The Motivational Processes of Sense-Making

In this chapter we discuss the psychological function of “the drive for sense-making,” or our innate desire to make sense of the world. We start by discussing why sense-making generates a drive, similar to those associated with the primary reinforcers of food, water, sleep, sex, shelter, and air. In our account, the drive for sense-making fills a critical gap in purely goal-oriented cognition by motivating us to continue investing in knowledge even when we cannot foresee exactly how it will benefit us. We then examine three different factors that shape the particular form sense-making takes: (1) the practical utility of holding accurate beliefs for attaining concrete goals, (2) the motivational significance of some beliefs, which generates a desire to make sense of the world in a way that feels good, and (3) the impact of computational limitations on the sense-making process, especially our limited ability to explicitly predict what information will turn out to be useful. Finally, we turn our attention to how these factors help to explain aberrant sense-making phenomena such as conspiracy theories, science denial, and political polarization.

Biology teachers are accustomed to engaging individuals who do not accept biological evolution. Denial of evolution ranges from ignorance of the evidence to outright denial or distortion of data. The list of science denial topics has grown alarmingly over the years to include: HIV as the cause of AIDS, exaggeration of the health and environmental risks of genetically modified organisms, existence of holes in the ozone layer, the rise in antibiotic resistance, health risks caused by cigarette smoking, exaggeration and denial of harmful side effects of pesticides, water and environmental damage caused by hydraulic fracturing, the fear that vaccines do more harm than good, and, of course, global warming and climate change. Teaching climate science has become so perilous in some school districts that the National Center for Science Education, long known for activism in the arena of evolution education, has greatly expanded efforts in the arena of climate (http://ncse.com/climate).

This research reviewed available publications to determine how conspiracy theories, disinformation and political polarization impact the well-being of intimate relationships since the COVID-19 pandemic. The review used the following inclusion criteria: (1) Peer reviewed articles and grey literature. (2) From January 1st, 2020, to present; (3) English; (4) Published; (5) Any country; (6) Adults; (7) Intimate relationships; (8) Conspiracy theories, misinformation and political polarization (9) COVID-19 related. Two articles were included, indicating a gap in research. While no specific studies focused solely on intimate relationships, conspiracy theories can negatively impact relationships. Research on conspiracy theories and intimate relationships is needed.

