Editing Conspiracy theory (section)

==Interventions==
{{see also|Misinformation#Countering misinformation}}

===Target audience===
Strategies to address conspiracy theories have been divided into two categories based on whether the target audience is the conspiracy theorists or the general public.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/><ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/> These strategies have been described as reducing [[Supply and demand|either the supply or the demand]] for conspiracy theories.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/> Both approaches can be used at the same time, although there may be issues of limited resources, or if arguments are used which may appeal to one audience at the expense of the other.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>

Brief scientific literacy interventions, particularly those focusing on critical thinking skills, can effectively undermine conspiracy beliefs and related behaviors. Research led by Penn State scholars, published in the ''[[Journal of Consumer Research]]'', found that enhancing scientific knowledge and reasoning through short interventions, such as videos explaining concepts like correlation and causation, reduces the endorsement of conspiracy theories. These interventions were most effective against conspiracy theories based on faulty reasoning and were successful even among groups prone to conspiracy beliefs. The studies, involving over 2,700 participants, highlight the importance of educational interventions in mitigating conspiracy beliefs, especially when timed to influence critical decision-making.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Tutella|first1=Francisco|last2=University|first2=Pennsylvania State|title=Brief scientific literacy interventions may quash new conspiracy theories|access-date=2024-12-02|url=https://phys.org/news/2024-12-scientific-literacy-interventions-quash-conspiracy.html}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|last=Hedrih|first=Vladimir|title=Scientific literacy undermines conspiracy beliefs|work=PsyPost – Psychology News|access-date=2024-12-02|date=2024-07-11|url=https://www.psypost.org/scientific-literacy-undermines-conspiracy-beliefs/}}</ref>

====General public====
People who feel [[Empowerment|empowered]] are more resistant to conspiracy theories. Methods to promote empowerment include encouraging people to use [[analytical thinking]], [[Priming (psychology)|priming]] people to think of situations where they are in control, and ensuring that decisions by society and government are seen to follow procedural fairness (the use of fair decision-making procedures).<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020">{{cite book|last1=Lewandowsky|first1=S.|last2=Cook|first2=J.|title=The Conspiracy Theory Handbook|publisher=John Cook, Center for Climate Change Communication, George Mason University|year=2020|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=BCGxzQEACAAJ|access-date=17 November 2021}}</ref>

Methods of refutation which have shown effectiveness in various circumstances include: providing facts that demonstrate the conspiracy theory is false, attempting to discredit the source, explaining how the logic is invalid or misleading, and providing links to fact-checking websites.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/> It can also be effective to use these strategies in advance, informing people that they could encounter misleading information in the future, and why the information should be rejected (also called inoculation or prebunking).<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/><ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/><ref name="LazicZezelj2021"/> While it has been suggested that discussing conspiracy theories can raise their profile and make them seem more legitimate to the public, the discussion can put people on guard instead as long as it is sufficiently persuasive.<ref name="Andrade2020"/>

Other approaches to reduce the appeal of conspiracy theories in general among the public may be based in the emotional and social nature of conspiratorial beliefs. For example, interventions that promote [[analytical thinking]] in the general public are likely to be effective. Another approach is to intervene in ways that decrease [[negative emotion]]s, and specifically to improve feelings of personal hope and empowerment.<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018">{{cite journal|last1=van Prooijen|first1=Jan-Willem|last2=Douglas|first2=Karen M.|title=Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain|journal=European Journal of Social Psychology|volume=48|issue=7|year=2018|pages=897–908|doi=10.1002/ejsp.2530|pmid=30555188|pmc=6282974}}</ref>

====Conspiracy theorists====
It is much more difficult to convince people who already believe in conspiracy theories.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/> Conspiracist belief systems are not based on external evidence, but instead use [[circular logic]] where every belief is supported by other conspiracist beliefs.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/> In addition, conspiracy theories have a "self-sealing" nature, in which the types of arguments used to support them make them resistant to questioning from others.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>

Characteristics of successful strategies for reaching conspiracy theorists have been divided into several broad categories: 1) Arguments can be presented by "trusted messengers", such as people who were formerly members of an extremist group. 2) Since conspiracy theorists think of themselves as people who value critical thinking, this can be affirmed and then redirected to encourage being more critical when analyzing the conspiracy theory. 3) Approaches demonstrate empathy, and are based on building understanding together, which is supported by modeling open-mindedness in order to encourage the conspiracy theorists to do likewise. 4) The conspiracy theories are not attacked with ridicule or aggressive deconstruction, and interactions are not treated like an argument to be won; this approach can work with the general public, but among conspiracy theorists it may simply be rejected.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/>

