Library of Professional Coaching

The Crises of Expertise and Belief: Sample Chapter

Kevin Weitz

 

Kevin Weitz, Psy.D. and William Bergquist, Ph.D.

Purchase this Book

 

Chapter Five

The Dangerous Influence of Conspiracy Theories

One key element of any conspiracy theory is pattern perception – an assumption about how people and events are causally connected … Understanding the world by identifying cause and effect helped our ancestors to recognize threats and opportunities, to foresee the consequences of their actions, and to strategically adjust their behavior to fit the demands of the situation. Whereas many of the patterns that people perceive are real and functional to internalize, people sometimes mistakenly perceive patterns that do not exist. – Van Prooijen and van Vugt (2018)

Were you aware that the devastating forest fires that plagued California in past years were intentionally caused by space lasers? Republican representative Marjorie Taylor Greene posted this theory on Facebook connecting the Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, to the California wildfires. The post held that space lasers may have been used to start the fires to clear the area for a planned high-speed rail project. Also, please be cautious when traveling to the Denver airport because it contains an underground lair that the super-rich will use as a safe haven to avoid the apocalypse. The airport is also the secret headquarters of the illuminati who strategize a new world order. And, by the way, they are lizard people.

Large numbers of people actually believe these stories and many like them. Some are benign and even somewhat humorous (like the Flat Earth Society), but some are so bazaar that they scare and mobilize people, such as the QANON conspiracy theory, and lead to violence.  These conspiracy theories have contributed to polarization in the United States and have torn communities and families apart. They have also played a role in increasing distrust in leaders and experts across the nation and around the world.

 

We Are All Just Human

The Dutch psychologist, Jan-Willem Van Prooijen (2018) proposes that people have a strong natural and historically entrenched tendency to affiliate with others and have a fundamental need to belong to social groups. This need becomes stronger when there is a perceived threat, such as Covid, terrorism or war. As this affiliation process occurs, so our brains form US/THEM dichotomies.

We distinguish at a very deep (biological) level between the group we are part of and other groups we are not (Robert Sapolsky, 2017). This includes group differentiation based on race, gender and societal status. Sapolsky describes how quickly and tenuously people connect with and trust others into so-called in-groups and identify with (and distrust) out-groups. In-groups are considered good, and out-groups are generally considered bad and potentially dangerous.

Neural Differentiation

We suggest that this process of differentiation might be built into the fundamental neural processes that occur in human beings. Founded in the Amygdala, there is a wired-in ongoing assessment of that which is perceived as threatening to us. This assessment, in turn, might be related to the three “semantic differential” categories identified by Osgood (1957) many years ago. Is the potentially threatening entity positively or negatively oriented toward my (our) personal welfare (good or bad)? Second, is this entity active or passive with regard to their relationship to me (us)? Third, is this entity relatively strong or weak in relationship to me (us)?

If group differentiation yields a “Them”” that is bad, active and strong, then this group is truly to be feared and can readily become the focus of a conspiracy. In terms used by the so-called “chaos theorists”, the Amygdala-embedded assessment of the menacing “other” can be a “strange attractor” that not only draws our attention, but also our energy, thoughts and emotions. This is the innate starting point in which people begin to distrust, doubt and fear others, and ultimately reject any kind of advice or information from these out-groups, their leaders or experts, whether the information or advice is scientifically sound or not – facts are irrelevant in the face of fear. They begin to sense a conspiracy against their personal and collective welfare.

Differentiation and Conspiracy

This process unfolds naturally and largely unconsciously to most people. Karen Douglas and her associates (Douglas, et. al., 2016b) conclude that “conspiracy theories result from the basic human tendency to categorize the world into ingroups and outgroups and from the corresponding desire to protect one’s ingroup from powerful outgroups that might be dangerous”. While this process is innate to humans, and has a survival component, it can also have major negative outcomes for both in-groups and outgroups, particularly when people’s susceptibility to conspiracy theories is manipulated by unscrupulous leaders for their own benefit. In particular, unscrupulous leaders can undermine, demean and demonize leaders and experts in out-groups who put forward opposing ideas.

Van Prooijen (2018) describes the enabling effects of a conspiracy theory. First, the conspiracy theory enables those who believe in this theory to demonize outsiders. Extremist fringe groups make rather sharp distinctions between “us” versus “them.” Conspiracy theories enable these groups to solidify a strong identity among their members by fueling aversion against different groups. The second form of enablement is engaged when a conspiracy theory directs extremist groups to discredit criticism within the group. Dissenting voices may threaten the cohesion of extremist groups, but conspiracy theories enable these groups to portray critics as part of a hostile conspiratorial threat.

There is a third form of enablement. Conspiracy theories can give extremist fringe groups the feeling that the threat is existential and that violence is the only remaining option to protect themselves and their way of life. More specifically, conspiracy theories can add to the sense that the group – or the cause that the group stands for – is under imminent attack by a hostile enemy. There is an urgent need for an adequate response. A peaceful reaction is unlikely to be effective.

Conspiracy theories may have always been with us. We envisioned the threat of a neighboring tribe or the mal intentions of that family living down the street. These theories are a natural function of people attempting to understand a complex and increasingly rapidly-changing (VUCA-Plus) world. These theories are a guide for developing reasons and rationales that serve a protective function. In terms of the formal definition of a conspiracy theory, there is always some form of threat that is omnipresent, multifaceted and complex. People viscerally respond to these threats by attempting to identify patterns, causality and culpability:

“Such illusory pattern perception is a result of the evolved human tendency to make sense of the world and, by extension, could produce a sensitivity to conspiracy theories” (National Institute of Health, nd1).