WHO TO TRUST? Christian Belief in Conspiracy Theories by Nigel Chapman et al. Victoria, Australia: ISCAST, 2022. 164 pages. Paperback; $12.99. ISBN: 9780645067156. ebook/discussion paper. https://iscast.org/conspiracy/. *Conspiracy theories (CTs) have existed for as long as humans have been able to record them for posterity; however, due to the exponential growth of electronic media, the proliferation and popularity of CTs have made them ubiquitous. Western societies have been particularly affected by CTs in recent decades through our ability to communicate unfiltered diatribes at the speed of light, by the seductive influence of CTs as a form of mass entertainment, and by unabashed populists who use them to tar their political rivals. Though they still frequently draw ridicule, conspiracy claims are now a mainstream form of grievance, spread by people--rich, poor, weak, and powerful--across the political spectrum. This is largely why academics in the behavioral and social sciences, concerned by the harmful impact of CTs on public discourse and social behavior, have begun to treat them and the people who promote them as objects of serious study. *Sadly, committed Christians are no strangers to the conspiracy mindset, and not only those who belong to fringe communities obsessed with end-times prophecy and creeping authoritarianism. Hence, learning to identify the common elements of conspiracist thinking and guarding themselves, their relationships, and their faith communities against its corrosive influence, is a timely and urgent issue for those who claim to be followers of Christ. *This short book (or long "discussion paper," as its authors describe it) is the product of fifteen science and theology authors who are committed Christians and associates of the Institute for the Study of Christianity in an Age of Science and Technology (ISCAST), an Australian organization that promotes dialogue on the intersection of faith and science. The central goal of this work is to harmonize the academic research on conspiracy thinking with biblical ethics in order to help Christian leaders and their communities address the phenomenon of conspiracism in a socially constructive and spiritually uplifting manner. *The book contains five main chapters--two of a theoretical nature and three of a practical nature. The first two summarize the ideas of leading academics (Barkun, Brotherton, Douglas, Dyrendal, Uscinski and Parent, van Prooijen, etc.), with a special focus on political polarization and populism, and the ways these shape, or are shaped by, conspiracy theories. The third chapter examines popular vaccine and COVID-19-themed conspiracy theories in Australia, North America, and Europe, and it highlights the exaggerated suspicions many Christians harbor toward government, media, academia, and other mainstream epistemic authorities. The last two chapters discuss the ethical, psycho-social, and organizational challenges that conspiracism poses on the way Christians live and think, admonishing them--as individuals and faith communities--to examine conspiracy claims in an epistemically responsible, socially constructive, and biblically grounded manner. *This book presents several strong arguments. First, because some conspiracy claims turn out to be true (Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.), there is need to exercise careful discernment, engage in charitable exchanges, and consult appropriate expert sources when considering the credibility of specific CT claims. Real conspiracies generally turn out to be less ambitious in scope than the more elaborate theories that flourish in alternative media (JFK, "deep state," flat earth, deadly vaccines, etc.) and are usually the product of organized criminal networks, political graft, or fraudulent business deals. *Second, implausible CTs are often promoted by fringe media, non-experts, and subversive political movements, all of whom habitually traffic in speculation rather than hard evidence, blame vague or invisible enemies who cannot be prosecuted, berate official narratives rather than present a consistent counter-theory, ask rhetorical questions that invite the hearer to distrust experts, and make bombastic claims that reinforce anxieties of impending doom, furtive enemies, secret patterns hiding in plain sight, social marginalization, and political alienation. *Third, CTs negatively affect social relations by "building isolation, paranoia, anxiety, or depression in some individuals, [...] splitting friends, families, churches," disrupting communities, and "undermining [legal, political, and academic] institutions through cynicism and mistrust" (p. 6). Not only is the impact of strong conspiracy beliefs detrimental to healthy social relationships and responsible citizenship, CTs also undermine the New Testament's instructions not to slander, not to proffer angry judgments and insults, nor to engage in strife and partiality but rather to live in harmony, love, respect, patience, and forbearance in accordance with Christ's example. *Fourth, these considerations should lead Christians who feel drawn to conspiracist explanations to exercise humility in their search for truth, and to nurture a predisposition to healing rather than attacking relationships and institutions. "A Christian conspiracy theorist should understand themselves to be seeking truth and justice" (p. 6), cultivating awareness of the biases and self-victimizing tendencies that especially affect Christians (e.g., through divisive biblical and pseudo-biblical doctrines), and fostering dialogue rather than fractious debate. "Conspiracy theories may be true or false. But if we want to avoid spreading untruths, injustices, and strife, then we must cultivate a reasonable and peaceable impartiality in the way that we assess or discuss them" (p. 114). *Finally, "inoculation is better than cure" (p. 131). By sensitizing believers to the challenges of cognitive biases and disinformation, we can help them guard their hearts and minds against disruptive CTs and the unhealthy behaviors they elicit. "We should train Christians to hear diverse views; have good conversations; debate ideas; hear from Christians who work as experts or authorities in public life; demand consistent democratic values in public life; and have the emotional maturity to be generous in spirit toward their opponents (p. 6)." *This book/discussion paper serves as a useful and well-rounded survey of academic literature on conspiracism and as a primer for practical discussions on trust, responsible research, and Christian ethics. It contains useful definitions, summaries, and suggestions for further reading that make the text easy to read and to follow. Its language is accessible to most, though its content is less balanced in its accessibility to a mass audience. The information presented in the first two chapters may be complex to those with little knowledge of psychology and political science, while the second half, strong in biblical references, requires the reader to have some level of familiarity with the scriptures and (it goes without saying) a belief in their moral authority. Inversely, well-versed readers may find that the overview presented in the first half of the work lacks depth of analysis. Readers will also notice a lack of cohesion (and some repetition) between chapters, but this is unsurprising in a 163-page discussion paper written by fifteen authors divided into four working groups. Like the old adage that a giraffe is a racehorse designed by a committee, so too does this work end up lacking some unity. Nevertheless, it still serves as a useful guide for church leaders seeking greater theoretical and/or practical understanding of conspiracy thinking, and for small groups wishing to improve communications, counselling services, and ministry to the politically and socially disaffected within their church or wider community. *If we reformulate the title of this text to "Whom Should Christians Trust?," and distill it through the clichéd but effective rhetorical question "What would Jesus do?," we might then ask ourselves, "Whom would Jesus fear?" The answer to this question, of course, is "no one," because his kingdom is not of this world. This maxim encapsulates the central message of this discussion paper, which admonishes its readers not to fall prey to worldly anxieties but to have--and to guide others toward--the confidence that Christ has already won the battle against all evil plots. His followers need only guard their hearts against despair and pursue the truth with love. *Reviewed by Michel Jacques Gagné, a historian, podcaster, and the author of Thinking Critically about the Kennedy Assassination: Debunking the Myths and Conspiracy Theories (Routledge, 2022). He teaches courses in critical thinking, political philosophy, and ethics at Champlain College, St. Lambert, QC.

