True discernment or blind scepticism? Comparing the effectiveness of four conspiracy belief interventions

Abstract

In this research, we compared the effectiveness of four promising interventions (Priming, Inoculation, Active Inoculation, and Discernment), on a range of conspiracy thinking measures. Across two studies (total N = 1,766), we found that the inoculation-based interventions (but not Priming and Discernment conditions) were effective at reducing susceptibility to novel implausible conspiracy theories but did not improve critical appraisal of novel plausible conspiracy theories. We found that only the Discernment condition, which discouraged blind scepticism of conspiracy theories, significantly improved critical appraisal of both plausible and implausible conspiracy theories. The inoculation-based interventions (but not Priming and Discernment conditions) were moderately successful at reducing epistemically unwarranted beliefs. However, no intervention statistically significantly reduced general conspiracy ideation or significantly affected likelihood judgements for hypothetical conspiracy theories. The overall intervention effects ranged from small to moderate (ds = 0.14 - 0.72). These findings highlight both the importance of teaching discernment and measuring discernment as an outcome, as many well-established interventions designed to reduce belief in conspiracy theories may have either no effect or negatively impact participants’ ability to critically reason about plausible conspiracy theories.