Interventions that reduce feelings of uncertainty, anxiety, or powerlessness result in a reduction in conspiracy beliefs.<ref name="Douglas 538–542"/> Other possible strategies to mitigate the effect of conspiracy theories include education, media literacy, and increasing governmental openness and transparency.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/> Due to the relationship between conspiracy theories and political extremism, the academic literature on [[deradicalization]] is also important.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/>

One approach describes conspiracy theories as resulting from a "crippled epistemology", in which a person encounters or accepts very few relevant sources of information.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="Hardin2002"/> A conspiracy theory is more likely to appear justified to people with a limited "informational environment" who only encounter misleading information. These people may be "[[Epistemology|epistemologically]] isolated" in [[filter bubble|self-enclosed networks]]. From the perspective of people within these networks, disconnected from the information available to the rest of society, believing in conspiracy theories may appear to be justified.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/><ref name="Hardin2002">{{cite book|last=Hardin|first=Russell|title=Political Extremism and Rationality|chapter=The Crippled Epistemology of Extremism|publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=7 January 2002|doi=10.1017/cbo9780511550478.002|page=20|isbn=978-0-521-80441-7|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yyUmy7SJra4C}}</ref> In these cases, the solution would be to break the group's informational isolation.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/>

===Reducing transmission===
Public exposure to conspiracy theories can be reduced by interventions that reduce their ability to spread, such as by encouraging people to reflect before sharing a news story.<ref name="LewandowskyCook2020"/> Researchers Carlos Diaz Ruiz and Tomas Nilsson have proposed technical and rhetorical interventions to counter the spread of conspiracy theories on social media.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|last1=Diaz Ruiz|first1=Carlos|last2=Nilsson|first2=Tomas|date=2023|title=Disinformation and Echo Chambers: How Disinformation Circulates on Social Media Through Identity-Driven Controversies|url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07439156221103852|journal=Journal of Public Policy & Marketing|language=en|volume=42|issue=1|pages=18–35|doi=10.1177/07439156221103852|s2cid=248934562}}{{Creative Commons text attribution notice|cc=by4|from this source=yes}}
</ref>
{| class="wikitable"
|+ Interventions to counter the spread of conspiracy theories on social media<ref name=":0" />
|-
!Type of intervention
!Intervention
|-
| rowspan="3" |Technical
|Expose sources that insert and circulate conspiracy theories on social media (flagging).
|-
|Diminish the source's capacity to monetize conspiracies (demonetization).
|-
|Slow down the circulation of conspiracy theories (algorithm)
|-
| rowspan="5" |Rhetorical
|Issue authoritative corrections (fact-checking).
|-
|Authority-based corrections and fact-checking may backfire because personal worldviews cannot be proved wrong.
|-
|Enlist spokespeople that can be perceived as allies and insiders.
|-
|Rebuttals must spring from an epistemology that participants are already familiar with.
|-
|Give believers of conspiracies an "exit ramp" to dis-invest themselves without facing ridicule.
|}

===Government policies===
The primary defense against conspiracy theories is to maintain an [[open society]], in which many sources of reliable information are available, and government sources are known to be credible rather than propaganda. Additionally, independent nongovernmental organizations are able to correct misinformation without requiring people to trust the government.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/> The absence of [[civil rights]] and [[civil liberties]] reduces the number of information sources available to the population, which may lead people to support conspiracy theories.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009"/> Since the credibility of conspiracy theories can be increased if governments act dishonestly or otherwise engage in objectionable actions, avoiding such actions is also a relevant strategy.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/>

Joseph Pierre has said that mistrust in authoritative institutions is the core component underlying many conspiracy theories and that this mistrust creates an epistemic vacuum and makes individuals searching for answers vulnerable to misinformation. Therefore, one possible solution is offering consumers a seat at the table to mend their mistrust in institutions.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Pierre|first1=JM|title=Mistrust and misinformation: A two-component, socio-epistemic model of belief in conspiracy theories|journal=Journal of Social and Political Psychology |volume=8|issue=2|year=2020|pages=617–641|doi=10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1362|doi-access=free}}</ref> Regarding the challenges of this approach, Pierre has said, "The challenge with acknowledging areas of uncertainty within a public sphere is that doing so can be weaponized to reinforce a post-truth view of the world in which everything is debatable, and any counter-position is just as valid. Although I like to think of myself as a middle of the road kind of individual, it is important to keep in mind that the truth does not always lie in the middle of a debate, whether we are talking about climate change, vaccines, or antipsychotic medications."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Aftab|first1=Awais|title=There and Back Again: Joseph Pierre, M.D.|journal=Psychiatric Times|volume=38|issue=1|year=2021|url=https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/there-back-joseph-pierre}}</ref>

