Algorithmic conspirituality: Explicating its emergence,dimensions,and persuasibility

Abstract

Algorithmic conspirituality is the belief that social media algorithms have the capacity to know users intimately and convey personally meaningful messages at the exact right moment to revelatory effect. Through a thematic analysis of TikTok videos, this study explicates this concept by identifying five distinct dimensions of its expression on TikTok—(1) relational, (2) injunctive, (3) personal, (4) spiritual, (5) conspiratorial—and explaining their relationship with the platform’s affordances—(1) connectedness, (2) personalization, and (3) social creativity. We then connect the emergence and impact of this phenomenon to the possibility for persuasion and behavior changes through normalization of messaging in areas such as mental health, smoking, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and body dysmorphia that could lead to positive and negative health outcomes.

Keywords

Affordances algorithmic conspirituality algorithms conspirituality TikTok

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abalakina-Paap

Stephan

Craig

, et al. (1999) Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychology 20(3): 637–647.

Abidin

(2015) Communicative intimacies: influencers and perceived interconnectedness. Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology 8. Available at: https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/26365/ada08-commu-abi-2015.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Ames

(2018) Deconstructing the algorithmic sublime. Big Data & Society 5(1): 1–4.

Aupers

(2012) “Trust no one”: modernization, paranoia and conspiracy culture. European Journal of Communication 27(1): 22–34.

Bandura

Walters

(1977) Social Learning Theory, vol. 1. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Barnette

(2022) Hocus-pocus: WitchTok education for baby witches. In: Boffone

(ed.) Tiktok Cultures in the United States. London: Routledge, pp. 97–107.

Boyd

(2011) Social network sites as networked publics: affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: Papacharissi

(ed.) A Networked Self: Identity, Community and Culture on Social Network Sites. Oxford: Routledge, pp. 39–58.

Braun

Clarke

(2022) Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology 9(1): 3–26.

Bucher

(2018) If. . .then: Algorithmic Power and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

10.

Bucher

(2020) The right-time web: theorizing the kairologic of algorithmic media. New Media & Society 22(9): 1699–1714.

11.

Bucher

Helmond

(2018) The affordances of social media platforms. In: Burgess

Poell

Marwick

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Social Media. London: Sage, pp. 233–253.

12.

Bucknell Bossen

Kottasz

(2020) Uses and gratifications sought by pre-adolescent and adolescent TikTok consumers. Young Consumers 21(4): 463–478.

13.

Burrell

(2016) How the machine “thinks”: understanding opacity in machine learning algorithms. Big Data & Society 3(1): 1–12.

14.

Burrell

Fourcade

(2021) The society of algorithms. Annual Review of Sociology 47(1): 213–237.

15.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022) Youth and tobacco use. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/youth_data/tobacco_use/index.htm (accessed 27 February 2023).

16.

Chu

Deng

Mundel

(2022) The impact of personalization on viral behavior intentions on TikTok: the role of perceived creativity, authenticity, and need for uniqueness. Journal of Marketing Communications. Epub ahead of print 28 July. DOI: 10.1080/13527266.2022.2098364.

17.

Cialdini

Reno

Kallgren

(1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58(6): 1015–1026.

18.

Cotter

DeCook

Kanthawala

, et al. (2022) In FYP we trust: the divine force of algorithmic conspirituality. International Journal of Communication 16. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/19289 (accessed 27 February 2023).

19.

Evans

Pearce

Vitak

, et al. (2017) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 22(1): 35–52.

20.

Farias

Pilati

(2023) COVID-19 as an undesirable political issue: conspiracy beliefs and intolerance of uncertainty predict adhesion to prevention measures. Current Psychology 42: 209–219.

21.

Fisher

(2020) Can algorithmic knowledge about the self be critical?. In: Stocchetti

(ed.) The Digital Age and Its Discontents: Critical Reflections in Education. Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, pp. 111–122.

22.

Frauhammer

(2018) Phishing, superstition or healing prayer? Chain letters on the Internet. In: Religion, Culture, and Society. MTA-SZTE Research Group for the Study of Religious Culture, pp. 54–73. Available at: http://acta.bibl.u-szeged.hu/69197/1/religion_culture_society_005_054-073.pdf

23.

Gerbner

(1970) Cultural indicators: the case of violence in television drama. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 388(1): 69–81.

24.

Greenebaum

(2018) Vegans of color: managing visible and invisible stigmas. Food, Culture & Society 21(5): 680–697.

25.

Gunaratne

Zalmanson

Nov

(2018) The persuasive power of algorithmic and crowdsourced advice. Journal of Management Information Systems 35(4): 1092–1120.

26.

Heath

(2022) Facebook and Instagram are going to show even more posts from accounts you don’t follow. The Verge, 27 July. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2022/7/27/23281451/facebook-instagram-meta-recommendation-discovery-engine-ai

27.

Helberger

Araujo

De Vreese

(2020) Who is the fairest of them all? Public attitudes and expectations regarding automated decision-making. Computer Law & Security Review 39: 1054–1056.

28.

Hern

(2022) How TikTok’s algorithm made it a success: “It pushes the boundaries.” The Guardian, 24 October. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/oct/23/tiktok-rise-algorithm-popularity (accessed 15 October 2023).

29.

Hobbs

Barry

Koh

(2021) The Wall Street Journal, 17 December. Available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-tiktok-inundates-teens-with-eating-disorder-videos-11639754848 (accessed 9 December 2023).

30.

Jensen

(2009) Three-step flow. Journalism 10(3): 335–337.

