By Fabian Virchow of the Hochschule Düsseldorf, HSD
Conspiracy theories (CT) have been examined across several academic disciplines, each offering unique perspectives and methodologies. In psychology, researchers study the cognitive processes and personality traits that lead individuals to believe in conspiracy theories. This includes examining cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias and the need for closure.[i] Sociology addresses the social dynamics and group behaviours associated with conspiracy beliefs, including how social identity and group membership influence perceptions of conspiracies.[ii] Scholars in political science analyse the role of conspiracy theories in political contexts, including their impact on public opinion, political behaviour, and governance. The relationship between power, authority, and conspiracy narratives is a key focus.[iii] In the field of communication studies, the focus is on how conspiracy theories spread through media, including social media platforms. It looks at the role of misinformation and the framing of conspiracy theories in public discourse.[iv] Researchers in cultural studies examine the cultural significance of conspiracy theories, including their representation in popular culture and their role in shaping collective narratives. Historians study past conspiracy theories and their consequences, examining how historical events have been interpreted through a conspiratorial lens and the societal impact of those narratives. Anthropologists may explore how conspiracy theories manifest in different cultures and societies, analyzing their meanings and functions within specific cultural contexts. Philosophers discuss the epistemological issues surrounding conspiracy theories, including questions of knowledge, belief, and the nature of truth. Taken together, these interdisciplinary approaches contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the complexities surrounding conspiracy theories, their impact on society and how they spread.
A few examples might illustrate that belief in conspiracy theories is not a peripheral phenomenon. Jabkowski et al.[v] have shown that in many European countries between 20% to 30% of the population believe in COVID-19 related conspiracy theories.The Qanon CT has spread rapidly in several countries after it originated in the U.S.[vi] Also, there are several CTs around the destruction of the Twin Towers at 9/11 in New York City, the most prominent one being that it has been the result of controlled demolitions rather than structural failure due to impact and fire.[vii] Finally, it should be remembered that the antisemitic CT around the forged script The Protocols of the Elders of Zion finds resonance around the world.[viii]
While CTs regularly include disinformation and fake news, the latter also occur without being embedded in CT. While the term misinformation should be applied to false or misleading information which is spread without malignant intention, disinformation is deliberately false information that is created and disseminated to deceive or manipulate public opinion. It is often used for political purposes, e.g. to sow public disorder or to undermine trust in political institutions.[ix] Since 2016, the term fake news has become mainstream following Donald Trump’s election as U.S. president and his modes of communication.[x] In this context, fake means hoax, forgery or simply invented issues. Accordingly, fake news isfake news dressed up as real news.
Fake news and conspiracy theories often go along with hate speech.[xi] Nowadays, acts of hate speech have a much larger outreach thanks to the extension of the virtual sphere.[xii] Hate speech poses several significant dangers, including:
- Incitement to Violence: Hate speech can provoke individuals or groups to commit acts of violence against targeted communities.
- Normalization of Prejudice: It can legitimize discriminatory attitudes and behaviors, making it easier for intolerance to spread.
- Social Division: Hate speech fosters division within society, leading to an “us vs. them” mentality and exacerbating conflicts.
- Psychological Harm: Victims of hate speech may experience trauma, anxiety, and depression, affecting their mental well-being.[xiii]
- Suppression of Free Expression: In environments where hate speech is rampant, individuals may feel unsafe to express their opinions, stifling constructive dialogue.
- Marginalization: Targeted groups can become further marginalized, leading to decreased social and political representation.
- Legal Repercussions: Hate speech can lead to complex legal challenges, as laws vary widely by jurisdiction and can lead to misuse or overreach.
Addressing hate speech requires a careful balance between protecting free expression and preventing harm to individuals and communities.
Rejecting hate speech requires a collective effort at multiple levels. Effective strategies include that organizations, schools, and platforms should establish and enforce clear anti-hate speech policies, outlining unacceptable behaviors and consequences. Implement accessible ways for individuals to report hate speech, ensuring that complaints are taken seriously and addressed promptly. It might be useful to encourage individuals and communities to respond to hate speech with constructive counter-speech[xiv], promoting tolerance and understanding while offering resources and support for those affected by hate speech, fostering a sense of community and resilience. Regarding legal measures laws that penalize hate speech while balancing free expression rights, depending on the context and jurisdiction, are a helpful contribution as well.
Regarding tackling CTs and fake news a multi-faceted approach that takes responsibility for a wide range of actors should include that governments and institutions should communicate transparently and consistently, especially during crises, to build trust and reduce the appeal of conspiracy theories. Social media platforms can implement stricter policies to reduce the spread of false information while balancing free speech considerations. It might also be useful, if local communities hold workshops to address specific fears and concerns, building resilience against misinformation. Such approaches should promote the use of reputable fact-checking organizations and encourage people to verify information before sharing it. In addition, credible experts and sources who can counter misinformation effectively should be highlighted, making their messages more accessible and relatable.