These threats are almost always perceived to be orchestrated by powerful individuals in out-groups. When leaders and experts associated with these out-groups attempt to explain the dynamics of what is emerging (like Covid-19, terrorist threats, economic hardship etc.) they are almost always disbelieved by in-groups. In effect, any expert attempting to explain away a threat, is perceived as part of the threat.

Conspiracy theorists are almost always at odds with experts in the specific field of science involved in dealing with threatening social issues such as Covid, other diseases, terrorism (9/11) and disasters such as war or assassinations (Uscinski, 2018a). Uscinski notes that going back to 1956, observers have noted that science and experts were often powerless at the hands of conspiracy theories. One can imagine the frustration experienced by experts and medical scientists such as Doctor Anthony Fauci when confronted by angry cynics who reject almost all scientific logic and reasoning ultimately to their own detriment.

The Nature and Function of Conspiracy Theories

Uscinski (2018a) considers a conspiracy theory to be an explanation of events – past, current or potential future – that includes the notion that a small group of powerful and secretive people are acting for their own diabolical benefits and to the disadvantage of society in general (or at least to the in-group). These powerful individuals or groups are always considered dangerous – they have power and will leverage that power over others that don’t. Conspiracy theories, by definition, have not been proven – indeed if they are or can be proven, they are no longer considered conspiracy theories.

Van Prooijen (2018) proposes that conspiracy theories contain five elements:

  1. Connecting patterns – Any conspiracy theory explains events by establishing nonrandom connections between actions, objects, and people. A conspiracy theory assumes that the chain of incidents that caused a suspect event did not occur through coincidence.
  2. Agency – A conspiracy theory assumes that a suspect event was caused on purpose by intelligent actors: There was a sophisticated and detailed plan that was intentionally developed and carried out.
  3. Coalitions – A conspiracy theory always involves a coalition or group of multiple actors, usually but not necessarily humans (examples of nonhuman conspiracy theories are The Matrix and the “alien lizard” conspiracy theories). If one believes that a single individual, a lone wolf, is responsible for a suspect event, this belief is not a conspiracy theory – for the simple reason that it does not involve a group conspiring against others for their personal benefit.
  4. Hostility – A conspiracy theory assumes the suspected coalition to pursue goals that are evil, selfish, or otherwise not in the public interest. Certainly, people may sometimes suspect a benevolent conspiracy, and benevolent conspiracies indeed do exist (for example, as adults we conspire every year to convince children of the existence of Santa Claus), but these would not be considered conspiracy theories.
  5. Continued secrecy – Conspiracy theories are about coalitions that operate in secret. With “continued” secrecy, … that the conspiracy has not yet been exposed by hard evidence, and hence its assumed operations remain secret and uncertain. A conspiracy that is exposed and hence proven true is no longer a “theory”; instead, it is an established example of actual conspiracy formation. Conspiracy theories are thus, by definition, unproven.

With these foundational pieces in place, we will consider some of the psychological dynamics operating in the production and maintenance of conspiracies.

Looking for threats and finding enemies – we do it automatically

The “US” versus “THEM” psychology (creating in-groups and out-groups) involves inflating the positive aspects of US groups – we are better, smarter, more moral and more effective at almost everything than “those other people”. Over time, a sense of reciprocity and re-affirmation develops within the in-group – we want and need to be similar in our thinking and behavior to feel more closely bound together and safe. People in the in-group trust one another – together we share something special that is unknown to those “others”. This powerful driver of US/THEM works the opposite in terms of viewing THEMs. They are seen as “threatening, hostile, untrustworthy”.

This unconscious process, in-built in humans, is described by object relations theorists such as Fairbairn and Klein (Greenberg and Mitchell, 1983, Ogden, 1986) as a primitive “splitting” function. It begins in early childhood with the separation of the “good mother” (who responds to and fulfills all our needs as a child) from the “bad mother” (who holds back from us and restricts some of our behaviors).

As parents, we need to serve both the “good” and “bad” functions in order to protect our child and help them gradually (by providing a safe container) confront the challenges of “reality.” Yet, the “ghost” of this splitting function lingers with us, even as we mature. Especially under conditions of stress and uncertainty we are pulled back to splitting the world we confront into “good” and “bad” (or perhaps into good/bad, active/passive and strong/weak).

On the other hand, the traditional experts – those “elites” with all of the credentials and academic pedigrees—represents the “bad mother.” These so-called experts don’t’ give us what we want in terms of a reassuring reality. They are asking us to restrict our behavior—much as the “bad mother” does. Like the bad mother, these experts possess evil motives. They are the real-life “witches” to be found in Grimm’s fairy tales (and Disney movies). These 21st Century witches are also quite active and very powerful. So, beware of what they have to say and find a way to combat their influence—even if this might mean physical violence (“kill the messenger!”).

As adults, we find that the splitting function is rarely adaptive. In fact, it is potentially dangerous and even self-destructive to our well-being. We are now well-served when we automatically distrust and disbelieve out-groups and their leaders and experts simply because they are not part of our in-group. Similarly, we can trust and believe non-experts (and sometimes charlatans) simply because they are members of our in-group.

And there is a downward spiral from there – as Van Prooijen (2018) observes, people who are inclined to distrust other people are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than people who are inclined to trust other people. Furthermore, people tend to specifically believe in conspiracy theories about groups that are ideologically dissimilar to themselves.

“Conspiracy theory adherence is related to distrust of people in general” (Researchgate.net). Distrust is directly especially to scientists and other experts touting information that may contradict an in-group’s beliefs. Conspiracy theorists are almost always at odds with experts in the specific field of science involved Critical thinking is absent.  The Oregonian newspaper noted this powerlessness in 1956 after ten of twelve fluoridation measures across the state were defeated because of distrust of leaders and experts —leading to increased tooth decay in towns that banned fluoride in drinking water (Uscinski, 2018b). This mistrust and resulting damage tend to linger. We only have to look back to our very recent past where conspiracy theories related to Covid-19 have led to the deaths of many thousands of people.