31.

Kanthawala

Cotter

Foyle

, et al. (2022) It’s the methodology for me: a systematic review of early approaches to studying TikTok. In: Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Maui, HI, 4–7 January.

32.

Katz

Lazarsfeld

(1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: The Free Press.

33.

Kaye

DBV

Rodriguez

Langton

, et al. (2021) Research perspectives on TikTok & its legacy apps: you made this? I made this: practices of authorship and (mis) attribution on TikTok. International Journal of Communication 15: 21. Available at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/14544

34.

Kaye

DBV

Zeng

Wikström

(2022) The TikTok platform infrastructure. In: Kaye

DBV

Zeng

Wikstrom

(eds) TikTok: Creativity and Culture in Short Video. New York: Polity Press, pp. 56–90.

35.

Kim

(2019) The mechanism by which social media influencers persuade consumers: the role of consumers’ desire to mimic. Psychology & Marketing 36(10): 905–922.

36.

Kim

Yang

Kim

, et al. (2019) An experimental study of recommendation algorithms for tailored health communication. Computational Communication Research 1(1): 103–129.

37.

Lazarsfeld

Berelson

Gaudet

(1948) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.

38.

Lee

(2022) Language learning affordances of Instagram and TikTok. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 17: 408–423.

39.

Maddox

(2022) Micro-celebrities of information: mapping calibrated expertise and knowledge influencers among social media veterinarians. Information, Communication & Society. Epub ahead of print 13 August. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2022.2109980.

40.

Marwick

Partin

(2022) Constructing alternative facts: populist expertise and the QAnon conspiracy. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 1 May. DOI: 10.1177/14614448221090201.

41.

Matsa

(2022) More Americans are getting news on TikTok, bucking the trend on other social media sites. Pew Research Center, 21 October. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/10/21/more-americans-are-getting-news-on-tiktok-bucking-the-trend-on-other-social-media-sites/ (accessed 27 February 2023).

42.

Mercado

(2021) So this is how TikTok knows so much about you. The Cut, 22 July. Available at: https://www.thecut.com/2021/07/tiktok-algorithm-knows-me.html (accessed 27 February 2023).

43.

Newman

Fletcher

Robertson

, et al. (2022) Reuters Institute digital news report 2022. Available at: https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2022 (accessed 27 February 2023).

44.

Redden

(2016) Revisiting the spiritual supermarket: does the commodification of spirituality necessarily devalue it? Culture and Religion 17(2): 231–249.

45.

Reid

Cialdini

Aiken

(2010) Social norms and health behavior. In: Steptoe

(ed.) Handbook of Behavioral Medicine. New York: Springer, pp. 263–274.

46.

Rutherford

Sun

Lim

, et al. (2022) Changes in viewer engagement and accessibility of popular vaping videos on TikTok: a 12-month prospective study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(3): 1141.

47.

Scannell

(2000) For-anyone-as-someone structures. Media, Culture & Society 22(1): 5–24.

48.

Shteynberg

Apfelbaum

(2013) The power of shared experience: simultaneous observation with similar others facilitates social learning. Social Psychological and Personality Science 4: 738–744.

49.

Singler

(2020) ‘Blessed by the algorithm’: theistic conceptions of artificial intelligence in online discourse. AI & Society 35(4): 945–955.

50.

Smith

(2021) How TikTok reads your mind. The New York Times, 5 December. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/05/business/media/tiktok-algorithm.html (accessed 27 February 2023).

51.

Soffer

(2021) Algorithmic personalization and the two-step flow of communication. Communication Theory 31(3): 297–315.

52.

Song

Zhao

Yao

, et al. (2021) Short video apps as a health information source: an investigation of affordances, user experience and users’ intention to continue the use of TikTok. Internet Research 31(6): 2120–2142.

53.

Thomas

Nafus

Sherman

(2018) Algorithms as fetish: faith and possibility in algorithmic work. Big Data & Society 5(1): 1–11.

54.

Thorson

Wells

(2016) Curated flows: a framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory 26: 309–328.

55.

Trelohan

(2022) Do women engage in pro-environmental behaviours in the public sphere due to social expectations? The Effects of social norm-based persuasive messages. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 33(1): 134–148.

56.

Vogels

Gelles-Watnick

Massarat

(2022) Teens, social media and technology 2022. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Technology, 10 August. Available at: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/08/10/teens-social-media-and-technology-2022/ (accessed 27 February 2023).

57.

Ward

Voas

(2011) The emergence of conspirituality. Journal of Contemporary Religion 26(1): 103–121.

58.

Yuan

Lou

(2020) How social media influencers foster relationships with followers: the roles of source credibility and fairness in parasocial relationship and product interest. Journal of Interactive Advertising 20(2): 133–147.

59.

Zarouali

Boerman

Voorveld

HAM

, et al. (2022) The algorithmic persuasion framework in online communication: conceptualization and a future research agenda. Internet Research 32(4): 1076–1096.

60.

Zarouali

Dobber

De Pauw

, et al. (2020) Using a personality-profiling algorithm to investigate political microtargeting: assessing the persuasion effects of personality-tailored ads on social media. Communication Research 49(8): 1066–1091.

61.

Zhang

Liu

(2021) A commentary of TikTok recommendation algorithms in MIT Technology Review 2021. Fundamental Research 1(6): 846–847.

62.

Zulli

(2020) Extending the Internet meme: conceptualizing technological mimesis and imitation publics on the TikTok platform. New Media & Society 24(8): 1872–1890.