[Music] Intro: The Guardian
Welcome to Science Weekly.
We're following the Covid-19 outbreak and
exploring some of the scientific questions that have come out of it.
In today's episode, we are looking at conspiracy theories:
Now, many people are getting their information about coronavirus
through social media.
But not everything that's shared online can be trusted.
5G mast on fire. **** the 5G! Yeah!
It lowers your immunity and runs people down!
The coronavirus pandemic is opening up weird new horizons
for online conspiracy theorists.
The virus was bio-engineered in a lab by scientists, to be used as a weapon
or a form of population control.
Hi guys, do you know what you're doing now?
You're laying 5G. Yes. So, you know that kills people?
It absorbs oxygen. That's just nonsense!
Dangerous nonsense as well.
5G was a favourite target of conspiracy theorists,
long before the new coronavirus appeared. And now,
the myths have just been tweaked a bit.
It's not merely an opinion or an interesting conspiracy,
it's just bollocks.
So what is it about conspiracy theories that makes them so appealing
in a time of crisis?
And how can we best combat them?
I'm Ian Sample, the science editor at The Guardian,
and this is Science Weekly.
I'm Dr Daniel Jolley.
I'm a senior lecturer in psychology based at Northumbria University
in Newcastle in the UK and my expertise is in the psychology of conspiracy theories.
Hi Dan, how are you doing?
I'm doing well thanks so much for having me here.
So Dan, let's start with the basics,
what is a conspiracy theory, as opposed to misinformation, say?
So the whole difference with a conspiracy theory is the idea
that there is a powerful group plotting something secret for their own gain.
So something can just be fake, that there is no hidden motive behind it.
I mean there is a cardinal difference,
it's pointing the finger at a group of people
and blaming them for their wrongdoings, blaming them for the virus, for example.
What is it about conspiracy theories, generally,
that makes them so appealing to us?
Well, conspiracy theories in general have been shown to arise
in moments of crisis, when we have the need to feel in control, to feel certain.
And in these kind of rapid crises we feel threatened,
we feel unsure of what is happening,
which is exactly what is happening with Covid-19
I always thought that believing in conspiracy theories
would make people feel more anxious, but it sounds like, actually,
they have the opposite effect.
Well, it's a really interesting point there.
People who have this need to feel in control,
the influence on them actually may just be quite temporal.
They may seem appealing, but they're not satisfying.
Could be shown that people who are exposed to conspiracy theories
actually have further mistrust of those around them.
It actually increases their feeling of anxiety.
Often it is because if you don't subscribe to one conspiracy belief,
you then start questioning other things,
which means its kind of ramping up your mistrust,
and you kind of feel a feeling of uncertainty of you living in your society.
So when they emerge in times of crisis, they may temporarily
make us feel more secure but that will not be long-lasting.
This must be a bit of a boom time for you,
as someone who studies conspiracy theories I mean, we've seen,
you know, a bunch of them around recently, from 5G masts,
man-made viruses coming out of Chinese labs. I mean,
what is it about a pandemic that seems to drive so many?
Covid-19 is not unique in regards to having conspiracy theories bloom about it.
Thinking back to Zika, 2015,
there were conspiracy theories suggesting Zika was a man-made weapon.
Zika is a mosquito-transmitted virus that has led to travel warnings
in South America and Caribbean countries.
Is Zika caused by genetically modified mosquitoes?
We're fact-checking this conspiracy theory making the rounds on Facebook.
It's fair that the conspiracy now to emerge,
when people are talking about extreme uncertainty.
So when they felt uncertain, they now (??) conspiracy theories was more blooming.
And the same thing is happening with COVID-19.
The Trump administration has repeatedly pushed the narrative that the Coronavirus
may have escaped from a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan, rather than originating with an
animal in a seafood market in Wuhan, which is the leading medical theory.
Because the world is definitely chaotic, and it offers some kind of tangible
personal group to blame for what is happening.
It sounds like, then, that it's pretty typical to see conspiracy theories
spring up around any big event.
Do you think we're just seeing more now or we're aware of more now, because they're
spreading through social media?
There's no hard data that demonstrates that today with the
internet, conspiracy theories are more popular. So it may just be us assuming
they are. I think it's important, though, to really look into this, and to see the
peril that social media can have. Thinking about the 5G conspiracy, it seemed to
emerge from social media, where the algorithms and Facebook picked up chatter
with regards to 5G, and brought it into the trending. And then, during videos
people in the comments were talking about the masts and how one way to stop COVID is
by the masts and pulling them down, etc. So that's something that's potentially
quite novel in that that fast interaction may have actually sped up the kind of
insurgence of the conspiracy. It's a real
interesting problem
with regards to
Facebook and
social media
in general, and how they deal with conspiracy theories, because someone's conspiracy
theory is someone's truth, in essence. So it's how do we define what a conspiracy
theory is. And indeed, by banning, for example, conspiracy theories on platforms
will just reaffirm the suspicions that people have, that they're trying to hide
something. So you may actually increase people's conspiracy theorizing, because
they are being silenced. So it's that balance of insuring there's a space and a
platform for people to have free speech, to be able to discuss issues, and to, you
know, question things, which I think is important that we question, but then the
balance comes by that things aren't made into the trending pages that are not based
on truth. So right now, Facebook and etc., are taking down content that they see to
be inciting violence, and that can actually be a hinder to curbing COVID-19,
which is think is a positive first step, but it's not going to fix the issue as a
broad issue in the future.
