Conspiracy Theories: Belief is Rooted in Evolution – Not Ignorance
The capacity to ignore valid facts has most likely had adaptive value throughout human evolution. Therefore, this capacity is in our genes today. Ultimately, realising this is our best bet to tackle the problem.
Fitting into a group is what’s most important to us. But when knowledge and
group bonding don’t converge, we often prioritize fitting in over pursuing
the
most valid knowledge.
It became evident that much of knowledge resistance is better understood as a manifestation of social rationality. Essentially, humans are social animals; fitting into a group is what’s most important to us. Often, objective knowledge-seeking can help strengthen group bonding – such as when you prepare a well-researched action plan for your colleagues at work. But when knowledge and group bonding don’t converge, we often prioritise fitting in over pursuing the most valid knowledge...
Conspiracy Theories: Evolved Functions & Psychological Mechanisms
We review evidence pertaining to two competing evolutionary hypotheses:
(a) conspiracy beliefs are a by-product of a suite of psychological mechanisms (e.g., pattern recognition, agency detection, threat management, alliance detection) that evolved for different reasons, or
(b) conspiracy beliefs are part of an evolved psychological mechanism specifically aimed at detecting dangerous coalitions.
This latter perspective assumes that conspiracy theories are activated after specific coalition cues, which produce functional counterstrategies to cope with suspected conspiracies. Insights from social, cultural and evolutionary psychology provide tentative support for six propositions that follow from the adaptation hypothesis.
We propose that people possess a functionally integrated mental system to detect conspiracies that in all likelihood has been shaped in an ancestral human environment in which hostile coalitions—that is, conspiracies that truly existed—were a frequent cause of misery, death, and reproductive loss...
Adaptive-Conspiracism Hypothesis
The adaptive-conspiracism hypothesis asserts that the human tendency to believe conspiracy theories is not a by-product of (a) a large neocortex that is capable of sophisticated reasoning or (b) psychological mechanisms such as pattern recognition and agency detection that evolved for different purposes.
Instead, conspiracy theories uniquely helped ancestral humans to navigate their social world better and anticipate and overcome imminent dangers in their environment. Specifically, we reason that
- in an environment in which coalitional violence - that is, violence committed by actual conspirators occurring both within and between groups - was a common cause of death and reproductive loss, it may have been adaptive for people to be suspicious of the possibility that other people were forming malevolent conspiracies against them or their group.
- Detecting and possibly overrecognizing secret conspiracies before they strike may motivate a suite of emotional and behavioral responses to mitigate such threats, including taking defensive actions (e.g., migrating elsewhere) or offensive actions (e.g., a preemptive strike).
Consistent with this line of reasoning, error-management theory posits that human beings will be biased in predictable ways when the costs of false positives are unequal to the costs of false negatives... Mistaking a stick for a snake is relatively harmless in that it produces only unnecessary avoidance behaviors. Mistaking a snake for a stick, on the other hand, can be lethal.
We propose that the same logic applies to conspiracy theories specifically, provided that the ancestral environment contained sufficient dangerous coalitions to render overrecognition of hostile conspiracies adaptive... Although conspiracy theories are closely associated with coalitional conflict, one distinct feature of conspiracy theories is secrecy: Perceivers merely suspect a hostile coalition preparing malevolent action. People may thus make mistakes by over- or underrecognizing conspiracies. Although both types of mistakes involve certain costs, error-management theory would predict that underrecognizing conspiracies becomes more costly (and overrecognizing conspiracies less costly) to the extent that the dangers of real conspiracies increase...
More specifically, detecting a conspiracy where in fact none exists may involve a range of possible costs, including reputation damage, social exclusion, or harming innocent people that could be useful cooperation partners. Many of these costs depend on a range of social parameters, however: For instance, conveying conspiracy theories has little reputational consequences if a group majority is willing to believe in them. Furthermore, although spreading false rumors may decrease the social standing of an individual, social exclusion would be a less realistic consequence in ancient hunter-gatherer societies: A deviant group member also needed to be considered harmful, or at least insufficiently beneficial, to the group (Kurzban & Leary, 2001). Finally, although in modern times conspiracy theories can carry a social stigma (Harambam & Aupers, 2015), using the label “conspiracy theory” does not decrease people’s belief in it (Wood, 2016). This suggests that the possible reputational consequences of conspiracy theories do not discourage people from believing in them.