Conspiracy theories, often dismissed as fringe or irrational beliefs, hold significant sociological importance as reflections of broader societal anxieties, power dynamics, and cultural transformations. This paper explores conspiracy theories not merely as misinformation but as social phenomena deeply embedded in the structures of modern societies. It examines how conspiracy theories emerge in response to perceived inequalities, institutional mistrust, and the search for meaning in complex or uncertain circumstances. The sociology of conspiracy theories considers the role of social conditions—such as economic distress, political polarization, and media fragmentation—in facilitating the widespread acceptance of alternative narratives that challenge official accounts. Conspiracy theories are shown to thrive in environments marked by rapid change, declining trust in authorities, and the erosion of shared epistemologies. The paper also addresses the psychological underpinnings of conspiratorial thinking, such as cognitive biases and the desire for control, but situates these within collective experiences and social contexts. It analyzes how media, particularly digital and social platforms, serve as accelerators for the formation of conspiratorial communities and the circulation of unverified information. Conspiracy theories can serve both as forms of resistance and as tools of manipulation, used by political actors to mobilize support or discredit opponents. Their implications for democracy, social cohesion, and institutional legitimacy are profound, particularly in societies where pluralism and trust are already under strain. Rather than viewing conspiracy theories solely as a threat to rational discourse, this paper argues that they must be understood as meaningful social texts—expressions of grievances, fears, and contested knowledge. Through a sociological lens, conspiracy theories reveal the ways in which modern individuals and groups navigate uncertainty, power, and belonging in increasingly complex societies. By analyzing their origins, dissemination, and social functions, this study contributes to a deeper understanding of contemporary belief systems and collective behavior.

<p>Skeptical Science is a volunteer-run website publishing refutations of climate misinformation. Some members of the Skeptical Science team actively research best-practices refutation techniques while other team members use the provided materials to share debunking techniques effectively either in writing or through presentations. In this submission, we highlight several of our publications and projects, designed to help to give facts a fighting chance against misinformation. While some of the resources are nominally related to climate change, the underlying techniques apply across different topics. Resources include the Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) “Denial101x - Making sense of Climate Science Denial” co-produced with the University of Queensland in 2015, the “FLICC-framework” explaining the taxonomy of science denial with its five main techniques (fake experts, logical fallacies, impossible expectations, cherry picking, and conspiracy theories), the Debunking Handbook 2020 which summarizes research findings and expert advice about debunking misinformation, and the Conspiracy Theory Handbook distilling research findings and expert advice on dealing with conspiracy theories. We will also introduce the Cranky Uncle smartphone game, using critical thinking, gamification, and cartoons to interactively explain science denial techniques and build resilience against misinformation.</p>

