The lure of the conspiracy theory
Pacifist
I post this with some trepidation as the last time I posted about
conspiracy theories it seemed to cause much grief in this forum.
Anyhow, this is from the New Scientist magazine and here is an
interesting bit
Quote
How can we account for the link between race, income level and
conspiracy theories? Theorists tend to show higher levels of anomie -
a general disaffection or disempowerment from society. Perhaps this is
the underlying factor that predisposes people more distant from
centres of power - whether they be poorer people or those from ethnic
minorities - to believe in conspiracies.
So what kind of thought processes contribute to belief in conspiracy
theories? A study I carried out in 2002 explored a way of thinking
sometimes called "major event - major cause" reasoning. Essentially,
people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or
wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something
substantial, significant or wide-ranging.
Unquote
It concludes that people who don't believe in conspiracy theories are
not necessarily more open-minded than those who do!
Best,
P
====================================================
New Scientist Magazine
The lure of the conspiracy theory
>From issue 2612 of New Scientist magazine, 11 July 2007, page 35-37
NewScientist.com news service
by Patrick Leman
Was Princess Diana the victim of drunk driving or a plot by the
British royal family? Did Neil Armstrong really walk on the moon or
just across a film set in Nevada? And who killed President John F.
Kennedy - the Russians, the Cubans, the CIA, the mafia... aliens?
Almost every big event has a conspiracy theory attached to it. The
truth, they say, is out there - but where exactly? Perhaps psychology
can help us find at least some of the answers.
Whether you are a dyed-in-the-wool conspiracy theorist, a confirmed
anti-theorist, or somewhere in between, one thing's for sure:
conspiracy theories pervade modern culture. Thousands of films, talk
shows and radio phone-ins are built around them. US lecture tours from
prominent theorists such as radio host Alex Jones can draw audiences
of tens of thousands, while books raking over the evidence sell
millions of copies worldwide. The internet documentary Loose Change,
which claims that a CIA plot lay behind the 9/11 attacks in New York
and Washington, is approaching its 10-millionth download.
Belief in conspiracy theories certainly seems to be on the rise, and
what little research has been done investigating this question
confirms this is so for perhaps the most famous example of all - the
claim that a conspiracy lay behind the assassination of JFK in 1963. A
survey in 1968 found that about two-thirds of Americans believed the
conspiracy theory, while by 1990 that proportion had risen to nine-
tenths.
One factor fuelling the general growth of conspiracy beliefs is likely
to be that the internet allows new theories to be quickly created, and
endlessly debated by a wider audience than ever. A conspiracy-based
website built around the death of Princess Diana, for example, sprang
up within hours of the car crash that killed her in 1997.
So what has been the impact of the growing conspiracy culture?
Conspiracy theories can have a valuable role in society. We need
people to think "outside the box", even if there is usually more sense
to be found inside the box. The close scrutiny of evidence and the
dogged pursuit of alternative explanations are key features of
investigative journalism and critical scientific thinking. Conspiracy
theorists can sometimes be the little guys who bring the big guys to
account - including multinational companies and governments. After
all, some conspiracy theories turn out to be true. Take the Iran-
Contra affair, a massive political scandal of the late 1980s. When
claims first surfaced that the US government had sold arms to its
enemy Iran to raise funds for pro-American rebel forces in Nicaragua
and to help secure the release of US hostages taken by Iran, it
certainly sounded like yet another convoluted conspiracy theory.
Several question marks remain over the affair, but President Ronald
Reagan admitted that his administration had indeed sold arms to Iran.
Exploiting fears
On the other hand, there is a dangerous side to conspiracy theories.
During the cold war, they arguably played a part in sowing mistrust
between east and west. For canny politicians or campaigners,
conspiracy theories can be a good way of exploiting people's fears by
promulgating rumours that are difficult, if not impossible, to
disprove.
Such beliefs can have a far-reaching impact on people's lives. For
example, over 20 per cent of African Americans believe that HIV was
created in a laboratory and disseminated by the US government in order
to restrict the growth of the black population, according to a series
of studies by Sheryl Bird at Oregon State University and Laura Bogart
at Kent State University in Ohio. The people who believe this theory
also tend to be more sceptical of government health messages that
condoms can stop HIV transmission. These are chilling findings,
especially considering that although African Americans constitute only
12 per cent of the US population, they account for nearly half of the
nation's AIDS cases.
Unfortunately there has been little research carried out into what
kind of events trigger conspiracy theories, who tends to believe them,
and why. We do know, however, that people who believe in one theory
are more likely to believe in others: there is a good chance that
someone who believes the moon landings were faked will also believe
that JFK was killed by a second gunman from the infamous grassy
knoll.
There are some variations in who believes what, though, as shown by an
as yet unpublished study I carried out recently in the UK with
psychologist Chris French at Goldsmiths College, London. We found that
beliefs in JFK conspiracies are highest among people aged 36 and over,
while those between 20 and 35 are most likely to see a conspiracy
behind the 9/11 attacks. Surprisingly, perhaps, the youngest age group
- 19 and under - are least likely to endorse any theory.
One possible explanation of these findings is the phenomenon known as
"flashbulb memory" - the recall of a sudden event, often shocking and
international in scale, that affects individuals on a personal level.