Researchers have recommended that public policies should take into account the possibility of conspiracy theories relating to any policy or policy area, and prepare to combat them in advance.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/><ref name="Andrade2020"/> Conspiracy theories have suddenly arisen in the context of policy issues as disparate as land-use laws and bicycle-sharing programs.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/> In the case of public communications by government officials, factors that improve the effectiveness of communication include using clear and simple messages, and using messengers which are trusted by the target population. Government information about conspiracy theories is more likely to be believed if the messenger is perceived as being part of someone's [[in-group]]. Official representatives may be more effective if they share characteristics with the target groups, such as ethnicity.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019">{{cite journal|last1=Connolly|first1=Jennifer M.|last2=Uscinski|first2=Joseph E.|last3=Klofstad|first3=Casey A.|last4=West|first4=Jonathan P.|title=Communicating to the Public in the Era of Conspiracy Theory|journal=Public Integrity|volume=21|issue=5|year=2019|pages=469–476|doi=10.1080/10999922.2019.1603045}}</ref>

In addition, when the government communicates with citizens to combat conspiracy theories, online methods are more efficient compared to other methods such as print publications. This also promotes transparency, can improve a message's perceived trustworthiness, and is more effective at reaching underrepresented demographics. However, {{as of|2019|lc=y}}, many governmental websites do not take full advantage of the available information-sharing opportunities. Similarly, social media accounts need to be used effectively in order to achieve meaningful communication with the public, such as by responding to requests that citizens send to those accounts. Other steps include adapting messages to the communication styles used on the social media platform in question, and promoting a culture of openness. Since mixed messaging can support conspiracy theories, it is also important to avoid conflicting accounts, such as by ensuring the accuracy of messages on the social media accounts of individual members of the organization.<ref name="ConnollyUscinski2019"/>

===Public health campaigns===

Successful methods for dispelling conspiracy theories have been studied in the context of [[public health]] campaigns. A key characteristic of communication strategies to address medical conspiracy theories is the use of techniques that rely less on emotional appeals. It is more effective to use methods that encourage people to process information rationally. The use of visual aids is also an essential part of these strategies. Since conspiracy theories are based on intuitive thinking, and visual information processing relies on intuition, visual aids are able to compete directly for the public's attention.<ref name="Andrade2020"/>

In public health campaigns, information retention by the public is highest for loss-framed messages that include more extreme outcomes. However, excessively appealing to catastrophic scenarios (e.g. low vaccination rates causing an epidemic) may provoke anxiety, which is associated with conspiracism and could increase belief in conspiracy theories instead. [[Scare tactics]] have sometimes had mixed results, but are generally considered ineffective. An example of this is the use of images that showcase disturbing health outcomes, such as the impact of smoking on dental health. One possible explanation is that information processed via the fear response is typically not evaluated rationally, which may prevent the message from being linked to the desired behaviors.<ref name="Andrade2020"/>

A particularly important technique is the use of [[focus group]]s to understand exactly what people believe, and the reasons they give for those beliefs. This allows messaging to focus on the specific concerns that people identify, and on topics that are easily misinterpreted by the public, since these are factors which conspiracy theories can take advantage of. In addition, discussions with focus groups and observations of the group dynamics can indicate which anti-conspiracist ideas are most likely to spread.<ref name="Andrade2020"/>

Interventions that address medical conspiracy theories by reducing powerlessness include emphasizing the principle of [[informed consent]], giving patients all the relevant information without imposing decisions on them, to ensure that they have a sense of control. Improving access to healthcare also reduces medical conspiracism. However, doing so by political efforts can also fuel additional conspiracy theories, which occurred with the [[Affordable Care Act]] (Obamacare) in the United States. Another successful strategy is to require people to watch a short video when they fulfil requirements such as registration for school or a drivers' license, which has been demonstrated to improve vaccination rates and signups for organ donation.<ref name="Andrade2020"/>

