We don’t have any viable way of countering conspiracy theories

The majority of methods to shatter belief in conspiracy theories have little or no effect, and the methods that work are unrealistic. Conclusions of a review of 25 studies.

Cian O’Mahony of University College Cork, Ireland, said conspiracy theories, such as the erroneous belief that a coronavirus vaccine is a way to implant a microchip, could affect people’s health or lead to anti-social behavior. He said it could be connected. But while there are many studies that have evaluated methods of debunking false beliefs in general, few have looked specifically at conspiracy theories, he says.

They are especially difficult to debunk because anyone who tries to challenge them is considered part of the conspiracy. “They say, ‘Of course you would,'” says O’Mahony.

He and his colleagues decided to review the evidence so far to see what worked and what didn’t. We found just 25 studies that met our criteria, including definitions of conspiracy theories that included the belief that

Methods such as offering rational counterarguments, ridiculing, or labeling conspiracy theories as such are not effective in countering specific conspiracy theories or the general tendency to believe them. concludes the review. In fact, one study found that the labeling method backfired by slightly increasing conspiracy beliefs.

Priming methods aimed at boosting people’s critical thinking skills before exposure to conspiracy theories worked, but weren’t very effective. The effect was usually small.

What worked well was pre-banking or inoculation, telling people why the conspiracy theory wasn’t true before they were exposed to it. All studies testing inoculations found moderate or large effects.

But trying to “inoculate” people before they’re exposed to conspiracy theories isn’t practical, O’Mahony says. It is also unique to each particular conspiracy theory. “It’s unacceptable to keep people updated on new conspiracies that are coming out,” he says.

The most effective method reported so far was a three-month college course that included weekly sessions in which students examined the difference between sound science and pseudoscience. This course is the closest thing to what you need. It’s a kind of broad vaccination against conspiracy theories, based on teaching people how to think, not what to think, says O’Mahony.

But few people sign up for a three-month course, and those most in need of attending such a course are likely the least likely to do so, he says.

This kind of research is still in its early stages, says O’Mahony, and much more needs to be done before it can be introduced into schools, for example, like a college course. One of the major problems is that there are no studies with follow-up weeks or years after the intervention, so it is unclear whether any effect persists.

Stephan Lewandowsky of the University of Bristol (UK) is positive about the results. “Given that conspiratorial attitudes present a particularly difficult problem, it is not surprising that many of the impacts are small. Many believers are very enthusiastic about their theories,” he says. “I also think that even small impacts can be magnified. Even reducing conspiracy theory sharing by a few percentage points early on may be enough to disrupt the cascade.”

Lewandowsky also says vaccination isn’t necessarily confined to a particular conspiracy theory and can be rolled out on social media at scale. His team demonstrated this last year with a survey of about 22,000 people on YouTube, and Google recently conducted a major vaccination campaign in Eastern Europe, he says.