Why do some conspiracy theories spread so easily?

Why do conspiracy theories appeal to so many people?

Researchers Karen Douglas, Robbie Sutton and Aleksandra Cichocka of the University of Kent reviewed the research in 2017. They describe conspiracy theories as explanations of important events that involve hidden plots by powerful and malevolent groups. They sorted the motives into three families:

• Understanding. Belief tends to be stronger under uncertainty, and when an event is so large or significant that a small, ordinary explanation feels unsatisfying.
• Safety and control. People turn to conspiracy theories when they feel anxious or powerless. In experiments, belief rose when people felt unable to control outcomes and fell when their sense of control was affirmed.
• Belonging. Conspiracy theories can protect a good image of oneself or one’s group by blaming powerful others. In experiments, being left out made people more open to them.

The few studies of what happens next do not show that conspiracy theories meet these needs. In experiments, exposure to them lowered people’s sense of control and their trust in government institutions. The authors suggest the theories may be “more appealing than satisfying.” But they note that those experiments mostly tested students and survey panels; for groups that already feel shut out, the theories may offer belonging. The review also makes a fair point: history has repeatedly shown that corporate and political elites do conspire against the public interest, and conspiracy theories can help bring their misdeeds to light.

Have real conspiracies come to light?

Yes, and the records are public. On August 3, 1977, the Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Stansfield Turner, told a Senate hearing about MKUltra, a CIA project run from 1953 to 1964 that funded research on drugs and behavior. A 1963 internal CIA report had mentioned covert drug testing on unwitting U.S. citizens, and Senator Edward Kennedy said at least one death resulted. The bulk of the records were destroyed in 1973, but an employee answering Freedom of Information Act requests later found seven boxes of overlooked financial papers. They named 80 institutions, including 44 colleges or universities, and Turner said most of the people and institutions involved still did not know the CIA had sponsored the work.

From 1932 to 1972, the U.S. Public Health Service ran a study of untreated syphilis at Tuskegee, Alabama. According to the CDC, it followed 399 Black men with syphilis. There is no evidence the researchers obtained informed consent, and community members thought it was a special government health care program. The men were not offered treatment, even after penicillin became widely available. The study ended in 1972, after news articles about it led to an advisory panel. In 1997, President Clinton issued a formal apology.

After a 1974 New York Times article claimed that the CIA had spied on antiwar activists, the Senate set up the Church Committee in 1975, chaired by Democrat Frank Church, with Republican John Tower as vice chairman. It documented abuses by the CIA, FBI, IRS and National Security Agency, including an FBI program that targeted civil rights leaders, antiwar activists and elected officials. Its 1976 final report found these excesses were not the product of “any single party, administration, or man.”

Notice how each came out: through documents, reporters, a records request and public hearings. A 2019 review by Douglas and colleagues notes that conspiracies do happen but tend to fail, because plans are hard to carry out and people are hard to keep quiet. For what government records show about UFOs, see Are governments hiding evidence of aliens?

Why do some theories spread so fast?

Novelty seems to help, and strong feelings may too. A 2018 study tracked about 126,000 news stories shared on Twitter from 2006 to 2017. False stories spread farther, faster and more broadly than true ones, especially about politics. The false stories were more novel, and replies to them expressed fear, disgust and surprise. Automated accounts spread true and false stories at the same rate, so people, not bots, drove the difference. The study covered false news in general, not only conspiracy theories.

But fast spread is not the same as rising belief. A 2022 study tracked belief in 46 conspiracy theories in the U.S., some across half a century, and six in six European countries, and found no systematic increase: some theories gained believers, but more lost them. Online, conspiracy theories tend to stay among people who already agree, the 2019 review adds.

Suspicion often follows power, not one party. One study of letters to the editor of The New York Times from 1890 to 2010 found that when a Republican was president, popular conspiracy theories tended to accuse Republicans and big business; under Democrats, they tended to accuse Democrats and socialists. In news-site comments about 9/11, the theory’s opponents wrote in a more hostile tone, which may feed believers’ sense of being a bullied minority, the 2019 review notes.

How can you tell a warranted suspicion from an unfalsifiable one?

Some philosophers, called particularists, argue that each conspiracy theory should be judged on its own merits, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains. Questions like these can help:

• Can you inspect the evidence? The real cases above left paper trails, and many are online, such as the MKUltra hearing and the Church Committee reports.
• What happens to evidence against it? A theory resists testing when it says the people offering counter-evidence are part of the plot, the 2017 review notes, and the 2019 review adds that believers often point to further plots to explain a lack of support.
• Do its predictions come true? One philosopher contrasts Watergate, where suspicion led journalists to predictions that were confirmed, with the claim that Elvis Presley faked his funeral, which produced no confirmed predictions.
• How many people, for how long? The more people a plot needs, and the longer it must last, the less likely it is. Simulations suggest plots with 1,000 or more people are unlikely to stay hidden. A critic replies that only a few people inside an institution may be in on a plot. MKUltra fits both: go-between funders hid the CIA’s role from most researchers, yet its name became public in 1975, about two decades after it began.
• What does missing evidence mean? A plot would hide its tracks, so a lack of evidence is not the same as evidence of no plot. But when careful searches keep failing where similar searches succeeded, doubt is fair.
• Who gains if you believe it? Ask whether the person telling you has a motive to mislead, and ask the same of anyone who waves the idea away.

What is the strongest objection, and what do people often get wrong?

The objection: “Officials have lied before, so why trust them now?” That is a fair place to start. Some scholars argue that because elites do conspire, conspiracy theories are an important tool for holding authorities accountable, the 2019 review reports. Its authors argue that conspiracy theories do more harm than good, yet caution against demonizing the people who believe them. The practical answer is to trust evidence, not labels.

• “Only other people believe these.” The motives behind conspiracy belief are ordinary human needs, and the 2019 review notes that people need not be aware of them.
• “It is one side of politics.” People on both the left and the right suspect the other side, and which theories catch on shifts with who holds power. Scholars still debate whether one side holds more of these beliefs.
• “Calling it a conspiracy theory settles it.” The 2019 review warns that the label can be used to brush aside valid concerns. Judge the evidence instead.

How can you check a claim yourself?

Start with prebunking: learning about a manipulation trick before you meet it. In a 2022 study led by Jon Roozenbeek of the University of Cambridge, 1.5-minute animated videos explained five techniques: emotionally manipulative language, incoherence, false dichotomies, scapegoating and personal attacks. The examples were humorous and nonpolitical, to avoid any look of partisan bias. In six experiments with 6,464 people, the videos helped people recognize the techniques and make better sharing choices, and the effects held across the political spectrum. In a real-world test with YouTube ads, recognition rose by about 5% on average compared with similar users who had not seen the videos. The limits: the team could not measure how long the effect lasts, the study covered only the U.S., and it was funded by Google’s Jigsaw unit, which helped design the videos. The videos can be watched at inoculation.science.

• Check where a clip or image came from. See our guide to checking viral videos.
• Weigh big claims fairly. See our answers on extraordinary claims and common thinking traps.
• Notice your feelings. If a post makes you furious or afraid, pause before sharing; emotional language is one of the five techniques above.

Some suspicions have been right, and the fair way to sort them is by evidence you can check.