Conspiracy theories: why we all do it, and how we can do better
This is the “golden age of conspiracy theories.”
That’s how Zack Stanton describes our mid-COVID, pre-election world in a recent article for Politico. But the figurative pandemic of misinformation we’re facing predates the literal pandemic brought on by the coronavirus. From the faking of Apollo 11 to the making of “Plandemic,” Americans have long been willing to trade in even the most outlandish of conspiracy theories.
When it comes to conspiracy theorizing, it’s easy to point the finger at “those people.” But the psychological pressures that make people liable to believe and share conspiracy theories don’t just weigh on one demographic (left or right). They press upon us all.
Why do people get taken in by this stuff, and how can we all do better?
Why We Do It: Anxiety and Alienation
In his book, Suspicious Minds, psychologist Rob Brotherton questions the common notion that only our simple-minded, tin-foil-hat-wearing neighbors fall prey to conspiracy theories. Instead, he argues we’re all “natural-born conspiracy theorists.”
Social media has only amplified this natural-born tendency, as research indicates that online news consumption makes us more likely to trade in conspiracy.
Let’s focus for a moment on two of the most significant factors that make us more liable to believe and share both fake news and conspiracy theories: anxiety and alienation.
Anxiety
Right now, our country is rife with anxiety. Leaving aside all the personal concerns (medical, economic, etc.) raised by COVID, 83% of Americans are stressed out about our nation’s future. That feeling spans the political divide, as studies consistently show that people on both sides of the spectrum feel like their side is losing.
How does this anxiety stoke conspiratorial thinking? A number of studies have forged a solid link between the two. When everything feels like it’s spiraling out of control, we tend to find comfort in stories that make sense of it all, even if they’re not rooted in fact.
Alienation
When you look at extreme cases of people not just believing but acting on the wackier stuff they’ve read online (think Pizzagate or the 2018 Pittsburgh synagogue shooting), you don’t typically find healthy, well-adjusted members of society. You find outcasts.
That’s not a coincidence. Alienation packs a double whammy when it comes to believing and sharing conspiracy. First, the intense desire to belong leads people to find the community they seek among subcultures of conspiracy-sharers (e.g., the growing tribe of Q). Second, they lack the social feedback to say, “Hey, stop reading that garbage.”
Especially in a season of distancing and isolation, feelings of alienation are at an all-time high. The further we get from one another, the more likely we are to think and say the worst about the “bad guys” just so we can find belonging among the “good.”
How We Can Do Better: Analysis
The best course to stem the tide of conspiracy theorizing and rampant misinformation is to invest in our mental health, find healthy ways to overcome anxiety, and seek out real community. But let’s assume that this utopian ideal of anxiety-free living in peace with our neighbors isn’t going to happen anytime soon. What then?
If the research into conspiracy thinking is clear on the impact of anxiety and alienation, it’s even clearer on the power of analysis to combat our penchant for misinformation. It’s when we learn how to read with a critical eye that our better judgment comes in and saves us from unwittingly buying into fake news just because it makes us feel better.
How do we develop that critical eye? Educational psychologist Karen Murphy suggests we learn to ask three key questions whenever we consume information online:
- What’s the evidence for this argument or claim?
- Where does this evidence come from?
- Does the evidence logically support the argument or claim?
We created Newstrition to help especially with questions 1 and 2 by giving readers instant access to information about publishers and fact-checking on the evidence used and claims made in an article. We don’t tell you whether to buy what the publisher is selling (question 3) but arm you with the information you need to make the right choice.
Conclusion
These are anxious times, and the pains of social distancing and ideological polarization are intensely alienating for all of us. Sharing fake news or conspiratorial thinking offers a quick-hit of relief from both those ills, but that high is time-limited. And, when it fades, all we’re left with is a misinformed public led by a host of demagogues.
What we need isn’t just a cure for our hearts but a commitment to fully engage our heads as we consume and share news online.
We can do better; we have to.
