Conspiracy fans are less likely to think analytically

Conspiracy theories are on the rise — from Covid denialism to flat earthers, more and more people are subscribing to ideas that have little basis in fact. 

One such example is the 'great replacement theory', a White nationalist conspiracy theory that claims that elite parties are purposefully replacing White and Christian populations with non-White immigrants. While still a very fringe belief, in recent years the idea has 'gone mainstream', capitalised on by far-right politicians, broadcasters, and even celebrities. 

But what factors lead people to believe in this kind of conspiracy? A team of academics from across Germany, writing recently in Social Psychological Bulletin, explore the possible role of 'reflective thinking', a form of critical thinking used to reflect on experiences and learnings so as to incorporate them into the 'bigger picture'.  

The sample of this study comprised of 906 German adults who were recruited via a professional survey company, and who were taking part in a larger online questionnaire that looked at immigration and economic issues, conspiracy beliefs, cognitive style, and political ideology. (Further details on how the sample was recruited were not provided.)

Firstly, belief in the great replacement conspiracy theory was measured with a seven-item scale, with participants indicating how much they agreed with statements such as "I think the government has planned to bring refugees to Germany to replace the native population with non-European immigrants."

Next, participants responded to a cognitive reflection test that measured their tendency to suppress intuitive cognitive processes and engage in analytical thinking. Participants were shown six multiple choice questions, each of which contained an intuitive — but incorrect — answer, two answers that were easy to identify as incorrect, and one correct logical answer that could be reached with effortful thought. Their level of reflective thinking was ascertained via how many of these questions they got correct or incorrect. Finally, participants indicated where they placed themselves on the political spectrum for social and economic issues. 

The most common belief within the sample was that the great replacement theory was 'very unlikely', with 28.8% of respondents endorsing this view. Responses skewed towards this end of the spectrum, though a significant minority (11.6%) reported that they felt the conspiracy was 'very likely'. Due to lack of detail on how this sample was recruited, it is not possible to say to what extent these proportions represent the views of the general population; however, it stands as evidence that the researchers were successful in recruiting the target demographic for their investigation.

Analyses uncovered that, as the team expected, there was a negative correlation between belief and cognitive reflection. Those who believed in the conspiracy were less likely to engage in analytic thinking versus their own intuition. As this correlation was relatively weak, (r = 0.27), it's likely that this effect works in tandem with other psychological variables, as well as social, political, and economic factors.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the platforms that it is promoted through, belief in the great replacement was strongly related to right wing political ideology. Reflective thinking was also weakly correlated with right wing beliefs, though the authors do not mention whether conspiracy belief was controlled for in this analysis. Additionally, analyses revealed that believers were less likely to have reached higher levels of education. 

As the team notes, previous research has also found a link between poor levels of cognitive reflection and belief in conspiracy theories. It's important to emphasise, though, one limitation: no causal relationship was established here. It's not clear whether certain cognitive styles are the reason people believe in conspiracy theories, or whether belief in conspiracy theories nurtures particular cognitive styles. 

However, if future research could establish a causal relationship, it could provide a way to increase resilience against conspiracist thinking. "Given that studies indicate that reflective thinking can be improved and facilitated by systematic training and interventions," the team write, "this might be one component of the strategic responses of liberal democracies against the proliferation of the 'great replacement' conspiracy theory."  

Belief in conspiracy theories is complex, and there are a number of factors that contribute to their spread. Though the results are promising when it comes to understanding the underpinnings of thought processes associated with these beliefs, more work must be done to identify ways to deconstruct these ideas, and give people a firmer grounding in reality. 

Read the paper in full: https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.10825