How do conspiracy theories emerge?

The key factor regarding conspiracies seems to be the appearance of a crises, such as a terrorist attack, Covid, a war in Ukraine or the middle east, or the collapse of the financial markets. Circumstances are rapidly changing and the reasons are unclear and news reports conflicting. Susceptible people feel out of control and scared. Under these conditions, they are more likely to interpret the changing dynamics as part of a conspiracy by powerful “out-group” people attempting to leverage advantage over them for their own sinister benefits. As circumstances change, cause-and-effect connections are made in an attempt to understand and make sense of what is unfolding. These changing circumstances are certainly common in a VUCA-Plus environment.

Psychologists would say that the anxiety associated with a crisis tends to produce defensive protection—much as we have described previously in this book when we linked VUCA-Plus to anxiety. As we have noted, the initial response in diffuse anxiety is often Freeze. We often do nothing when confronted initially with a threat. The threat might be imagined (a lion that doesn’t actually exist) or real. It doesn’t matter. We still are likely to freeze in place. If the crisis tends to linger and is not resolved, then the defensive strategy becomes increasing “regressive” (primitive, child-like).

Cause-and-effect assessments become distorted, with the cause of crisis being assigned to the “out-group.” Sense-making is framed exclusively as We/They. We still might be frozen in place, but we can take “cognitive action” by beginning to distort the world we see so that the threat is better “understood” and assigned to some outside force. The real or imagined lion is identified and associated directly with an outside group. This brings us some comfort—especially if we can also identify some heroic figure (such as a political figure) who declared that they shall slay this lion.

As Van Prooijen notes “Conspiracy theories appeal to a basic, dark fear that we all are string puppets under the control of powerful, sinister, and invisible forces. Conspiracy theories refer to hidden, secret, and malignant organizations that influence our lives without us being aware of it  – negative emotions, particularly feelings of fear and uncertainty – form a key causal factor to explain why conspiracy theories are prevalent among large segments of the population. These negative emotions explain why conspiracy theories flourish in the wake of societal crisis situations”. The risk with these beliefs is that people tend to disbelieve experts and scientists simply because they are seen as members of out-groups – if they are not part of OUR group, they must be part of the threat.

Uscinski (2018a) offers the following conclusion: “Sizable portions of the public reject the science on vaccines, GM foods, fluoride, and climate change due to belief in conspiracy theories. Some conspiracy theories accuse scientists of being involved in a scam to defraud, injure, or kill the public … there exists a sizable distrust of science and scientists”. In most cases, these beliefs are self-defeating in that they potentially harm the believers.

Van Prooijen concludes that “Uncertainty about the future, feelings of alienation, fast-changing power structures in society, rapid technological advancement, or a deep-rooted distrust towards formal authorities can all stimulate conspiracy theories. Negative emotions elicit sense-making processes in which people assume the worst, increasing people’s suspicious feelings towards powerful, dissimilar, or distrusted outgroups”.

An accelerator of these suspicions amongst vulnerable people is where manipulative leaders of these in-groups fuel these fears and stoke division for their own ends. An example of this manipulation is the Fox News/Dominion civil lawsuit in which internal emails show that Fox News hosts such as Tucker Carlson did not honestly believe the conspiracy theories and misinformation he was vociferously voicing to his audience.

Depending on the severity of the uncertain times (at least perceived as uncertain by the in-group), people become hyper-sensitive and aware of potential perceived threats. According to Van Prooijen this can often lead them to: “perceive patterns in what actually are coincidences, and feelings of fear and uncertainty worsen such illusory pattern perception. Studies for instance show that when people lack control, they not only start seeing conspiracy threats, but they also start seeing patterns in other stimuli, such as images in random noise, patterns in stock market information, and superstition”.

These suspicious people then tend to connect these random occurrences into a connected pattern that is entirely false and often absurd. It is often observed that those who believe in conspiracy theories reject “facts”, however in their eyes, this is not the case. Indeed, the process that Van Prooijen identifies concerning the connecting of “perceived patterns” often produces an argument used by believers concerning the non-believer’s failure to use facts. Conspiracy believers connect disparate, random, ever evolving “facts”, where there is no real connection (a condition called apophenia), into an elaborate and complex story and accuse disbelievers of ignoring the “clear cause and effect” relationship amongst these pieces of information. The QAnon conspiracy theory is a good example of this vast and ever mutating story.

What Kinds of People Tend to Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

As we note in chapter 8 (and in more detail in chapters 11 and 12), it is much too easy to identify those who embrace a conspiracy theory as somehow being “stupid”, “uneducated” or somehow “infected” from birth with a proclivity toward conspiracy. There is really no such thing as a “conspiratorial personality”—just as it is hard to attribute all forms of authoritarianism to some widespread breakout of the “authoritarian personality.” When we offer these simplistic explanations, then we are guilty of the same distortion of cause-and-effects and the same We/They mentality that we are assigning to the conspirators. We are just as vulnerable to anxiety and regression as those we have identified as evil conspirators. It is important for all of us to remain vigilant regarding our own beliefs when residing in a society that is saturated with VUCA-Plus.

While popular media tend to portray conspiracy theory believers as somewhat crazy, Van Prooijen suggests that “large portions of normal, law-abiding, well-functioning citizens believe these conspiracy theories. Furthermore, while conspiracy theories are slightly more common in the lower educated segment of society, they are by no means exclusive to this segment, as they also emerge among high-profile managers, actors, scientists, lawyers”. However, it is difficult to dismiss some level of “ignorance and craziness” when belief in bazaar conspiracy theories and dismissal of expert scientists and experienced leaders in turn damages the conspiracy believers themselves.

