A staggering number of people believe the unbelievable. How should we respond, ask two political scientists
THE world is awash with conspiracy theories: Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was diverted by the CIA; drug companies are preventing the release of natural cures for cancer; Queen Elizabeth is part of a secret plot to control the world.
Most pundits dismiss such theories as the ravings of a paranoid fringe. Some claim they are cranks who pose a serious risk to society. The evidence, however, reveals a more nuanced picture.
For the past eight years, we have been asking people in the US their views about conspiracy theories. We find three important facts.
First, the theories are widely endorsed. At any given time, at least half of Americans agree with one or more of the common ones.
Second, adherence is common across the population. Although racial minorities and the less-educated embrace them more readily, educated whites also subscribe to them.
Third, conspiracy theories are embraced across the ideological spectrum. More conservatives than liberals believe that Barack Obama fabricated his birth certificate, but plenty of liberals believe 9/11 was an inside job. Some conspiracies are equally appealing to the left and right.
As researchers, the interesting question to us is not whether these theories are right or wrong, but why so many people endorse them in the face of overwhelming evidence. We think the answer lies in human psychology.
The brain did not evolve to process information about industrial economies, terrorism or medicine, but about survival in the wild. This includes a tendency to assume that unseen predators are lurking or that coincidental events are somehow related. Conspiracy theories reflect how we intuitively understand our world and, ironically, provide emotional reassurance. They are stories with good and bad guys, conflict, resolution and other narrative elements that have a natural appeal. In short, to adherents, conspiracy theories feel like the truth.
It is this that makes them problematic. By crystallising intuitions into incontrovertible claims, they limit possibilities for public discourse. This might not be a problem if the conspiracy involves aliens. But when it comes to important issues such as gun control or vaccinations, conspiracy theories impede our ability to sustain public debate.
Thus, rather than trying to argue or reason, the first step should be to empathise. After all, whether knocking on wood or wishing someone luck, we all engage in magical thinking. Only by appreciating the emotional tug of conspiracy theories will it be possible for us to communicate in a meaningful way with our neighbours in tinfoil hats.
This article appeared in print under the headline "Larger than life"
Eric Oliver is a political scientist at the University of Chicago. Tom Wood is a political scientist at Ohio State University in Columbus. Their latest findings are in JAMA (vol 174, p 817)
- New Scientist
- Not just a website!
- Subscribe to New Scientist and get:
- New Scientist magazine delivered every week
- Unlimited online access to articles from over 500 back issues
- Subscribe Now and Save
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