Of course, schools and the education sector have a special role to play, especially with regard to young people[xv] given the intensity with which teens use social media.[xvi] Generally, this is about strengthening (news) media literacy and digital literacy.[xvii] Focusing on the role of schools and teachers, six elements are key:
- Media Literacy Education: Teach critical thinking and media literacy skills in schools to help individuals evaluate sources, understand bias, and identify misinformation such as those in CTs.
- Education and Awareness: Promote programs that educate individuals about the impact of hate speech, encouraging empathy and understanding among diverse groups.
- Open Dialogue: Create safe spaces for conversations about hate speech and its consequences, allowing people to share experiences and perspectives.
- Safer Spaces: Safe places, squares and spaces are important for many marginalized groups to protect themselves from discrimination and to exchange ideas.
- Be aware of the spread and depth of mistrust towards established media and political actors.[xviii]
- Educating the Teachers: Teachers are not immune to hate speech and fake news; they are rarely ahead of the students in terms of knowledge and application security of the latest media technologies. There is also uncertainty in dealing with the topics mentioned in this article.[xix]
Definitions such as media/digital literacy being the ability to access, analyze, evaluate, create, and effectively communicate using various forms of (digital) media and to understand how media messages are constructed, the purpose behind them, and how they influence audiences as well as recognizing bias, distinguishing between credible and false information, and becoming an informed and responsible consumer and creator of media give some idea about the desired achievement, but are not necessarily directly helpful in class.
For example, it makes a difference if a teacher is suddenly confronted with a student presenting conspiracy narratives or if the teacher makes CTs a subject in class by him*/her*self. In the first case, be clear that the issue is in class. Therefore, do not ignore it. Regarding your reaction as a teacher, first check if you have knowledge to address that particular CT directly. If not, do not deal with the CT, as it would open space for speculations you cannot correct or contextualize. Instead, the student(s) can be asked what the source is they refer to, request why they are interested in it. As a teacher you can explain the level of your (non-)knowledge regarding that particular CT and prepare well for dealing with the issue next time you meet the students. If you are sure that the CT is brought up for the purpose of provocation only, address it as such and ignore it.
In the second case, select a case of general interest of which sufficient sources and material is easily available. Historical cases from the 18th to the 20th century are more easy than more recent ones as e.g. New World Order or 9/11. The aim of addressing the issue is not to refute the many CTs that are vagabonding but to educate students on how CTs are structured, why they attract the interest of people, and how they can be identified as legends. Probably add examples of real conspiracies to clearly identify the difference. Start with the historical facts, not with the CT.[xx] More generally, try to find out how deep the individual who are talking to is already inclined into CT thinking. This makes a difference in how to deal with it.[xxi]
Hate speech is the other big issue. A longer quote might be added here from a recent publication that mirrors some of the reflections above: “1. Address the issue (do not ignore it!): Far too often, when teachers hear hate speech, there is a tendency to ignore it because they are not sure how to address it. Teachers might think, ‘I am not sure what to say’ or […] ‘It wasn’t my issue.’ Whenever hearing hate speech, teachers and leaders should immediately speak out against it, tell students that such talk and actions will not be tolerated, and be firm in such a stance. Silence on these matters is complicity, does not protect students and only gives license for more hateful language to be used in the classroom or schoolyard. 2. Research the topic or the offensive language: When caught off guard with hate language, use it as a teachable moment, for yourself and for your students. But always keep in mind that we cannot teach what we do not know. If we do not know the history of hateful language used to demean different racial/ethnic groups, women, LGBTQ+ members, people of particular religious backgrounds or people who are born in another country, then we need to learn. It is incumbent for teachers to educate themselves and study about topics, issues and language that are divisive or hateful. […] 3. Increase your own racial literacy: […] Our country’s racial, ethnic and linguistic demography is changing rapidly. Thus, teachers need to increase their racial literacy to better understand, connect with and teach today’s learners. Race-based hate crimes remain the number-one type of hate crime […]. Hate is learned, and all adults must speak out about it. […]. 4. Examine content in the curriculum: Frequently, school content and curriculum can have language, examples or images that implicitly or explicitly convey hateful messages. Teachers must be diligent in examining anything that could be controversial in textbooks, literature or videos shared in the classroom. Such content should be excluded from what students are being taught, but skilled teachers may choose to have educative discussions about why certain language is used in content and why it should be removed. 5. Generate discussion in your class around hate language: No matter the grade level or subject matter, teachers need to have conversations early and often about the zero tolerance for hate speech in their classrooms and across the school. Introduce concepts and lessons about the history of certain words and how they were used to dehumanize people. […] 6. Bring in guest speakers: One of the more powerful approaches that teachers can take to help students learn about diversity is to hear first hand from people from different groups who can talk about cultural practices, lived experiences or historical events that are age appropriate and tied to particular subject matter.“[xxii]
Combating misinformation, hate speech, and conspiracy theories in classrooms remains a challenging but essential task that requires dedication and perseverance.