Indeed, Karen Douglas and her associates (2016b) suggest that the “drawbacks of conspiracy theories do not seem to be readily apparent to people who lack the ability or motivation to think critically and rationally. In cognitive psychology, rationality is defined as thinking, acting, speaking, reasoning or taking a decision in conformity with a normative (scientific) theory (Researchgate.net). In this context, conspiracy believers who believe conspiracy theories without question fail the “rationality” test.

What does this mean? On the one hand, we find that conspiracy belief is correlated with lower levels of analytic thinking (Swami, et. al., 2014) and lower levels of education (Douglas, et al., 2016b). On the other hand, thinking skills and education do not entirely account for conspiratorial perspectives. Correlation is about relationships, not about causation. Lower education levels, for instance, tend to correlate with lower socio-economic levels. This lower level on the totem pole might account much more toward the proclivity toward conspiracy, than does educational level.

Furthermore, when a person lives continually under stress (as do people with low paying jobs or no jobs at all), we know that cognitive functions tend to decline. Psychoanalysts speak of this as regression and note its profound psychodynamic damage to the individual and to the groups in which an individual functions. This complex set of factors that contribute to the creation of a conspiratorial mind-set is evident in cross-societal analyses of conspiracy. “In sum [according to Van Prooijen] conspiracy theories flourish particularly among people at the edges of the political spectrum in modern democracies – specifically, the populist left and the populist right”. Van Prooijen is focusing specifically on American and European societies.

Feeling out of control and powerless

Research by Benjamin Dow and associates (2023) shows convincingly that when people feel powerless or out of control, the likelihood that they will believe conspiracy theories is increased – especially when propagated by a convincing manipulative leader. As noted previously, people who feel unempowered are more likely to believe a leader who is emphatic and absolute (“Only I …” type language), versus a leader who is equivocal or more balanced.

For example, an environment like Covid 19, with the ambiguity of its origins, debate about its treatment and concerns about the risks of receiving the vaccine, leaders who base their language on scientific facts are more likely to be equivocal (we don’t have all the facts yet, and there are few absolutes). They are then perceived as less effective. This is despite the possibility that emphatic leaders are spewing total “Bullshit” (see the “Bullshit Receptivity Assessment” in a later chapter).

The notion that those who believe in conspiracy theories tend to support in autocratic and authoritarian leaders is bolstered by recent research by Papaioannou et all (2023):

(Our) study’s results bolstered the notion that feelings of political powerlessness might connect conspiracy beliefs with autocratic support. Those exposed to the conspiracy-rich text felt more politically powerless and showed greater endorsement of autocratic leadership.

Conspiracy believers feel powerless, especially in VUCA-Plus environments and seek out authoritarian “strongmen” (almost always men) that seem to share their beliefs and fears, but vociferously and unequivocally voice that they will save the day and make them feel safe. Unfortunately, some of these authoritarian strongmen leaders stoke and exaggerate these fears in order to entrench their leadership power and influence.

The Need for Chaos

Psychological research also describes a mindset amongst some groups of people that is described as “the need for chaos”. This is a concept that refers to the motivation or desire of some people to disrupt the existing social order, challenge the status quo, or create uncertainty and unpredictability. Some possible reasons for this need are:

The need for chaos can have positive or negative effects depending on the context, the intensity, and the frequency of the chaotic behavior. On one hand, chaos can foster creativity, innovation, diversity, and change by challenging existing norms, assumptions, and structures. On the other hand, chaos can cause harm, damage, conflict, and suffering by disrupting social cohesion, trust, cooperation, and well-being. It is easy to identify how this tendency for chaos can be leveraged by opportunistic leaders and pseudo-experts to manipulate followers for their own goals.

A Romantic Relationship Might Help (Go-Figure!)

As previously noted, people tend to socially connect with others that share their conspiracy beliefs – social media undoubtedly accelerates this socialization process. A “group-think” dynamic appears to operate here. People find comfort in social dialogue with like-minded others. This is a reinforcing cycle of belief—that is unless individuals are involved in a romantic relationship! Research by Sandra Murray, et al. (2023) suggests that rewarding romantic connections might limit conspiracy theorists’ susceptibility to believing conspiratorial views, at least in the case of COVID-19.

While Murray’s research does not specifically delve into the “why’s”, it is feasible to speculate that romantic relationships may lessen the “Us-Them” aspect of conspiracy theory thinking as well as foster a less confrontational approach to dialogue on issues of suspicion. This may especially be the case if the romantic relationships are more diverse and cross in-group boundaries. As we describe further in Chapter 15, diversity of input and dialogue appears logically to mediate distrust and disbelief of out-group experts and leaders.

Extreme Left or Right! Or Just Stupid?

Conspiracy theories are relatively more pronounced on the political left in countries where the left tends to be more radical (e.g. parts of Latin America). They are relatively more pronounced on the political right in countries where the right tends to be more radical (e.g., the US). Indeed, the political polarization seen in US politics in recent decades has added to the potential for political extremes to develop and believe conspiracy theories, rejecting information and expert advice from scientists and experienced leaders in various fields (medical, climate, economics etc.) simply on the basis that these experts and leaders are part of out-groups and are therefore likely part of the conspiracy.

Regressing to Stupidity

The limitations in critical thinking and logic are apparent in people and groups that attempt to sense-make through simple reasons—this is where regression in cognitive functions is evident. The level of regression can be quite amazing. Reasoning, for instance, is deeply flawed in the case of Pizzagate where QAnon believers accept a reality in which high-profile Democrats (especially the Clintons) are sexually abusing children at a Washington, D.C. pizzeria. QAnon beliefs eventually led to an armed attack by a gunman.