So maybe, thinking about the individual as well,
and insuring the individual has the skill sets to really ask the questions, but also
evaluate the evidence. So we know those people who lack critical thinking
abilities are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, and we also know that
people who in believe in conspiracies is because they want to understand
the world, but they're struggling to evaluate the evidence. So potentially us
trying to instil those skill sets, may mean that they're able to resist the
conspiracy narrative. Let's talk a bit more about the psychology of people who
believe in conspiracy theories or tend to believe in them. Are there characteristics
or personality traits that make people maybe more susceptible to these kinds of
theories than others?
There are a range of different needs that are met by conspiracy theories,
while there's also kind of a social element whereby we want to affirm
ourselves and also the groups that we belong in. And interestingly, research in
America has found that in regards to politics, the conspiracy theories switch
depending on who is in power. So it's very much a prophecies in play here, where
you're just affirming your identity, the others, those are the ones who are
conspiring, and that can change depending on the context.
It sounds like some other sort of traits might come into play as well,
around how people see themselves, their social self-image, but also whether
people have been sort of marginalized in the past?
Absolutely. So, research has found that being a narcissist is more predictively
believing in conspiracy theories, and also, it has been shown that people
who are from disadvantaged groups,
because if you have received discrimination in the past,
you may be more likely to perceive that people are out to get you.
Because once upon a time, maybe they were.
So prior experiences may also play a role in making you more susceptible.
And then, when you're in an environment that increases your uncertainty,
increases your threat, like COVID-19,
you may be more susceptible to subscribe to these conspiracy theories.
And indeed, a consistent finding in the literature is
that if you believe in one conspiracy, you believe in many others.
Also, interestingly, researchers find that
you can believe in mutually exclusive conspiracy theories. Because, it's all
based around this world view that conspiracy theories in the world. So that
means that someone may believe that the virus was human-made, but also believing
it is caused by 5G. Whilst these two things can't necessarily happen at the
same time, it's in this process if you feel distrust, of society, of people who
we see to be in power, you can subscribe to these ideas. [Music]
When I've seen conspiracy theorists talking about their beliefs, it's clear
that there's a real urge to pull together strands of evidence, and to collect
evidence, and say, pull together these sort of desperate things, and many of them
seem to see themselves as like, the real critical thinkers, but I'm wondering what
kind of biases are coming into play there, that are actually within those people, to
make them believe these kinds of theories.
(DJ) One of the biases is confirmation bias, that we're all susceptible to.
This is the idea that we only really listen to evidence that supports our prior
beliefs. Things that go against it, that discredit our beliefs, we ignore.
There's also biases based around personality bias, with COVID-19, it's such
a large event, worldwide, to explain this as something from animals doesn't really
make sense. But to explain this as a conspiracy where it was human-made,
the proportionality matches the cause, it all kind of fits together.
So, we can, in situations where these events arise, be more drawn to conspiracy
narratives. We then stay in our echo chambers in our online world.
It can be tough debating and arguing with people who believe in conspiracy
theories, and okay, some of them are harmless, but some of them really aren't.
I mean, as someone who really studies them, do you have a sense of how best
we can combat them, the ones that are dangerous?
Interventions are really challenging, but of course, as you say, they're really
important, so potentially targeting the general population, and targeting those
who are hardened conspiracy theorists, may be slightly different.
So for example, we know that using (??) arguments, giving people facts, can reduce
belief in conspiracy theories. But, if you harbor a conspiracy belief, and you see
some kind of material from the government, you are going to discredit that, because
of your confirmation bias. So indeed, for others, it may be having people become
trusted messengers, where you're not aggressive, but instead, talk to them
about their beliefs, get them to really kind of think hard about the evidence
that they are, you know, really kind of suggesting is the be and end all, and
that maybe that kind of thinking process and get them to re-evaluate may start
changing their beliefs. Of course, this I'm sure would work for the general
population as well, so I think with ensuring that the landscape on Twitter, on
Facebook is full of facts is really important, but then still acknowledging
that those who are on the hardened end of the conspiracy theorizing may distrust
that straight away. So it's definitely a challenge, but I think it's important to
really evaluate.
Dan, finally, how do you think you fair in all of this? I mean, do you feel
you're immune to conspiracy theories that you can tell pretty much on contact
whether something's real or BS?
It's really difficult to tell the truth from the untruthful, from the fake
news, but the conspiracy's always based around pointing the finger at those in
authority, and suggesting that they are conspiring. I try and have trust in the
gatekeepers, where I also trust the journalists, who ask the questions, and
the conspiracy theories that have been proven to be true, have always been driven
by journalism. So, having the trust in our society that if a conspiracy is occuring,
it will come out by these natural processes.
Wonderful stuff. Dan, thank you so much for joining us.
Pleasure, thank you so much.
Thanks to Dan for joining me this week. As we continue to follow the
COVID-19 outbreak, we'd love to keep hearing your questions. You can send them
in via the form we've set up, just head over to theguardian.com/covid19questions,
that's all one word. And also thank those who support
as listeners.
In times like this, trusted news is more important than ever, and here at the
Guardian we are 100% committed to accurate and reliable news, but in order
to help us do that, we need your support. To find out more, please go to
theguardian.com/supportpodcast, again all one word.
Look after yourselves and stay well, see you back here soon.
[Outro] For more great podcasts from the Guardian,
just go to theguardian.com/podcasts.