The costs of overrecognizing conspiracies are complex because they depend on a range of social parameters, but the costs of failing to detect a conspiracy that actually exists can be relatively straightforward. By definition, actual conspiracies secretly plan to harm people, for instance by stealing resources or women, exploitation, raiding, killing, or, at the extreme, genocide. Underrecognizing conspiracies may therefore translate to major costs for victimized individuals or groups. Balancing the trade-off between costs of over- and underrecognizing conspiracies, we tentatively conclude that, particularly in an environment in which dangerous conspiracies are omnipresent, error-management theory would predict an adaptive human predisposition to be suspicious of possible conspiracy formation even when this increases the chance of false positives. Put differently, people err on the side of caution, thus overrecognizing coalitional dangers through quick mental calculations gauging the likelihood of hostile conspiracies.
This line of reasoning would suggest that the psychological processes underlying conspiracy theories are an integral part of an adaptive human coalitional psychology with the aim of detecting secret and dangerous coalitions and assessing the costs and benefits of particular strategies to counter such threats (Tooby & Cosmides, 2010). If this is true, then conspiracy theories are reliably triggered by cues in the social environment that—directly or indirectly—suggest a heightened risk of coalitional aggression or exploitation. Once a conspiracy has been detected, people should then show adaptive responses to deal with such secret and hostile coalitions. In short, being suspicious of conspiracies would have given early humans an edge in the competition over reproductive resources.
We argue for the adaptive nature of conspiracy beliefs by evaluating the evidence for a number of propositions that follow from the assertion that belief in conspiracy theories is part of an adaptive human coalitional psychology designed to deal with the realistic threat of coalitional violence among ancestral humans. These propositions are based on common requirements that a psychological mechanism must meet to qualify as an adaptation, including its complexity, universality, domain specificity, interactivity, efficiency, and functionality (Schmitt & Pilcher, 2004). In Table 1, we summarize the propositions and falsifiable predictions that follow from these requirements if a tendency to believe conspiracy theories indeed has been an adaptive feature of ancestral humans.
Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Mark van Vugt, 2018
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6238178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6238178/?report=classic
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1745691618774270
Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Following Ostracism
Research suggests that some people are more easily influenced by conspiracy theories than others. For example, people who are anxious or insecure are more prone to believe conspiracy theories than those who are calm and secure. We wondered whether people would become more conspiracy-minded when they have been ostracized by others because ostracism is threatens people’s sense of security and psychological well-being.
Human beings cannot live without adequate support from other people. Throughout human evolution, our ancestors relied on others for food and shelter to survive, and even in modern times, we still seek to connect with those around us. Failing to connect with other people, especially when we are being ostracized by others, we become vulnerable. My colleagues and I thought that the threats that arise from ostracism may lead people to think like conspiracy theorists because ostracized people want to understand their environment to avoid potential threats and dangers.
https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/beliefs-conspiracy-theories-following-ostracism
Penchant For The Conspiracy Theory Has Been Around as Long as Homo Sapiens
A conspiracy theory is the suspicion that a group of actors have joined together in secret agreement to plan evil acts. This definition implies that a conspiracy always consists of multiple actors that work together in a coalition or a group.
Conspiracies are planned by enemy groups:
‘They’ are trying to harm ‘Us’.
The root of conspiracy thinking lies in our ancient instinct to divide the social world into ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ categories.
Before the agricultural revolution of roughly 12,000 years ago, all (most) human beings lived in small bands of hunter-gatherers. Such small societies didn’t have social media, populist movements, Democrats versus Republicans, or ethnic and religious diversity. What many of these societies did have, however, was lethal conflict with other groups. Although the prevalence of tribal warfare varied substantially between eras and locations, on average ancient humans had to be on guard for enemy groups much more than modern humans are.
The realistic dangers of hostile groups thus constituted an adaptive problem for ancestral humans.
Without the protection of large states and a strong rule of law, violent coalitions – that is, actual conspiracies – pose a real and serious danger to people’s lives and wellbeing.
(- What psychological features would increase the likelihood of surviving the perils of violence committed by other groups? -)
The human capacity to make assumptions about the intentions of others.
Does that different tribe in the vicinity have positive, peaceful intentions? Or are they planning to attack and kill us in order to confiscate our territory and resources? By making such assumptions, people gauge how dangerous different groups are before they strike. Such empathic foresight enables people to take appropriate, life-saving action on time…
(- ancestral humans evolved to be conspiracy theorists -) This can manifest itself in various ways, such as conspiracy theories about how exactly different groups prepare to commit harm, or theories that blame these different groups for the misfortune that one experiences.
