Verified by 
“Everyone loves a conspiracy.” —Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code
Conspiracy theories tend to flourish amidst a societal crisis and are fueled by online interaction. No surprise then that 2020, as people shutter up at home trying to ride out COVID-19, is turning out to be the year of the conspiracy theory.
I was recently interviewed about conspiracy theories by Alan Mozes of HealthDay for his article, "Coronavirus Conspiracy Theories Abound, and They Could Cause Real Harm." Here's the full transcript of our interview (with some edits):
Alan Mozes: First off, is there a definition or clear criteria for what constitutes a conspiracy theory? Have they basically been a part of human history since the dawn of time? And what is it about such theories that make them so attractive at times like this?
Joe Pierre: Conspiracy theories are types of beliefs that normal people have, and unlike delusions, aren't considered to be symptoms of mental illness. As a result, there are various definitions out there, but no broadly agreed-upon “criteria” to define them. I like to define them by saying that conspiracy theories reject authoritative accounts of reality in favor of some plot involving a group of people with malevolent intent that is deliberately kept secret from the public.
So far as we know, conspiracy theories have been around “forever,” just as real-life examples of conspiracies have. That’s partially when they’re appealing to some—we know that real-life conspiracies sometimes happen such that to some extent we’re always on the lookout for more. A casual look at Hollywood movies tells us that “cloak and dagger” narratives are entertaining and often tell versions of events that are far more interesting than real life.
Psychology research has also found a long list of cognitive quirks that are associated with belief in conspiracy theories. One is “need for uniqueness” which suggests that some of us are drawn to conspiracy theory narratives because they make us feel special about being privy to a secret truth that’s hidden from the rest of us “sheep.” Another is something called teleologic bias—the desire and tendency to attribute purpose and an “ultimate cause” to natural events, suggesting that the attractiveness of narratives related to omnipotent forces within conspiracy theories may be similar to our collective need to believe in God. And then there’s need for control, certainty, and closure—most of us find that believing that bad things happen randomly for no reason to be pretty unsettling. Conspiracy theories may offer a way of compensating against those feelings of not being in control.
Our psychological needs for control, certainty, and closure seem to be especially heightened in the midst of a societal crisis when people are looking to make sense of traumatic events. Conspiracy theories may also be more likely to arise when information from official sources has been slow in coming or inconsistent. COVID-19 has been a good illustration of that, allowing us to see conspiracy theories to arise in real time.
Mozes: What makes conspiracy theories so pernicious? What risks do they pose in terms of real health consequences? Could conspiracy theories in the context of a pandemic actually cost lives?
Pierre: As far as being dangerous, belief in misinformation always has the potential to cause harm. Especially when, in contrast to “cognitive flexibility,” one believes things with unwarranted conviction without allowing that they might be wrong.
Belief in medical conspiracy theories, such those related to vaccines or HIV, have also been shown to be associated with lower rates of engaging in healthy behaviors such as seeing a doctor for a check-up, getting vaccinated, or engaging in safe sex practices. With COVID-19, belief in misinformation and conspiracies could have similar effects, whether through not engaging in social distancing or already taking a firm stance against getting a vaccine once one becomes available.
Things can get even more dangerous when conspiracy theory beliefs involve perceived threats or when they become entwined with our identities to the point that we feel the need to defend them, even to the point of violence. In the UK, some people who believe in the conspiracy theory that COVID-19 is actually caused by 5G networks set fire to cellphone towers. Here in the US, a man tried to crash a train into the USNS Mercy based on the belief that the Navy ship deployed to the port of Los Angeles to serve as an emergency hospital had some more nefarious purpose.
Mozes: How do conspiracy theories undermine trust in sources that might usually be considered trustworthy? Or is that trust already gone among those who buy into such theories in the first place?
Pierre: Mistrust lies at the core of conspiracy theory beliefs, since they necessarily require the rejection of authoritative accounts of reality. But the relationship of mistrust and belief in conspiracy theories is “bidirectional.” Mistrust of authoritative sources leaves us vulnerable to conspiracy theories which are the ultimate counter-narrative or antithesis of conventional wisdom. At the same time, exposure to conspiracy theories very clearly weakens trust.
In today’s political climate, we know that conspiracy theories are sometimes used as a deliberate propaganda tool designed to undermine trust in governments and other institutions of authority. There’s a kind of irony there, in that use of conspiracy theories as weapons of propaganda is itself a kind of real-life conspiracy theory in action.
Mozes: What can be done to counter such theories? How can they be debunked? Or can they? How does one help people accept that there's no "there there" if they were prone to buy into an "alternate reality" to begin with?
Pierre: Since belief in conspiracy theories is rooted in mistrust, they can be very difficult to counter, especially for those that believe in them very strongly. The standard play from the conspiracy theory believer’s playbook is to dismiss facts by labeling them “fake news” put out by mistrusted sources. In order to address that—if we hope to get believers to reject misinformation in favor of the facts—we must first establish trust, asking people questions like, “Who do you trust or mistrust and why?” and “How do you decide what to believe?”
Beyond the individual level, institutions of authority need to be more transparent in order to regain public trust. We also need to put out reliable information, countering conspiracy theories where they’re typically found, especially on the internet.
At a societal level, we have to think seriously about how to promote analytic thinking at an early age and teach people how to be better consumers of online information so that they can more readily distinguish between reliable and unreliable information. Unfortunately, misinformation is big business, whether for profit or for political gain. We also live in a country where free speech is a core national value. Together, that makes limiting the exposure of people to misinformation very challenging.
