People like solving mysteries and puzzles. Clues and bits of information are put together to work out what happened, to find the answer. The study of history involves some of this. It is also the basis of detective stories and films, following a formula: first the crime, then police or sleuths identify motives and events, and then the final revelation. These stories are eternally popular as they appeal to a deep-rooted psychological interest.
Another type of popular narrative are conspiracies, some of which are huge bestsellers such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code. But like crime stories, conspiracy theories are not restricted to fiction and films. People are naturally suspicious of powerful groups, which could potentially be hostile or destructive. Secret or religious groups like Opus Dei, the Illuminati or freemasons make regular appearances, but most conspiracy theories worldwide generally feature governments. The latest populist target, now heading all conspiracies, is the ‘establishment’.
Conspiracy theories go beyond the usual mistrust of government or odd bits of fake news. They assume that a hidden group has secretly agreed to pursue some malevolent aim. Big controversies range from the events of 9/11 to the birth certificate of Barack Obama and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The more people endorse a theory, whether factual or not, the more it grows into the dominant narrative. Conspiracy theories are not just held by uninformed cranks or the politically naive. They are an everyday feature of political life and held widely, by many people, to explain political events.
Studies have linked this to innate psychological predispositions. Firstly, people tend to attribute complex events to unseen forces. Superstitions, the supernatural and paranormal, and even some religious beliefs, follow this pattern. Secondly, people often follow a Manichean worldview, which interprets events as a struggle between good and evil, between black and white.
This is part of the ammunition of political ‘outsiders’ when railing against the ‘establishment’. They present themselves as the forces of good, fighting against evil. They engage in combat to overthrow the wicked schemes of secret groups plotting to maintain power and control.
Adrian Delia’s battle with the Nationalist Party, which he is ironically hoping to represent, has used the psychology of a populist conspiracy theory
As an example, Adrian Delia’s battle with the Nationalist Party, which he is ironically hoping to represent, has used the psychology of a populist conspiracy theory. He has repeatedly spoken of a ‘hidden hand’ scheming behind his back, attempting to prevent him (and the forces of good) from overthrowing the PN establishment. This thought strengthens solidarity among his supporters, polarising groups and pitting them against a perceived enemy and threat. Last week they even gathered like a mob outside the Stamperija door.
Even where there is no such intentional malevolent force at work, people are often ready to believe it. It is a simple theory, easy to follow, pitting black against white. Conspiracy theories can be harmless, but they can also distort public opinion and political debate.
In truth, the objections to Delia have been very much out on display, all over newspapers, blogs and social media. I sense no conspiracy there. That is open disagreement and disapproval. So far, Delia has not actually identified any clandestine group or person working against him. On the other hand, a ‘hidden hand’ in the shape of party official Jean Pierre Debono and his associates, who are actually part of the ‘establishment’ and apparently working behind the scenes to promote Delia, has been suggested by his detractors.
Strangely enough, bringing to light documents and stories which raise questions about Delia’s personal and business affairs seems to have little effect on his supporters, who rally around him keenly with each new revelation.
But this is not as strange as it might seem. A Gallup poll in 2011 had shown that, even when Obama’s birth certificate was published to dispel the idea that he was not eligible to be president, still 13 per cent of American citizens, and one in four Republicans, continued to say he was probably or definitely born in another country, and one in five said they didn’t know enough to decide one way or another.
Studies have shown that, when faced with controversial factual questions, people are often led by their ideological or partisan beliefs. They will react to corrective information, and take it on board or not, depending on the strength of their beliefs.
In some cases, studies even show a “back-fire effect” with people becoming even more convinced about their views when faced with facts to the contrary. This could be because at first people will argue strongly against information which is contrary their fixed ideas. As a result, they do not change their minds but instead end up even more entrenched in their beliefs. Until eventually the evidence, presented by credible sources, grows too huge to ignore.
Additionally, people rely on news reports which often try to be ‘objective’ by giving both sides of an argument, as though all have equal weight. With this approach, expert opinion and solid information are readily cancelled out by half-baked views or spin. This helps people to reject any argument which contradicts their own beliefs. As a result, democratic debate and the political process are undermined.
petracdingli@gmail.com