Due to the actual perils of violent coalitions or groups, it was too risky to take chances and trust groups that one did not know very well, and that were powerful enough to commit harm.
After the agricultural revolution, human beings gradually started living in large states and societies changed at a fast pace. However, this didn’t change people’s tendency to suspect conspiracies…
People make assumptions of how a different group colludes in secret to harm or deceive them. Modern conspiracy theories are thus rooted in our ancient tribal instinct to classify the world into ‘Us’ versus ‘Them’. This insight helps to explain the appeal of conspiracy theories among populist movements, which describe an eternal struggle between regular, hardworking citizens and a corrupt elite...
Finding that conspiracy theories evolved for good reason in the past doesn’t mean that it is desirable to believe conspiracy theories in the present. Many present-day conspiracy theories are maladaptive and lead to poor health choices such as rejecting vaccines or contraceptives , climate-change denialism, hostility, xenophobia, radicalism and, in extreme cases, violence...
https://aeon.co/essays/how-conspiracy-theories-evolved-from-our-drive-for-survival
Suspicion of Institutions: How Distrust & Conspiracy Theories Deteriorate Social Relationships - ScienceDirect
Many citizens distrust powerful societal institutions, and hold conspiracy theories about them. What are the implications of this suspicion of institutions for people’s social relationships? The current paper proposes that institutions have at least two functions to regulate citizens’ social relationships: providing people with a sense of safety, and providing models for group norms and values. Suspicion of institutions undermines both of these functions, and therefore yields a range of negative societal outcomes by impacting people’s interpersonal, within-group, and between-group relationships. More specifically, suspicion of institutions reduces trust between strangers, within-group cooperation, commitment, and prosocial behavior, and increases prejudice, intergroup conflict, polarization, and extremism. We conclude that institutional distrust and conspiracy theories erode the fabric of society.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X21000828
On The Positive Relationship Between Food Industry Conspiracy Beliefs & Conscious Food Choices
Previous research found that conspiracy beliefs were usually activated when individuals faced different types of psychological threats and that they led mainly to maladaptive individual and societal outcomes. In this research, we assumed that potential harmfulness of conspiracy beliefs may depend on the context, and we focused on the link between food industry conspiracy beliefs and conscious food choices. We hypothesized that food industry conspiracy beliefs may allow for a constructive attempt to protect oneself against real or imagined enemies (i.e., food industry companies) by conscious food choices (e.g., paying attention to how much the food products are processed). We tested this hypothesis among Polish participants (Study 1; N = 608; cross-sectional and Study 2; N = 790; experimental). Study 1 confirmed that context-specific conspiracy beliefs (but not general notions of conspiracy) are associated with adaptive consumer behaviors. Study 2 showed that inducing feelings of threat related to the possibility of purchasing food contaminated by a harmful bacteria (vs. control condition) increased food industry conspiracy beliefs, which were further positively linked to conscious food choices. We discuss the role of threat and conspiracy beliefs in adaptive consumer behaviors related to food choices.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272737
A Longitudinal Analysis of Conspiracy Beliefs & Covid-19 Health Responses | Psychological Medicine | Cambridge Core
Little is known about how conspiracy beliefs and health responses are interrelated over time during the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. This longitudinal study tested two contrasting, but not mutually exclusive, hypotheses through cross-lagged modeling. First, based on the consequential nature of conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that conspiracy beliefs predict an increase in detrimental health responses over time. Second, as people may rationalize their behavior through conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that detrimental health responses predict increased conspiracy beliefs over time.
False Flag Conspiracy Theories: Psyche, Society, & The Internet
Since FFCTs represent a subset of conspiracy theories, it seems plausible that false flag conspiracy theorizers share some general features with the broader set of conspiracy theorists. However, it is difficult to construct a reliable profile of the typical conspiracy theorist (CT). Although some studies have linked CTs with low educational level, extreme right-wing political orientation, and paranoid personality traits, these findings have been inconsistent and may vary among specific conspiracy theories. That said, results from 4 large studies of US adults found that a strong mistrust of “officialdom” is a major factor in the conspiratorial mindset, particularly (and disproportionately) among political conservatives.
https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/false-flag-conspiracy-theories-psyche-society-and-the-internet
Conspiracy Theories - Psychology That Drives People Toward Them
Everyone's a suspect
Conspiracy theorists can be conservative, liberal or any other political stripe — male or female, rich or poor, well educated or not.
To some extent, the human brain is wired to find conspiracy theories appealing. People are highly evolved when it comes to the ability to draw conclusions and predict consequences based on sensory data and observation. But sometimes those same processes can lead to oversimplifications and misperception through what psychologists refer to as "cognitive bias," Van Prooijen said.