Reviewed by: How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason by Lee McIntyre Michael Filas (bio) Lee McIntyre, How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Others Who Defy Reason. MIT Press, 2021, 264 pages, $24.95 cloth. This book is Lee McIntyre’s fourth monograph from MIT Press, and it continues his examination of how we understand truth and post-truth. While he examines science deniers of many stripes—from flat-earthers to anti-vaxxers to climate deniers—he juggles his own deference to the principles of science with an earnest investment in swinging science deniers, one at a time, face-to-face, into the fold of science believers. Readers get a thorough review of the history and key moments in several pockets of science denial, but this review comes in the context, as advertised, of a reformer’s guide to converting the nonbelievers. McIntyre discovers that you do not convert science deniers by throwing volumes of data at them, or by belittling their perspective. Science deniers hold on to their beliefs less as rational facts than as a dimension of their identity. Only a respectful, recursive, face-to-face conversation will initiate a person’s belief transformation, and commensurate identity shift. The book begins as McIntyre recounts his investigatory trip to the 2018 Flat Earth International Conference in Denver, engaging with “six-hundred shouting, clapping true believers” (xvi), and documenting, through personal accounts, how he engaged with the convention attendees. He sustained listening, respect, and a measured approach throughout his interactions with the flat-earthers, but his mind was not changed (“don’t worry, I’m not one of them” he writes [p. 29]). However, through respectful dialogue, McIntyre learns how to recognize the telltale attributes, a nomenclature of five tropes he calls a “secret decoder ring” for fighting science denial (xiii). This methodological centerpiece argues that all science deniers make “the same [End Page 497] few mistakes in human reasoning: (1) Cherry picking evidence; (2) Belief in conspiracy theories; (3) Reliance on fake experts (and denigration of real experts); (4) Committing logical errors; and (5) Setting impossible expectations for what science can achieve” (p. 33). And McIntyre uses this five-trope critique throughout subsequent chapters, which include discussions of anti-vaxxers, climate denial, coronavirus denial, and opposition to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The book is structured in part as a travelogue through various brands of science denial, exemplifying as it goes McIntyre’s method for engaging in dialogue. Through the introduction and first chapter, we learn the nuances of how and why flat-earthers at the 2018 Denver conference have come to believe that “globalists” have bought into a hoax, sustained by faked photos from NASA; this exemplifies the conspiracy theory element of the five-trope critique. In chapter 2, we get a more in-depth explanation of each of the five telltale tropes, enumerated above, that reveal the errant thinking in science denial, plus a look at the motivational and psychological roots of science denial. This section importantly shifts the focus from how science denial is created to why people believe it, such as “motivated reasoning . . . whereby we are more prone to look for information that backs up things we want to believe” (p. 47, emphasis in original). And it also broaches one of the main insights of this book: “The content of the belief may not be as important as the social identity it affords” (p. 54). Chapter 3 goes deeper into the psychology of how and why science deniers hold their beliefs, and why they are difficult to convince with facts alone. He writes about concepts like the “backfire effect,” wherein a person becomes more convinced of their original mistaken belief when they are presented with correcting information (p. 63). “Belief formation and change are not just a matter of having correct factual information, but of the emotional, social, and psychological context within which beliefs are formed” (p. 66). The second part of the chapter illustrates the importance of face-to-face conversations in convincing hard-core science deniers to reconsider their beliefs. And here, McIntyre provides an...

Conspiracy theories can be harmful for public health, global warming, safety, conflict, and political polarization. What interventions help reduce the appeal of conspiracy theories? It is well-known that conspiracy theories flourish among citizens who feel powerless and out of control, however I argue that the opposite is also true: that feeling empowered and in control of one’s social environment reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Given this, authorities can reduce conspiracy beliefs among the public by installing procedural justice principles in decision-making processes. Procedural justice increases feelings of empowerment and trust, even among followers who disagree with the decision outcomes.

