Unravelling the Web of Conspiracy: Psychological Roots and Societal Impact -

Unravelling the Web of Conspiracy: Psychological Roots and Societal Impact

Rytlife
Charu Lavania & Neethu Prakashan

Highlights

						
Economic, social, or political disenfranchisement significantly correlates with a predisposition towards conspiracy beliefs.

A key cognitive trait among conspiracy theorists is the propensity to see patterns and infer intentions where none exist.

Conspiracy beliefs can erode trust in institutions, discourage engagement, and foster social polarisation.

Promoting critical thinking and media literacy, alongside addressing psychological distress, may mitigate the influence of conspiracy theories.

In an era where information is as accessible as it is manipulable, conspiracy theories have found fertile ground to flourish and proliferate. These theories, suggesting covert operations by powerful entities, not only captivate the human imagination but also have tangible, often detrimental, effects on societal cohesion and trust in authoritative sources (Douglas et al., 2017). The urgency to understand and address the psychological mechanisms behind conspiracy beliefs has never been more pronounced.

A confluence of social and environmental factors sets the stage for conspiracy beliefs. A sense of disenfranchisement, whether stemming from economic, social, or political marginalisation, significantly correlates with a predisposition towards conspiratorial interpretations of events (Uscinski & Parent, 2014). This is often compounded by feelings of powerlessness and uncertainty, which drive individuals to seek explanations that provide a semblance of control or understanding (Swami et al., 2010).

On the cognitive front, a proclivity for seeing patterns and inferring intentions, even where none exist, marks a key cognitive trait among conspiracy theorists (Bruder et al., 2013). Personality traits, including a high degree of openness to unconventional ideas, scepticism towards authority, and lower levels of agreeableness, further contribute to a susceptibility to conspiracy theories (Swami et al., 2011).

The concept of motivated reasoning elucidates how desires and preconceptions shape the way information is processed, often leading individuals to accept information that aligns with their beliefs while discounting contradictory evidence (Kunda, 1990). This cognitive bias is particularly pronounced in the context of conspiracy theories, where disconfirming evidence can paradoxically strengthen the original belief (Nyhan & Reifler, 2010).

The proportionality bias, which predisposes individuals to expect significant events to have significant causes, further fuels conspiracy thinking. This bias can lead to the dismissal of simpler explanations in favour of more elaborate, and often unfounded, conspiracy theories (Leman & Cinnirella, 2007).

The belief in conspiracy theories is not without consequence. It can erode trust in institutions, discourage political and civic engagement, and foster social polarisation (Sunstein & Vermeule, 2009). In the realm of public health, for instance, conspiracy beliefs have been linked to vaccine hesitancy, posing significant challenges to disease prevention efforts (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).

The psychological ramifications of conspiracy beliefs also warrant attention. Engagement with conspiracy theories has been associated with heightened anxiety, paranoia, and feelings of alienation (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013). These findings underscore the need for interventions aimed not only at debunking conspiracy theories but also at addressing the underlying psychological distress that may drive individuals towards these beliefs.

This review underscores the multifaceted nature of conspiracy beliefs, highlighting the interplay between social, cognitive, and personality factors. Future research should aim to elucidate the causal pathways linking these factors to conspiracy belief and explore the effectiveness of various intervention strategies. Promoting critical thinking and media literacy, alongside efforts to address social and psychological vulnerabilities, may offer a holistic approach to mitigating the influence of conspiracy theories. As we advance in our understanding, it is imperative that interventions are tailored to the nuanced needs and contexts of those prone to conspiracy beliefs, fostering a more informed and resilient society.

Keywords:

Social Share:

References

Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy theories across cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225

Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261

Grzesiak-Feldman, M. (2013). The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Current Psychology, 32(1), 100-118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-013-9175-6

Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014). The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. PLOS ONE, 9(2), e89177. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0089177

Jolley, D., & Paterson, J. L. (2020). Paving the way for vaccine conspiracy theories: The role of the HPV vaccine and social media. Social Science & Medicine, 250, 112890.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.112890

Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480-498.

SSRN Electronic Journal

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480

Leman, P. J., & Cinnirella, M. (2007). A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories. Social Psychological Review, 9(2), 18-28.

Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2009). Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(2), 202-227.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x

Swami, V., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010). Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24(6), 749–761.

https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1583

View More View Less