This type of memory is more easily formed when individuals are between
20 and 35 years old, so for different generations there are certain
events - the assassination of JFK, space shuttle Challenger exploding
on take-off, the death of Princess Diana - that tend to trigger
flashbulb memories. Some of these iconic, shared events can provide
fertile ground in which conspiracy theories are sown.
Age is not the only demographic to influence conspiracy beliefs.
Several US studies have found that ethnic minorities - particularly
African and Hispanic Americans - are far more believing of conspiracy
theories than white Americans. In our recent UK study, we found a
similar race effect, coupled with an even stronger association between
income and belief levels. People who describe themselves as "hard up"
are more likely to believe in conspiracies than those with average
income levels, while the least likely to believe are the well off.
How can we account for the link between race, income level and
conspiracy theories? Theorists tend to show higher levels of anomie -
a general disaffection or disempowerment from society. Perhaps this is
the underlying factor that predisposes people more distant from
centres of power - whether they be poorer people or those from ethnic
minorities - to believe in conspiracies.
So what kind of thought processes contribute to belief in conspiracy
theories? A study I carried out in 2002 explored a way of thinking
sometimes called "major event - major cause" reasoning. Essentially,
people often assume that an event with substantial, significant or
wide-ranging consequences is likely to have been caused by something
substantial, significant or wide-ranging.
I gave volunteers variations of a newspaper story describing an
assassination attempt on a fictitious president. Those who were given
the version where the president died were significantly more likely to
attribute the event to a conspiracy than those who read the one where
the president survived, even though all other aspects of the story
were equivalent.
To appreciate why this form of reasoning is seductive, consider the
alternative: major events having minor or mundane causes - for
example, the assassination of a president by a single, possibly
mentally unstable, gunman, or the death of a princess because of a
drunk driver. This presents us with a rather chaotic and unpredictable
relationship between cause and effect. Instability makes most of us
uncomfortable; we prefer to imagine we live in a predictable, safe
world, so in a strange way, some conspiracy theories offer us accounts
of events that allow us to retain a sense of safety and
predictability.
Other research has examined how the way we search for and evaluate
evidence affects our belief systems. Numerous studies have shown that
in general, people give greater attention to information that fits
with their existing beliefs, a tendency called "confirmation bias".
Reasoning about conspiracy theories follows this pattern, as shown by
research I carried out with Marco Cinnirella at the Royal Holloway
University of London, which we presented at the British Psychological
Society conference in 2005.
The study, which again involved giving volunteers fictional accounts
of an assassination attempt, showed that conspiracy believers found
new information to be more plausible if it was consistent with their
beliefs. Moreover, believers considered that ambiguous or neutral
information fitted better with the conspiracy explanation, while non-
believers felt it fitted better with the non-conspiracy account. The
same piece of evidence can be used by different people to support very
different accounts of events.
This fits with the observation that conspiracy theories often mutate
over time in light of new or contradicting evidence. So, for instance,
if some new information appears to undermine a conspiracy theory,
either the plot is changed to make it consistent with the new
information, or the theorists question the legitimacy of the new
information. Theorists often argue that those who present such
information are themselves embroiled in the conspiracy. In fact,
because of my research, I have been accused of being secretly in the
pay of various western intelligence services (I promise, I haven't
seen a penny).
It is important to remember that anti-theorists show a similar bias:
they will seek out and evaluate evidence in a way that fits with the
official or anti-conspiracy account. So conspiracy theorists are not
necessarily more closed-minded than anti-theorists. Rather, the
theorist and anti-theorist tend to pursue their own lines of thought
and are often subject to cognitive biases that prevent their impartial
examination of alternative evidence.
How then can we predict who will become believers and non-believers?
My hunch is that a large part of the explanation lies in how
individuals form aspects of their social identities such as ethnicity,
socioeconomic status and political beliefs. The reasoning and
psychological biases that create believers or their opposites are
fostered by social origins. For conspiracy believer and non-believer
alike, there is a kind of truth out there. It's just a rather
different truth that each seeks.
Create the perfect conspiracy theory
Pick your adversary
A sense of anomie (dislocation from society and authority) fuels
beliefs in conspiracy theories, so pick a big bad organisation of some
sort - government or big business is ideal
For added spice, identify a shadowy, secretive society with implied
links to your adversary: the more shadowy, the better
Choose your event
You'll need a big, contemporary newsworthy event around which to weave
your theory
If it's a sudden, shocking visual occurrence of international import
it is more likely to become a "flashbulb memory" for the masses. Your
key conspiracy audience, most able to create such vivid "indelible"
memories will be between the ages of 20 and 35
Develop your story
Construct your theory from carefully selected information that weaves
together into a compelling story
If something doesn't fit, reinterpret it in line with your theory
Create uncertainty: question existing evidence or find new evidence
that contradicts the "official" account
Prepare your defence
If someone highlights a gap or inconsistency in your evidence, don't
be afraid to tweak your story, but keep the core conspiracy in place
You can allow the finer details of the theory to mutate, but always
keep in mind the maxim - "they did it, I just have to find the proof
that they did it"
Broaden the circle of conspirators to include those who question your
position... "they're denying the truth - they must be involved too!"