Another approach is based on viewing conspiracy theories as narratives which express personal and cultural values, making them less susceptible to straightforward factual corrections, and more effectively addressed by counter-narratives.<ref name="LazicZezelj2021">{{cite journal|last1=Lazić|first1=Aleksandra|last2=Žeželj|first2=Iris|title=A systematic review of narrative interventions: Lessons for countering anti-vaccination conspiracy theories and misinformation|journal=Public Understanding of Science|volume=30|issue=6|date=18 May 2021|doi=10.1177/09636625211011881|pages=644–670|pmid=34006153}}</ref><ref name="Adornetti2023">{{cite journal|last=Adornetti|first=Ines|title=Investigating conspiracy theories in the light of narrative persuasion|journal=Frontiers in Psychology|volume=14|date=8 November 2023|doi=10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1288125|doi-access=free|pmid=38022962|pmc=10663292}}</ref> Counter-narratives can be more engaging and memorable than simple corrections, and can be adapted to the specific values held by individuals and cultures. These narratives may depict personal experiences, or alternatively they can be cultural narratives. In the context of vaccination, examples of cultural narratives include stories about scientific breakthroughs, about the world before vaccinations, or about heroic and altruistic researchers. The themes to be addressed would be those that could be exploited by conspiracy theories to increase [[vaccine hesitancy]], such as perceptions of vaccine risk, lack of patient empowerment, and lack of trust in medical authorities.<ref name="LazicZezelj2021"/>

===Backfire effects===
It has been suggested that directly countering [[misinformation]] can be counterproductive. For example, since conspiracy theories can reinterpret disconfirming information as part of their narrative, refuting a claim can result in accidentally reinforcing it,<ref name="Brotherton2013"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/> which is referred to as a "backfire effect".<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/> In addition, publishing criticism of conspiracy theories can result in legitimizing them.<ref name="Jolley2013"/> In this context, possible interventions include carefully selecting which conspiracy theories to refute, requesting additional analyses from independent observers, and introducing cognitive diversity into conspiratorial communities by undermining their poor epistemology.<ref name="Jolley2013"/> Any legitimization effect might also be reduced by responding to more conspiracy theories rather than fewer.<ref name="SunsteinVermeule2009">{{cite journal|last1=Sunstein|first1=Cass R.|last2=Vermeule|first2=Adrian|title=Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures|journal=Journal of Political Philosophy|volume=17|issue=2|year=2009|pages=202–227|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x|s2cid=48880069}}</ref>

There are psychological mechanisms by which backfire effects could potentially occur, but the evidence on this topic is mixed, and backfire effects are very rare in practice.<ref name="LazicZezelj2021"/><ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/><ref name="Nyhan2021"/> A 2020 review of the scientific literature on backfire effects found that there have been widespread [[Replication crisis|failures to replicate]] their existence, even under conditions that would be theoretically favorable to observing them.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020">{{cite journal|author=Swire-Thompson B, DeGutis J, Lazer D|title=Searching for the Backfire Effect: Measurement and Design Considerations.|journal=J Appl Res Mem Cogn|year=2020|volume=9|issue=3|pages=286–299|pmid=32905023|doi=10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.06.006|pmc=7462781}}</ref> Due to the lack of [[reproducibility]], {{as of|2020|lc=y}} most researchers believe that backfire effects are either unlikely to occur on the broader population level, or they only occur in very specific circumstances, or they do not exist.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/> Brendan Nyhan, one of the researchers who initially proposed the occurrence of backfire effects, wrote in 2021 that the persistence of misinformation is most likely due to other factors.<ref name="Nyhan2021">{{cite journal|author=Nyhan B|title=Why the backfire effect does not explain the durability of political misperceptions.|journal=Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A|year=2021|volume=118|issue=15|pmid=33837144|doi=10.1073/pnas.1912440117|doi-access=free|pmc=8053951|bibcode=2021PNAS..11812440N}}</ref>

In general, people do reject conspiracy theories when they learn about their contradictions and lack of evidence.<ref name="Andrade2020"/> For most people, corrections and fact-checking are very unlikely to have a negative impact, and there is no specific group of people in which backfire effects have been consistently observed.<ref name="Swire-Thompson2020"/> Presenting people with factual corrections, or highlighting the logical contradictions in conspiracy theories, has been demonstrated to have a positive effect in many circumstances.<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/><ref name="SciAm2019"/> For example, this has been studied in the case of informing believers in [[9/11 conspiracy theories]] about statements by actual experts and witnesses.<ref name="van ProoijenDouglas2018"/> One possibility is that criticism is most likely to backfire if it challenges someone's worldview or identity. This suggests that an effective approach may be to provide criticism while avoiding such challenges.<ref name="SciAm2019">{{Cite web|title=People Drawn to Conspiracy Theories Share a Cluster of Psychological Features|last=Moyer|first=Melinda Wenner|work=Scientific American|date=1 March 2019|access-date=16 October 2020|url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-drawn-to-conspiracy-theories-share-a-cluster-of-psychological-features/}}</ref>