[i] See e.g. Ted Goertzel (1999): Belief in Conspiracy Theories. Political Psychology 15(4): 731-742; Jan-Willem van Prooijen (2022): Psychological benefits of believing conspiracy theories. Current Opinion in Psychology 47: 101352.
[ii] See e.g. Michael Barkun (2013): A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America. Berkeley: University of California Press; Hayagreeva Rao & Henrich R. Greve (2024): The Plot Thickens: A Sociology of Conspiracy Theories. Annual Review of Sociology 50: 191-207.
[iii] See e.g. Roland Imhoff & Martin Bruder (2014): Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. European Journal of Personality 28(1): 25-43; Julien Giry & Pranvera Tika (2020): Conspiracy Theories in Political Science and Political Theory. In: Michael Butter & Peter Knight (eds.) Handbook of Conspiracy Theories. London: Routledge, pp. 108-120.
[iv] See e.g. Adam M. Enders et al. (2024): The Relationship Between Social Media Use and Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation. Political Behavior 45: 781-804; Matteo Cinelli (2022): Conspiracy theories and social media platforms. Current Opinion in Psychology 47: 101407.
[v] See Piotr Jabkowski et al. (2023): Exploring COVID‑19 conspiracy theories: education, religiosity, trust in scientists, and political orientation in 26 European countries. Scientific Reports 13(1): 18116.
[vi] See CeMAS – Center für Monitoring, Analyse und Strategie (2022): Q VADIS? The Spread of QAnon in the German-Speaking World. Berlin: CeMAS.
[vii] See Carl Stempel et al. (2007): Media Use, Social Structure, and Belief in 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 84(2): 353-272.
[viii] See Esther Webman (ed.): The Global Impact of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. London: Routledge.
[ix] See European Parliament/DROI Subcommittee (2021): The impact of disinformation on democratic processes and human rights in the world. Brussels.
[x] See Andrew S. Ross & Damian J. Rivers (2018): Discursive Deflection: Accusation of “Fake News” and the Spread of Mis- and Disinformation in the Tweets of President Trump. Social Media + Society 4(2): https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118776010.
[xi] See Mika Hietanen & Johan Eddebo (2023): Towards a Definition of Hate Speech – With a Focus on Online Contexts. Journal of Communication Inquiry 47(4): 440-458.
[xii] See Naganna Chetty & Sreejith Alathur (2018): Hate speech review in the context of online social networks. Aggression and Violent Behavior 40: 108-118.
[xiii] See Jeremy Waldron (2012): The Harm in hate Speech. London/Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[xiv] See Rachel Fraser (2023): How to talk back: hate speech, misinformation, and the limits of salience. Politics, Philosophy & Economics 22(3): 315-335.
[xv] See UNESCO (2023): Addressing hate speech through education. Paris.
[xvi] See Heidi Mercenier et al. (2021): Teens, Social Media, and Fake News. In: Guillermo Lopez-Garcia et al. (eds.) Politics of Disinformation. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 161-172.
[xvii] See Stephanie Craft et al. (2017): News media literacy and conspiracy endorsement. Communication and the Public 2(4): 388-401; Florence Namasinga Selnes (2024): Fake news on social media: Understanding teens’ (Dis)engagement with news. Media, Culture & Society 46(2): 376-392.
[xviii] See Ana Pérez-Escoda et al. (2021): Fake News Reaching Young People on Social Networks: Distrust Challenging Media Literacy. Publications 9: doi.org/10.3390/publications9020024.
[xix] Maihemuti Dil Dilimulatia et al. (2024): Talking about violent extremism: Experiences of Canadian secondary school teachers in four metropolitan areas. Journal of Deradicalization 40: 72-113; Ludwig Bilz et al. (2024): Teachers’ intervention strategies for handling hate-speech incidents in schools. Social Psychology of Education online first: doi.org/10.1007/s11218-024-09929-9
[xx] For more detailed guidance see Jeremy Hayward & Gemma Gronland (2021): Conspiracy Theories in the Classroom Guidance for teachers. London: UCL.
[xxi] See also for more material Europan Commission: Identifying conspiracy theories online via https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/coronovirus-response/fighting-disinformation/identifying-conspiracy-theories_en
[xxii] Quoted from Tyrone C. Howard (2024): Equity Now. Justice, Repair, and Belonging in Schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