Edgar Maddison Welch believed the theory and wanted to protect children from abuse. This is just one of many such events extensively researched and documented.  As in the case of Pizzagate, the outrageous reasoning is often not benign. As Douglas and her associates (Douglas, et. al., 2016b) suggest, people who tend to believe these conspiracies “instead of appreciating the complexity of many developments in society, extremist ideologies assert that societal problems occur for simple reasons – for instance, because they are caused deliberately by corrupt outgroups”.

This view is somewhat in contrast to the “connecting the dots” notion where some conspiracy theories, like QAnon, is made up of a complex array of disconnected events and individuals. However, what Douglas is reflecting is that “simple reasons” are cause and effect solutions often identified by people who lack critical thinking. Indeed, Jay Cullen (2018) concludes that:

… there are people that because of their (lack of) educational background, past experiences, and tendency to accept conspiracy theories will simply not accept scientifically derived information from experts (that conflicts with their in-group views). They reject scientific expertise a priori and cannot be brought to change their opinion with factual information when their opinion on a matter is not fact based.

However, Van Prooijen warns that “one of the main mistakes that one can make in explaining conspiracy beliefs is to dismiss them as pathological, (or stupid or ignorant). Instead, … conspiracy theories emerge from regular and predictable psychological responses to feelings of uncertainty and fear”.

While Van Prooijen may be correct in this viewpoint, some research findings (described below) suggests that people with higher levels of education and analytical thinking skills in particular, are able to mentally step back from feelings and thoughts of anxiety. They can “think about their thinking” (metacognition) in a more rationale manner. As a result, they are more likely to come to some kind of realization that a secret cabal of Democratic, Satan-worshipping child molesters, operating in the basement of a pizza parlor (referring to the QAnon conspiracy theory) is probably unlikely.

On the other hand, these educated people might simply be better at hiding their conspiratorial biases than people with less education. Jeff Jacoby (2023) offers research evidence suggesting that attitude regarding antisemitism might be just as strong among people who are “well-educated” as among those with less education. When asked how they feel about Jews, the educated interviews “are sophisticated enough to realize what is being asked.” They make the “correct”, liberated response and hide their own true antisemitic beliefs and feelings. We might extrapolate these findings to the more general domain of authoritarian attitudes and conspiracies.

Perhaps, it is a matter of words being said rather than beliefs held or even actions taken. In many small ways, the antisemite or believer in conspiracies who is educated and has some power will make decisions and enact policies that do real damage. Words might not harm those who are in the minority; however, they are often victims of various forms of “micro-aggressions.” This might be ignoring someone’s opinion in a meeting or simply failing to remember their name but remembering their skin color. These micro-aggressions can do real accumulative harm–as can “macro-aggressions” (such as facing housing or job discrimination).

Conspiracy belief and pathology

Van Prooijen believes that it is a mistake to dismiss belief in conspiracy theories as “pathological.” However, recent research suggests the opposite. Research conducted by Enders and his associates (Enders, et. al., 2022), suggests a link between conspiracy theory believers and anti-social personality disorder:

The public endorsement of conspiracy theories and misinformation by prominent trusted leaders may connect anti-social, conflictual people to those ideas, subsequently motivating them to act… Some conspiracy theories appeal to people who have anti-social and nonnormative traits and who exhibit anti-social behaviors. This might explain why it is so difficult to ‘correct’ some people’s conspiracy theory beliefs: those people are not open to correction or negotiation.

This is an important finding in the sense that the estimated number of people afflicted with anti-social personality disorder range from over 3% of the US population to over 70% of certain subgroups (for example, males with alcohol use disorders and substance abusers). Symptoms of this disorder are quite serious. As noted by the Mayo Clinic (2022) this disorder is to be found among people who tend to manifest the following:

Clearly, these are potentially troubled and dangerous people who require help. However, leaders and experts with nefarious intent can more readily influence individuals with conspiracy-leaning traits. These disturbed men and women not only believe conspiracy fabrications, they also tend to take actions that injure others and ultimately themselves. Put together, pathology and conspiracy beliefs make for a “perfect storm.”

Are Conspiracy Theories Dangerous?

In a situation in which one group feels threatened by another group (perceived as an enemy and identified as enemies by unscrupulous leaders), the potential for distrust, anger and violence is heightened. As described above, belief in conspiracy theories can have dangerous consequences (as in the case of Pizzagate). Conspiracy theory believers do society an injustice by undermining confidence in experienced leaders, scientists and experts in general.

The conspirators foster doubt on important issues related to health and safety amongst other important topics. Uscinski (2018a) observes that:

….. Conspiracy theorists are often accused of being anti-science. There is something to this claim. Sizable portions of the public reject the science on vaccines, GM foods, fluoride, and climate change amongst other fact based scientifically well-researched topics, painting scientific experts as “baffled. By undermining public confidence in the scientific method and the expertise of the scientific community in this way believers can place themselves and others in harm’s way.

The impact which conspiracy theories have is widespread, impacting society at all levels.

The personal damage of conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories, like all forms of bias, prejudice and distortion, can do real personal harm. This can be done through repeated slights, misunderstandings, unfounded assumptions and other forms of “micro-aggressions” that are directly associated with the assignment of certain people to the “Other” category. Macro-aggression is likely to take place when someone has been assigned to the “perpetrator” category.

These “evil” people are to be destroyed or at least isolated and vilified. Ironically, these people are also assigned a level of skill and knowledge (“cunning”) that makes them particularly dangerous. In returning to the Semantic Differential of Charles Osgood (1957), members of the conspiratorial group are not only “bad” – they are also “powerful” and “active.”  Unfortunately, it is not only members of this powerful conspiratorial group that gets harmed, but also those who are being served by these “conspirators.” There is “collateral damage.”

