Fact or Fiction: A brief look into the science of conspiracy theories
Written by Nathan Cassidy
Have you ever scrolled through social media and seen a post claiming that the earth is flat, or vaccines are unsafe and part of a government conspiracy? Most people have likely encountered this in some form or other. The initial response seems to be to want to educate the individual. The interesting question in situations like these is, why do people hold pseudo-scientific beliefs despite all the evidence to the contrary?
What motivates pseudo-scientific thinking is a complex topic, however, the literature frequently points to two things. One is that most conspiracy theories or erroneous beliefs seem to be driven by emotional and intuitive thought processes rather than analytical processes (van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018). That is, those who believe in conspiracies likely draw these conclusions more from gut feelings and a sense that things need to be explained, than from empirical evidence (van Prooijen & Douglas, 2018). The second is that ascribing to pseudoscientific or conspiratorial beliefs seems to be related to illusory pattern perception (seeing patterns where there are none). To put it another way, if something scares you and you don’t understand it, you may feel like you have little control. This lack of control may push you to draw erroneous conclusions (i.e., see patterns where there are none) to regain control.
In studies investigating people’s attempts to regain control, participants were given less control to see if it increased their chances of seeing patterns that weren’t there. Participants were asked to identify concepts and were given either random feedback that was unrelated to their response, or no feedback. Participants were then shown grainy images (some with embedded and difficult to see pictures and some with no embedded pictures). In both the random-feedback and no feedback condition, almost all participants correctly perceived an image in the photos with embedded images. For the grainy photos with no image, however, those who received random feedback, and thus had no control over their performance, were more likely to report images even though none existed (Whitson & Galinsky, 2008). In other words, having no control over what feedback they received seemed to increase these participants’ chances of seeing patterns where none existed.
So, how does one combat conspiratorial beliefs? This is an important question, given how dangerous such beliefs can be when vaccinations or other public health issues are at play. For example, to achieve herd immunity, vaccinations require that a large enough proportion of the population be vaccinated (Herd Immunity and COVID-19, n.d.). When people decide to forgo vaccination without a research-backed reason, they are putting others in danger. As previously mentioned, the typical strategy seems to be to counter with information. This information is usually sourced and consists of peer-reviewed research (Lazić & Žeželj, 2021). While this strategy is well intentioned, Lazić & Žeželj (2021) argue that the meme-like nature of conspiratorial beliefs (in that they spread from person to person until they go “viral”) renders this tactic less effective. As a result, they argue that many conspiratorial beliefs (in the case of anti-vaccination) will prevail against scientific arguments, anti-vaccination anecdotes, and human-interest stories put out by the media and health authorities (Lazić & Žeželj, 2021). Research into the prevention of conspiratorial thinking is limited but growing. Current research indicates that use of a narrative approach (including stories and first-hand accounts) rather than focusing on statistical data, may be a better method to convince those who are less comfortable with numbers (Lazić & Žeželj, 2021). In other words, “fight fire with fire”.
How can this information help you when you’re in a heated debate with a “flat-earther” or “anti-vaxxer”? If you really feel that they need convincing, try to move away from numbers and complicated explanations. Instead, “fight fire with fire” by trying to appeal using stories such as first-hand accounts of people being saved by vaccines or harmed from not taking them (in the case of vaccinations). Additionally, try enquiring why the person really believes the things they do without arguing. Arguing with others will likely make them cling more to their beliefs and will only stress you out. The positive side of these findings is that researchers are determining what does and does not work when trying to educate those who may hold an unsupported belief. That is, by researching what drives these types of beliefs, health authorities and government agencies may be better equipped to mitigate harmful beliefs and promote more constructive discussion in the future.
If you enjoyed this blog post, check out our other blog posts!
References
Herd immunity and COVID-19: What you need to know. (n.d.). Mayo Clinic. Retrieved June 24, 2022, from https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/in-depth/herd-immunity-and-coronavirus/art-20486808
Lazić, A., & Žeželj, I. (2021). A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation. Public Understanding of Science, 30(6), 644–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211011881
van Prooijen, J., & Douglas, K. M. (2018). Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(7), 897–908. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2530
Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322(5898), 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845
Disclaimer
The blog posts are for informational and educational purposes only. The posts should not be considered as any type of advice (medical, mental health, legal, and/or religious advice). All blog posts have been researched, written, and edited by the undergraduate students and alumni of the Lifespan Cognition Lab. As a teaching and research-based lab, we encourage all lab members to help make knowledge more accessible to all communities through these posts.
