Covid-19: the psychology of conspiracy theories

Guardian Podcast
Science Weekly -Psychology
Presented by Ian Sample and produced by David Waters and Madeleine Finlay
Tue 5 May 2020 05.00 BST
https://www.theguardian.com/science/audio/2020/may/05/covid-19-the-psychology-of-conspiracy-theories

[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 counter
arguments, giving people facts, can reduce

belief in conspiracy theories. But, if you
harbor a conspiracy belief, and you see

some counter 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, to 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.