I have been researching the psychology of conspiracy beliefs for seven years now and people often ask me why people believe in them. This is not a simple question.
Author
Darel Cookson
Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Nottingham Trent University
There people might endorse conspiracy theories. Something that stands out to me, though, is how our thinking styles can influence the way we process information and therefore to conspiracy beliefs.
A preference for , over seems to be linked to endorsement of conspiracy theories.
is a thinking style reliant on immediate and unconscious judgments. It often follows gut feelings, whereas analytical thinking is about slower, more deliberate and detailed processing of information.
about how we can develop a more effortful, analytical thinking style to reduce our predisposition to conspiracy beliefs.
Research has shown critical thinking skills have many life benefits. For example, found that people who scored higher in critical thinking skills reported fewer negative life events (for instance, getting a parking ticket or missing a flight). Critical thinking was a stronger predictor than intelligence for avoiding these types of events. It’s not clear why this is.
On the other hand, has been linked to thinking errors. For example, intuitive thinking styles can lead to over-reliance on mental shortcuts, which can also increase susceptibility to .
This can lead to dangerous consequences. For example, greater intuitive thinking has been linked to and vaccine hesitancy.
However, , such as Albert Einstein and Apple co-founder Steve Jobs, argued the importance of using their intuition and attributed their achievements to intuitive thinking.
The value of intuitive thinking
One benefit of is that it takes little or no processing time, which allows us to make decisions and judgments quickly. And, in some circumstances, this is vital.
People working in (such as the fire service) report the need to use intuitive thinking styles. During crises, it can be unrealistic to consistently use analytical thinking.
Experienced crisis managers often rely on intuitive thinking in the first instance, as their default strategy, but as the task allows, draw on more analytical thinking later on. Critical and intuitive thinking styles can be used in tandem.
What is important also is that this type of intuition develops through years of experience, which can produce .
Intuition can be crucial in other areas too. is often seen as a benefit of intuitive thinking styles. A review of research into idea generation found that creativity is positively linked to intuitive thinking.
Although creativity is difficult to define, it can be thought of as similar to problem solving, where information is used to reach a goal, in a new or unexpected way.
However, it is also important to note that the 2016 review found that combining intuitive and analytical thinking styles was best for idea evaluation.
What is the solution?
Now, research often focuses on developing ways to improve analytical thinking in order to reduce endorsement of or reduce .
However, we often consider analytic and intuitive thinking styles as an either-or, and when making decisions or judgments we must choose one over the other. However, a 2015 (where data from multiple studies are combined and analysed) of 50 years of cognitive style research found evidence that these thinking styles could happen at the same time.
Rather than two opposing ends of a spectrum, they are separate constructs, meaning that these thinking styles can happen together. Research in decision-making also suggests that and the best decisions are made when the thinking style a person uses aligns with the situation at hand.
Some situations are more suited to analytical thinking styles (such as number tasks) while some are more suited to using intuition (such as understanding facial expressions). An adaptive decision-maker is skilled in using both thinking styles.
So perhaps one way to reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories is improving adaptive decision-making. found that when people were confronted with the misconceptions they had previously made, overestimating the extent to which others endorse anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, they re-evaluated their decisions. This could suggest that thinking styles can depend on the situation and information at hand.
Although in many situations , we shouldn’t dismiss the intuitive thinking style conspiracy theorists seem to favour as unworkable or inflexible. The answer could lie in understanding both thinking styles and being able to adjust our thinking styles when needed.
Darel Cookson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