Van Prooijen offers a poignant example of how this macro aggression takes place in this indirect manner. He shows how belief in conspiracy theories concerning the pharmaceutical industry can lead not just to media and political attacks on the leaders of this industry, but also to decisions made by many people not to have their children vaccinated. The children subsequently are getting seriously ill. This is also true for Covid-19 where people have died needlessly for believing that Covid vaccines are part of a grand conspiracy by government and the pharmaceutical industry. These “victims of belief” reject evidence-based research and expert advice from scientists in countries around the world.

Conspiracy theories can even be purposely used as a weapon against enemy out-groups, as we are seeing play out in the Russian attack on Ukraine. Russian leaders describe Ukrainians as “Nazi’s”, and less than human—thus justifying atrocities against civilians. Machiavellian leaders are able to exploit the gullibility of followers who blindly follow their every word against the advice from other leaders and experts simply because these leaders and experts are not part of their in-group.

Van Prooijen indicates that conspiracy theories (in their perceived threat to the in-group) can give extremist fringe groups the feeling that violence is the only remaining option. More specifically, conspiracy theories can add to the sense that the group – or the cause that the group stands for – is under imminent attack by a hostile enemy and there is an urgent need for a response, often violent, and that a peaceful reaction is unlikely to be effective”.

Indeed, as we have seen with findings of the January 6th Commission, that conducted the investigation into the attack on the US Capital, a substantial number of the individuals and groups under investigation have discussed and planned the use of violence in this event. The QAnon conspiracy was widely visible in the extensive video media coverage of this attack.

While conspiracy theory believers and backers can clearly cause violence and physical damage, they can also cause psychological damage. For example, the far-right media personality Alex Jones, who fostered a conspiracy theory about the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting, suggesting they were staged, caused immense distress to the families who lost children in that event. These fabrications foster distrust in the media reporting on these events and in the leaders and experts who are responsible for dealing with these tragedies.

The Sandy Hook families are currently, at time of writing, pursuing legal damages against Alex Jones. It is apparent that Jones did not actually believe that the shooting was staged (effectively he has admitted as such), but rather apparently promoted this conspiracy to attract listeners and viewers to his extreme right wing Infowars media platform.

The Sandy Hook families have claimed that his conspiracy theories were part of a “profit-driven campaign”. Jones now claims that he no longer believes the shooting was staged. This is an example of Machiavellian influencers who foster conspiracy theories amongst their gullible followers, who then believe them without question or logical consideration. The Machiavellian leader then causes serious harm to out-groups.

Conspiracy theories also cause damage by casting doubt on information provided by experts and leaders. These leaders, experts (and scientists) are portrayed as being “baffled” at best— fraudulent and malicious at worst. They foster division between groups and the leaders and experts in these groups. These beliefs can be harmful, even fatal, when groups of people rush down the “rabbit-hole” of myopic belief. Increasingly, those who foster conspiracy theories that cause damage are being treated as criminals—whether they are the perpetrators of violence at the Capital on January 6 or those who perpetrate conspiracy theories for personal gain.

The organizational damage of conspiracy theories (and gossiping)

Everything we have described about conspiracy theories to this point has been in the context of a country or society. However, anyone who has worked in a large organization has likely experienced the damage caused by another form of misinformation and conspiracy. This has to do with the informal and powerful network of communication that is engaged by those without formal power.

In her insight-filled account of women working in 1970’s organizations, Rosabeth Kanter (1977) identifies the gossip network in most organizations as being the primary way in which women working as secretaries and clerks communicate with one another. Furthermore, these women (without much formal power) often could influence their bosses (most often men who do hold formal power), by having access to this gossip network (which often contains information that is not meant for public consumption).

The face-to-face gossip network of the 1970s has been replaced in recent years by the digital network–and by the departure of secretaries and clerks. However, there is still a powerful network operating in most organizations that provide the powerless members of the organization with some influence and feelings of involvement. This network might even help keep an organization agile and responsive to fast-changing conditions. We find in many developmental analyses of communities, that “natural networks” often help those living in the community to receive and deliver help, while also obtaining the “true” information needed for the delivery or reception of support.

There is the other, darker side of the gossip network. It can contribute to the formation of intra-organizational conspiracies. It seems that gossiping has many of the hallmarks and origins of conspiracy theories—and as a result can have damaging results. Indeed, as business consultants, both of us have experienced the damaging effects of “conspiratorial gossiping” in workplace environments.

In one case, for instance, it was an individual leader who played a role that is similar to that of a world leader who is stimulating conspiracy theories for their own malevolent objectives. Working in an international energy company, this leader fostered false stories about other leaders and their intentions. The results were extremely damaging to the people and the project. Several of the employees working in this company were particularly vulnerable to this leader’s false stories. These were men and women who felt particularly vulnerable and helpless.

Apparently, these employees are not alone. Several research studies have shown that when an employee is bullied in the workplace, they are much more susceptible to believing conspiracy theories (Staloch, 2022). Furthermore, as Brian Gallagher (2020) has concluded:

Conspiracy thinking isn’t just a result of information suppression or mis- and dis-information saturation in wider society, of course. It can also fester in the relatively small confines of the workplace, corroding any sense of trust or collaborative spirit in an organization. Conspiracy beliefs can thrive when workers in businesses are relatively powerless, having little responsibility or control over their duties, and face uncertainty concerning things like the motives of new management. Employees in these circumstances are liable to suspect that managers may, for example, conspire to hire a particular person for a job, or coordinate in getting a worker fired.

Douglas and Leite (2016) identify an additional variable that has to do with organizational allegiance (one of the factors that also contribute to collective organizational learning):

Conspiracy theories decrease organizational identification. If an organization is riddled with perceptions of conspiracy, such as beliefs that managers are deliberately trying to harm employees, this is likely to weaken the importance of the organization to the individual and reduce the positive self-esteem they derive from it.

