The Forces Behind Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theorists have always been among us, from Q-Anon, to COVID-19 deniers, to flat-Earthers. However, more recently, conspiracy theories have gained a strong foothold in American politics, with many politicians openly embracing them. At the same time, political polarization in the U.S. is at one of its highest levels. A 2022 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that current hostility between Democrats and Republicans is at an all time high. Between 2016 and 2022, the percentage of Republicans who viewed Democrats as immoral and vice versa increased by 25% and 28% respectively. Is it possible that the same driving forces behind conspiracy theories are also fueling polarization between liberals and conservatives? 

To understand the relationship between conspiracy theories and political polarization, we first need to understand the science behind conspiracy theories. According to Professor Eric Oliver of the University of Chicago, conspiracy theories can actually be explained by a simple model — the intuitionist-rationalist model. Intuitionists rely upon their emotions and subconscious to make decisions, while rationalists rely upon logic, facts, and deductive reasoning. According to this principle, everyone falls somewhere on the intuitionist-rationalist spectrum.

This model relates to conspiracy theories because it predicts how people explain the world. Conspiracy theories are born from uncertainty, fear, and anxiety, and when people are confronted with these emotions, their instinct is to quickly find a solution. This is where the intuitionist-rationalist model comes in. Rationalists will look for logic and facts to help explain their fears, while intuitionists gravitate towards emotionally provocative explanations. 

This is why conspiracy theories are so appealing to intuitionists: they provide quick, emotionally-charged justifications for people’s fears and validate their anxieties. Even though conspiracy theories are not based on any legitimate evidence, this does not matter to intuitionists because they do not view the world primarily through facts. 

We can clearly see how this model plays out in the context of former President Barack Obama’s birth certificate conspiracy, in which many Americans falsely accused the president of not being a natural-born citizen of the U.S. According to Adam Serwer of The Atlantic, many white Americans felt that Obama’s rise in popularity threatened their political power, which in turn, brewed anxiety among these communities. Therefore, to justify and rationalize their fears, many individuals searched for explanations to delegitimize Obama’s candidacy, which led to the “Birther” conspiracy. 

So, how does the intuitionist-rationalist model relate to political polarization? Well, because some people identify more as rationalists while others more as intuitionists, two people can have two completely different realities. And, this division between intuitionists’ and rationalists’ realities fuels polarization. Furthermore, political polarization has increased in recent years as modern conservatism has become an increasingly intuitionist movement. According to Oliver, while rational conservatives, like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, have been pushed to the margins of the Republican Party, intuitive conservatives, such as Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Greene, have come to the forefront. The modern Republican Party, more so than ever, uses conspiratorial and emotional rhetoric to capitalize off of people’s fears and anxieties. 

Consequently, intuitionism is heavily aligned with the Republican Party, while rationalism is generally aligned with the Democratic Party. This, in turn, drives political polarization because each party explains the world in a completely different way. For example, consider the 2020 election. According to Sarah Longwell of The Atlantic, while polling numbers were sufficient to prove the legitimacy of the election for Democrats, this was insufficient for Republicans because the results did not “feel right.” Because each political party falls on opposite sides of the intuitionist-rationalist spectrum, they are unable to agree upon basic facts. And, the inability of Republicans and Democrats to exist and function in the same reality fuels polarization. 

However, having intuitive forces concentrated on only one side of the political spectrum does not bode well for a healthy democracy. Democracies are built upon compromise, but intuitionists are generally not open to compromise and have a low tolerance to opposition. Therefore, to ensure the democratic success of the U.S., it is imperative that people try to bridge the gap between rationalists and intuitionists.  

As the Republican Party has embraced conspiratorial thinking and intuitionism, the forces behind conspiracy theories and political polarization have become one and the same. Therefore, to close the polarization gap, we must understand why people believe in conspiracy theories. From there, the best way to reach out to intuitionists is to first acknowledge their fears, rather than trying to reason with them. At their core, many intuitionists are simply frightened, so validating their anxieties can be a key step to encouraging further conversation. While we may never be able to completely convince people to stop believing in conspiracy theories, we can at least facilitate conversations to help bridge the gap between different realities and reduce polarization.