Conspiracy narratives and speculative rumors of a conspiracist nature are intermittently popular in youth culture, as well as in political discourse. The general motivations of conspiracy beliefs relate to essential needs (for knowledge, to feel safe and secure, to feel good about oneself and one’s group), but evidence shows these needs are not actually served by conspiracy beliefs. Conspiracy theories tend to be explanations that conflict with best academic knowledge, and belief in them leads to less support for democratic processes and institutions. They play a role in political polarization, and they are used in identity-protective cognition. They may both express and arouse “strong feelings and divide communities and society”. Conspiracy theories as a general topic thus satisfy general criteria for controversial issues. At the same time, they are particularly interesting because they hover between the superficially and the inherently controversial: although in practice often resistant to contradictory evidence, they generally appeal to reason and evidence. While they sometimes are rooted in deep religious and religion-like beliefs, we argue that this makes them good cases for practicing analytical skills that could better serve all the needs above. Since cases and topics can cover the gamut from the subject-related to the cross-curricular and civic behavior, and the skills should be broadly transferable, using conspiracy theories as a topic has a high possible upside. However, conspiracy theories in a school setting have not yet been a topic of much research. This article takes as its starting point interviews with teachers and preliminary investigations of adolescents, before presenting an outline of possible didactic tools for teachers based on the general findings of effective interventions on conspiracy beliefs and related issues.

Explanations of science denial rooted in individual cognition tend to focus on general trait-like factors such as cognitive style, conspiracist ideation or delusional ideation. However, we argue that this focus typically glosses over the concrete, mechanistic elements of belief formation, such as hypothesis generation, data gathering, or hypothesis evaluation. We show, empirically, that such elements predict variance in science denial not accounted for by cognitive style, even after accounting for social factors such as political ideology. We conclude that a cognitive account of science denial would benefit from the study of complex (i.e., open-ended, multi-stage) problem solving that incorporates these mechanistic elements.

How can we encourage individuals to engage with beneficial ideas, while eschewing dark ideas such as science denial, conspiracy theories, or populist rhetoric? This paper investigates the mechanisms underpinning individuals’ engagement with ideas, proposing a model grounded in education, social networks, and pragmatic prospection. Beneficial ideas enhance decision-making, improving individual and societal outcomes, while dark ideas lead to suboptimal consequences, such as diminished trust in institutions and health-related harm. Using a Structural Equation Model (SEM) based on survey data from 7000 respondents across seven European countries, we test hypotheses linking critical thinking, network dynamics, and pragmatic prospection (i.e., a forward-looking mindset) to the value individuals ascribe to engaging with ideas, their ability to identify positive and dark ideas effectively, how individuals subsequently engage with ideas, and who they engage in them with. Our results highlight two key pathways: one linking pragmatic prospection to network-building and idea-sharing, and another connecting critical reasoning and knowledge acquisition to effective ideas engagement. Together, these pathways illustrate how interventions in education, network development, and forward-planning can empower individuals to critically evaluate and embrace positive ideas while rejecting those that might be detrimental. The paper concludes with recommendations for policy and future research to support an ideas-informed society.

How can we encourage individuals to engage with beneficial ideas, while eschewing dark ideas such as science denial, conspiracy theories, or populist rhetoric? This paper investigates the mechanisms underpinning individuals' engagement with ideas, proposing a model grounded in education, social networks, and pragmatic prospection. Beneficial ideas enhance decision-making, improving individual and societal outcomes, while dark ideas lead to suboptimal consequences, such as diminished trust in institutions and health-related harm. Using a Structural Equation Model (SEM) based on survey data from 7,000 respondents across seven European countries, we test hypotheses linking critical thinking, network dynamics, and pragmatic prospection (i.e. forward-looking mindsets) to the value individuals ascribe to engaging with ideas, their ability to identify positive and dark ideas effectively and how individuals subsequently engage with ideas and who they engage in them with. Our results highlight two key pathways: one linking pragmatic prospection to network-building and idea-sharing, and another connecting critical reasoning and knowledge acquisition to effective ideas engagement. Together, these pathways illustrate how interventions in education, network development, and forward-planning can empower individuals to critically evaluate and embrace positive ideas while rejecting those that might be detrimental. The paper concludes with recommendations for policy and future research to support an ideas-informed society.