Conspiracy, Coaching and Consulting Redux

We return to the role that can be played by a leadership coach or organizational consultant. First, they can ring the alarm regarding conspiracies. The findings by Douglas and her associates (Douglas, et al. 2016) speak to the nature of this alarm:

. . . managers and employees may need to be mindful of the effects that conspiracy theories could have on the workplace. Considering Conspiracy theories in organizations and the potential costs of (employee) turnover, and the negative effects of low commitment and job satisfaction on behaviors at the workplace such as organizational citizenship behavior, it would be a mistake for members of an organization to dismiss organizational conspiracy theories as idle gossip or rumors with little consequence.

Second, leadership coaches and consultants are in a unique position to counter organizational conspiracy gossiping given that their roles are not “line” positions and are most often trusted advisors. They often cross organizational structure boundaries and formal roles. They can then “follow the conspiracy dialogue” to its source and provide coaching and advice on how reduce gossiping. Coaches and consultants can advise leaders on the potential threat these conspiracy theories pose—and document the potential impact of conspiracies on the organization’s performance.

Leaders, for example, can mistakenly but brazenly stimulate conspiracy gossiping by engaging in cost cutting retrenchments. This organizational strategy has been frequently engaged in recent years. One of us [KW] was consulting for a long period of time with a prominent technology company. An announcement was made by a new senior executive about restructuring of the global business unit. Immediately, this stimulated questions about the potential for redundancies and lay-offs.

The senior executive emphatically stated that there would be no lay-offs, yet within three months extensive lay-offs were announced. This perceived deception caused a cascade of conspiracy gossiping which destroyed trust in this new leader and in the organization as a whole. The explosion of conspiracy theory gossiping that followed was massive as thousands of employees began to worry about their own careers as well as disbelieving their own divisional leaders. The amount of emotional energy and time spent on conspiratorial gossiping sapped productivity and damaged careers in this company.

How to Reduce the Risks Associated with Belief in Conspiracy Theories

The solution to problems that emerge from belief in conspiracy theories is difficult to identify and implement given the societal and human psychology-based etiology of these beliefs. However, as done in previous chapters, we move beyond analysis and offer some potential ways to take action that address the crisis just analyzed. The solution begins with recognition that when groups bond together and find meaning and purpose in these conspiracy theories, then attempting to demonstrate how ridiculous these beliefs are is, in essence, attacking their sense of self, and their group affinity. Often, no amount of fact-based convincing and scientific evidence from experts and leaders will penetrate that barrier. These individuals want and need to believe this conspiracy in order to feel connected with others, in control and with insights others do not have. However, based on the research, here are some short and long-term potential solutions.

Short-term

While people are obviously free to believe anything they want including conspiracy theories, they must be held accountable if acting on these beliefs causes damage and they break the law as a result. If conspiracy theory makers or believers cause damage as a result of these beliefs, they must be held accountable.

An example of this approach is the case of Jake Angeli, also known as the “QAnon Sharman” who was amongst the group that stormed the Capital on January 6th, 2021. The message sent in his prosecution is that it is ok to believe in the QAnon conspiracy theory, but it is not acceptable to justify breaking the law in its defense. Similarly, with the far-right conspiracy theorist creator, Alex Jones (noted above), propagating conspiracy theories that harm people could likely results in lawsuits.

Similar civil lawsuits have been successful in pushing back against right wing attacks on climate science. There is the successful case brought by climate scientist Michael Mann. He won a defamation case in the D.C. Superior Court against two conservative writers who called Mann’s work “fraudulent” and called Mann, who formerly worked at Penn State, the “Sandusky of climate science” (a reference to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football coach and convicted child sex abuser). The conservative authors wrote that Mann had “molested and tortured data” to formulate his “hockey stick” theory. Mann sued Rand Simberg, a policy analyst, and Mark Steyn, a right-wing author, for online posts by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review and was awarded one million dollars (Julia Simon, 2024).

Clearly, the hundreds of people who stormed the US Capitol on January 6th, based on conspiracy theories propagated by political leaders and their attorneys, will also be held accountable. There must be consequences for harmful acts based on belief in these conspiracy theories. In organizational settings, employees who foster conspiracy gossiping that damages productivity and undermines leadership credibility should be held accountable.

Long-term

We can address conspiracy theories by learning how to think analytically and critically. Education levels, and analytical thinking skills in particular, predict who is most likely to believe conspiracy theories: “People with high education are less likely than people with low education to believe in conspiracy theories” (National Institute of Health, nd2). As we have already noted, Jay Cullen (2018) observed that there are people who reject scientific expertise a priori and cannot be brought to change their opinion, even in the face of factual information from credible experts and leaders.

Van Prooijen suggests that “improving people’s capacity to recognize when conspiratorial allegations are implausible” is critical to mitigating this problem. Indeed, “… increasing rationality and offering rational arguments may help in reducing their appeal… Analytic thinking reduces the tendency to believe conspiracy theories, and, consistently, efforts to stimulate analytic thinking (e.g., education) are associated with decreased conspiracy beliefs.”

Van Prooijen (2017) continues:

Consistently, research found that education level is associated with disbelief in paranormal phenomena, a finding that was mediated by analytic thinking—that is, deliberative and conscious information processing. These arguments are relevant for belief in conspiracy theories, which is correlated with belief in paranormal phenomena.

Clearly, improving analytical thinking and logic skills in large populations is a long-term strategy. However, this long game is essential given the potential damage that conspiracy theories can cause, even when refuted by the most trusted experts and scientists in the world.

Scrutiny and accountability by and of social media

Van Prooijen offers additional insights regarding conspiracies. First, he observes that belief in conspiracy theories is not a recent phenomenon. These beliefs have been around since the beginning of humankind. However, “modern communication technologies increase the speed through which people learn about conspiracy theories”– although van Prooijen suggests that it is unlikely these technologies increase the number of people that ultimately believe in them. In our opinion, this is a surprising observation. Van Prooijen does not provide specific research supporting this viewpoint, and our guess is that social media technologies such as Facebook and TikTok, with billions of users, have the capacity to expand the reach of these conspiracy theories massively and rapidly.