Among the cognitive biases Van Prooijen and other psychologists believe contribute to the appeal of conspiracy theories are:
- Confirmation bias: People's willingness to accept explanations that fit what they already believe.
- Proportionality bias: The inclination to believe that big events must have big causes.
- Illusory pattern perception: The tendency to see causal relations where there may not be any.
Yet, there are factors that make some people more or less inclined to accept conspiracy theories.
People with greater knowledge of the news media are less likely to believe conspiracy theories, according to a new study, “News Media Literacy and Conspiracy Theory Endorsement,” in the current issue of Communication and the Public.
“It’s significant that knowledge about the news media — not beliefs about it, but knowledge of basic facts about structure, content and effects — is associated with less likelihood one will fall prey to a conspiracy theory, even a theory that is in line with one’s political ideology,” co-author Stephanie Craft, a University of Illinois journalism professor, told the Columbia Journalism Review.
Oliver believes the greatest predictor of people's likelihood to accept conspiracy theories is the degree to which they rely on their intuition over analytical thinking.
"They go with their gut feelings. They’re very susceptible to symbols and metaphors," he said...
An act of faith
The absence of evidence never got in the way of a good conspiracy theory. No matter how unlikely a given imagined conspiracy, and no matter how many facts are produced to disprove it, the true believers never budge.
For example, even when Obama released his birth certificate many "birthers" were still certain he was not a natural-born American citizen. The fact that multitudes of horrified people witnessed the planes fly into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, hasn't stopped conspiracy theorists from insisting the towers collapsed because of a controlled demolition.
And what do you say to the people who still aren't convinced we went to the moon or that the Earth is flat?
"I’ve learned that is there no such thing as evidence that persuades a conspiracy theorist," Posner said. "It’s sort of a psycho-religious belief, in part. They just know it’s true even if they can’t quite prove it."
Van Prooijen also called conspiracy theories a "form of belief."
"It doesn’t matter how much evidence to the contrary you raise, these hardcore conspiracy theories will discredit the source of the evidence," van Prooijen said. "It’s very easy to dismiss evidence as being part of the conspiracy, being part of the coverup. So it’s very hard to disprove a conspiracy theory."...
So, what's the harm?
Irrational conspiracy theories can lead people to not vaccinate their children, to deny the scientific evidence of climate change or to dismiss mass shootings like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary as "false flag" operations meant to spur gun control.
A wildly irrational conspiracy theory that presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was connected to a child-sex ring that was being run out of a Washington pizza shop even led to a man opening fire in the restaurant with a semi-automatic rifle. Fortunately, he shot at the ceiling and not the patrons.
Van Prooijen believes such conspiratorial thinking can undermine democracy because it sows distrust and leads to groups perceiving each other as enemies.
Oliver does not believe conspiracy theories have a major impact on politics as much as they are symptomatic of problems with the political system.
"It’s less about the conspiracy theories themselves and it’s more about kind of the flight from reason in political discourse," he said. "American democracy is a product of the Enlightenment, it’s a very explicitly rationalist enterprise."
And if people reject rationality to embrace what they believe over what they can prove, that Democratic enterprise could begin to unravel.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2017/12/23/conspiracy-theory-psychology/815121001/
Science Denial, Explained by Psychologists;
“The people who deny science are often trying to uphold membership in something that they find meaningful,” says Nina Eliasoph, PhD, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California. That meaningful thing could be a political or religious affiliation or some other group that prizes certain ideas or ideals. Whatever shape that group takes, the important thing is that it has other members — it’s a community.
Once a community absorbs an idea into its collective viewpoint, rejecting that idea becomes akin to rejecting the whole community, Eliasoph says. And that sort of rejection is a very, very difficult thing for any of its members to do. “This is why you talk with people who deny science and the goalposts are always changing,” she says. “What really matters is the membership in the thing that has meaning, and to keep that membership you have to ignore certain ideas and pay attention to others.”
https://elemental.medium.com/how-identity-not-ignorance-leads-to-science-denial-533686e718fa
Reflective thinking predicts lower conspiracy beliefs: A meta-analysis
https://journal.sjdm.org/22/220408/jdm220408.html
A terrifying new theory: Fake news and conspiracy theories as an
evolutionary strategy
https://www.salon.com/2021/08/08/a-terrifying-new-theory-fake-news-and-conspiracy-theories-as-an-evolutionary-strategy/
