Who's Convincing You to Believe Conspiracies?

Conspiracy theories are rampant. They run from anti-vaccine and anti-climate change to much more unusual ones. There is a single person most likely to get you to accept a conspiracy theory. Who is this villain?

The Holes in Conspiracy Theories

Before I reveal the conspiracy theory villain, I want to note a common feature about many conspiracy theory arguments. When you encounter a conspiracy theory or other social media disinformation, you will be encouraged to think for yourself. You will be presented with partial information and suggestions for you to consider.

Disinformation and conspiracy theories often have holes, empty places, and incomplete arguments. When we encounter these holes, we may fill them in. Like a pothole in the road, we add material to smooth out the ride, the chain of thinking. These filled in holes are crucial in memory. We are very likely to remember the information we used to fill in holes and complete gaps. Considering how these holes in the conspiracy theories affect memory will help us reveal the person most likely to convince you to believe a conspiracy theory.

Memory for Unfinished Information

A classic finding is that people remember uncompleted tasks better than completed tasks, which is known as the Zeigarnik effect (1927/1967). But the task needs to be something you care about. This works with thoughts as well. If you have something you are thinking about, but you haven’t resolved it yet, you will often continue to think about it. Unfinished ideas can become repetitive thoughts that return and return to our minds (Hyman et al., 2013).

And we should also consider one of the best studying techniques cognitive psychologists know. Imagine being provided with partial information, such as a category and the first few letters of a category member (maybe Fruit – ora---). If you figure out the missing item, you will remember it better than if you simply read the category and item (Fruit – orange). This is the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978) and it's a great method for studying. Taking a test is a more effective method of studying than simply reviewing the material again (Roediger & Karpicke, 2006). If you provide the answer, you will remember it better than simply hearing it.

We Remember Implications

When people make statements about complex ideas, they leave pieces unfinished. Maybe you don’t want to directly criticize someone, so you do it indirectly. I watched a review of electric cars recently. The reviewer kept noting that one manufacturer made claims about features “on paper.” But they couldn’t match the claims when testing (such as not being able to get the full range). The clear implication is that the claims were false. You get the idea that a particular electric car manufacturer is untrustworthy. Even though the review didn’t directly state that, I remember the implication.

This works when talking about people as well. When people are given a context in which to potentially evaluate someone and given only positive information, they may nonetheless infer negative features (Kervyn, Bergsieker, & Fiske, 2012). Imagine considering a person to work on a job with you. You hear from co-workers either that "Pat seems like a very nice, sociable, and outgoing person," or that "Pat seems like a very smart, hard-working, and competent person."

Hearing the positive statements about warmth led people to infer that Pat wouldn’t be a good member of a work team. Saying Pat was fun but not saying anything about work competence left the person doing a work evaluation to fill in the missing information. And they did, evaluating fun-loving Pat as less competent. Things flipped when evaluating Pat as someone to travel or do something fun with. It’s possible to offer only praise, but leave other people to understand the message about negative implications.

Forced Confabulations

Once people do complete the gaps, they will remember the information. Even if they knew they didn’t actually hear that part, even if they knew they were completing it themselves. They will remember that false information.

In forced confabulation studies, people first watch a movie. They are then required to answer questions about things that didn’t happen. They don’t like answering those questions, but eventually do. When their memories are tested later, they remember the answers they gave — they come to believe those false answers (Zaragoza et al., 2001).

The Most Dangerous Source of Disinformation and Conspiracy Theories

I hope you have surmised where I have been leading you. There is, for each of us, a single person who is the most dangerous person for false information. Someone who is very likely to provide us with false information. It’s that person completing the incomplete ideas. The individual figuring out the implications. The person who creates the forced confabulation.

Memory Essential Reads

How to Hold On to Your Best Memories

Borrowing Other People’s Memories

It is not the person making the suggestions or the one providing the context for the implications. We need to worry about the person completing those implications — filling in the gaps, the holes, the missing pieces of the conspiracy theories. The person doing the hard work of thinking about the idea, continuing to think about it, and recognizing the implications.

If you have figured it out, you probably realize that I have been trying to lead you here. I’ve wanted you to finish this one yourself. Because I know that if you came to the conclusion before I revealed it, you would be more likely to remember who that dangerous person is.

For all of us, the biggest risk is ourselves. When we think about and complete conspiracy theories, when we do our own work, we are very likely to remember the ideas we’ve generated.