Research conducted by Daniel Allington (2020) and a team from King’s College London seem to support our view:

. . . lives are being put at risk by conspiracy theories pumped out by unregulated social media platforms – people who rely on sites such as Facebook and others for information on coronavirus are more likely to reject lockdown (guidelines) than people who access news from other more traditional sources. There are growing calls for some form of control over potentially damaging conspiracy theory information being rapidly and widely spread through social media platforms. A simple Google search on a (conspiracy theory) subject can return 16 million hits (Researchgate.net): “This overwhelming access to information can drive the way people think and their behavior”, and some unscrupulous leaders clearly leverage this process.

We suggest that the size of the population being accessed does make a difference. Conspiracy and technology do create another “perfect storm.”

Leadership Matters

It is unfortunate that, particularly in the political sphere, many world leaders (and their surrogates and influencers), including those in the US, use emotional messaging to foster fear and uncertainty in order to gain support from their constituents. Research findings suggest that fear and uncertainty (one of the VUCA-Plus conditions) is a huge driver of belief in conspiracy theories. Indeed, many of these leaders specifically foster conspiracy theories and misinformation to create anxiety amongst the public in a tactic to gain support.

Participative Leadership

We have heard the phrase “only I” can solve this problem! Conspiracy unites with a bias toward individualism and the role of a single “hero” who saves the day. The effectiveness of leaders in addressing the challenge of conspiracy relates directly to the act of countering this individualism. Conspiracies can be addressed only in a collective manner.

Research regarding conspiracy theories that are operating in organizations suggests that a specific leadership style makes a big difference. Van Prooijen and De Vries (2016) summarize this finding:

Despotic and laissez-faire leadership styles both were significant positive predictors of organizational conspiracy beliefs, (whereas) participative leadership was a significant negative predictor of organizational conspiracy beliefs.

With this quote, we begin to see more clearly how effective participative leadership can help not only to combat organizational conspiracies but also the crises of expertise. Participative approaches lead to increases in the generated and acknowledged expertise in a group—as we will explore more fully in Chapter Fifteen.

Education and Training

There is a second role to be played by leaders that makes a difference. Effective leadership requires the promotion of education and training. As we noted previously in our discussion of education levels, a constituency that tends to be less educated and lacking in critical thinking skills increases the likelihood that these hoaxes will be believed is greatly heightened. We have already pointed to the key role played by reflective, slow thinking in addressing other contemporary organizational challenges. Leaders should not only model this form of thinking, but also foster the acquisition of critical thinking skills by other members of their organization.

Communication

There is a third role to be played by leadership when confronting the matter of conspiracies in their organization. This third role has to do with skillful communication and with the thoughtful use of language (Fong, et al., 2021):

Our results indicate that the language used by conspiracy influencers as well as their followers on Twitter is more likely to be characterized by negative emotions such as anger. In addition, we found that conspiracy influencers and their followers use language related to power, death, and religion more than their science-focused counterparts” (The language of conspiracy: A psychological analysis of speech used by conspiracy theorists and their followers on Twitter.

Van Prooijen confirms that leaders are in the most influential position to overcome this fearmongering: “If one manages to transform widespread pessimism into optimism, irrational conspiracy theories will decrease among the public. As these aversive feelings are closely coupled with feeling out of control, we propose, likewise, that making people feel in control reduces conspiracy theories.

Furthermore, to the extent that information often flows through a network (such as gossip network) rather than just the formal network, those people who are situated at the “node” (cross-roads) of the network might also be quite influential (Schön, 1973). Stated from a somewhat different perspective, people working at all levels and providing functions of all kinds in an organization must experience a sense of empowerment in order to become less suspicious. Indeed, research demonstrates that simply having participants remember a time in their life when they felt completely in control has helped to reduce belief in conspiracy theories.

Obviously, there is another side to this story. It is often advantageous for certain leaders to foster fear and anxiety. This is a tragic reality that we must confront. One simply has to access online news or a social media platform to be confronted by information related to some conspiracy theory. These theories are everywhere.

Contributing members of an organization should constantly question the validity of this information, but many members clearly do not—and contribute much less to the welfare of the organization as a result. All too often, members of an organization feel under threat and anxious. If they have received less education and training, an unscrupulous leader can simply state that an expert, leader or influencer with opposing views is part of some nefarious plot. This is often enough for large groups of people to believe what this leader has said and respond defensively, if not violently.

We need not sit back and observe this form of leadership taking hold in our organization or in organizations where we engage in coaching or consulting. Leadership effectively confronts conspiracies by being collaborative in their role as leader, by being a champion of education and training, and by being thoughtful in their use of language so that optimism and empowerment prevail.

Conclusions

A modern and effective society (whether at the personal or organizational level) cannot succeed without trusted experts and leaders. Steps to mitigate the formation and spreading of conspiracies in society and conspiratorial gossiping in organizations should be taken seriously and dealt with quickly before damage is caused. Collaboration and education (specifically focused on critical thinking skills) are critical to counter unscrupulous leaders and experts who are taking advantage and manipulating vulnerable populations to do their bidding.

More susceptible populations (individuals with certain personality disorders) require more support and help to prevent them doing harm to others and themselves. They must find a reason to work for rather than against the collective welfare of their organization. Hopefulness, thoughtfulness and collaboration -can come together to form a “perfect storm” that counters the storm of conspiracy—and the proliferation of lies (the topic to which we turn in Chapter Six).

__________

 

Purchase this Book

 

 

Exit mobile version