，以及这些信念如何影响现实世界的行为至关重要。
Research into why people embrace conspiracy theories – and the real-world consequences of those beliefs – remains important.
对人们为什么接受阴谋论以及这些信念的现实后果的研究仍然很重要。
But when surveys suggest millions may believe in lizard overlords or genetically engineered raccoon armies, it is also worth remembering the “Lizardman constant”: some respondents may simply be having us on.
但是，当调查表明数百万人在相信蜥蜴统治者或基因工程浣熊军队时，也值得记住“蜥蜴人常数”：一些受访者可能只是在戏弄我们。
The authors acknowledge the contributions of Rob Ross, Mathew Ling and Stephen Hill to this article.
作者承认 Rob Ross、Mathew Ling 和 Stephen Hill 对本文的贡献。
John Kerr is supported by a Royal Society Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku Research Leader Fellowship.
John Kerr 获得了皇家学会 Te Apārangi Mana Tūānuku 研究领导者奖学金。
This research was supported by the Marsden Fund Council from Government funding, managed by Royal Society Te Apārangi.
这项研究得到了 Marsden 基金理事会政府资金的支持，由皇家学会 Te Apārangi 管理。
Mathew Marques does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Mathew Marques 不为任何可能从本文中受益的公司或组织工作、咨询、拥有股份或接收资金，并且除了他们的学术任命之外，未披露任何相关隶属关系。