With the increasing use of social media by many people, and where many actually get their news from social media rather than traditional media sources (newspapers, TV, and journals) amidst the Covid-19 pandemic, there is a huge increase in the number and influence of conspiracy theories world-wide. This has meant that those who believe and follow such theories are more likely to reject official health advice and government instructions, amid science denialism, anti-scientism and a distrust of experts, as well as politicians. Despite some efforts to remove misleading information, it remains easy to find sites promoting conspiracies such as ‘5G coronavirus’ as well as hate speech. But such theories are not limited to coronavirus, and in fact many others, such as QAnon, are actively or tacitly promoted by President Trump. Noting that neither conspiracies, nor science denialism are new, we start by briefly looking at the transition from the Dark Ages to Enlightenment and the Age of Reason, noting the case of Galileo. Then it was very dangerous to hold well-reasoned scientific views that did not fit with the prevailing views of the time; a combination of philosophical, and theological Church beliefs, which were based on Aristotelian geocentric views of the earth as the centre of the universe, and a geostatic literal biblical interpretation. We look at present day scientific skepticism and how to debunk some of the most widely held scientific myths. The need to educate and advocate for education that includes critical thinking, critical literacy, and critical media literacy is more important than ever or we risk having a large proportion of the population believing only what they read on social media and becoming dangerously anti-science and not prepared to even consider data or evidence and so be at the mercy of rampant and dangerous conspiracy theories — maybe risking a ‘New Dark Ages’!

Conspiracy theories fulfill a double purpose. They provide an epistemological reading of reality, posing claims of veracity and falsity that often depart from conventional wisdom. Concomitantly, conspiracy narratives are theories of power, used to promote a political or pragmatic agenda. Those believing them are expected to react in time, act, and counter the malign intent of those supposedly conspiring against their community, society, or humanity at large. Major sectors of Latin American societies have been prone to give credence to conspiracy theories under different historical circumstances. Due to the countries’ geopolitical positions and the prevalence of social inequality, racial anxiety, internal tensions and conflict, and a sense of institutional vulnerability, many have given credence to conspiratorial narratives. Several contextual scenarios have been particularly conducive to the adoption and diffusion of conspiratorial narratives. Among these are situations of accelerated political change and economic crisis, social and political polarization, institutional distrust, and international wars. Under such circumstances, conspiracy carriers and entrepreneurs have led many to suspect the existence of internal or external enemies plotting to take advantage of a naïve public and willing to affect society, take control of resources, or steal parts of a national territory. It is expected that research on conspiracy theories in Latin America, still incipient even though conspiracism has been widely present in society and the media, will be bolstered in coming years.

Adoption of scientific agricultural information is a pressing need to address the food security of in the face of pressing emergencies like climate change and the COVID crisis. Researchers have recognized that public trust in governments and knowledge-producing institutions is at a historic low due to growing socioeconomic inequalities and political polarization. The rise of online misinformation has made the scientific truth about pressing issues like climate change, COVID crisis, and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) as matters of perspective, hurling them in the domain of post-truth and alternative facts. In many cases, the political positions and press releases [T]rump over scientific consensus evident in documented issues like vaccine hesitancy and COVID hoax discourse. In Ontario, agricultural advisory stakeholders recognize the dire needs and challenges of catalyzing agricultural technology adoption, especially at the farm level. We interviewed 20 agricultural advisors in Ontario to understand the catalysts and deterrents impacting the adoption of agricultural technologies by farms. The findings indicate various dynamic factors influencing rejection of scientific recommendations and inhibiting the process of accelerating adoption. There is an emergence of blame casting among different stakeholders due to conflicting interests and ideological positions. The lack of unbiased information emerged as one of the central challenges deterring the adoption of agricultural technologies, which is also contributing to agricultural science denial. In this presentation, we propose a new thinking from the political economy perspective to explain the dynamics of agricultural (mis)information that provides a promising insight into the deterrents of agricultural technology adoption in Ontario, along with the social realities behind science denial. Funding: OMAFRA through the Ontario Agri-Food Innovation Alliance KTT Stream