People don’t believe conspiracies because they are foolish, they believe them because they fill social and psychological needs.
Chris Kremidas-Courtney
In today’s volatile information environment, conspiracy theories are not just fringe curiosities or viral distractions. They are accelerating fault lines in democratic societies — eroding trust, polarizing citizens, and becoming vectors for cognitive warfare. And they thrive not because the facts are unclear, but because unmet human needs create fertile ground for false certainty.
A new sweeping meta-analysis of 279 studies confirms a finding that should inform every strategy on disinformation and resilience: people embrace conspiracies not simply because they are misinformed, but because these narratives fulfill deep psychological motives. Understanding these needs; epistemic (to know), existential (to feel safe), and social (to belong), offers a critical lens through which we must shape our response to conspiracy thinking.
The Need to Know.
In a world flooded with competing narratives and incomplete truths, it’s no wonder that many turn to “simpler” explanations. When institutions fail to communicate clearly or worse, contradict themselves, people will fill the cognitive void. Conspiracies provide a mental shortcut: a story with villains and intent, which feels more satisfying than ambiguity or randomness.
It is no accident that conspiracies spike during moments of crisis such a pandemic, a terror attack, or economic collapse. When official explanations are slow or inconsistent, they feel untrustworthy. Into that breach steps the conspiracy theory, a seductive explanation that gives meaning where there is confusion.
But clarity is not the same as truth. And herein lies the risk: societies that fail at transparency and accountability and don’t provide timely and accurate communications are opening the door for myths and disinformation to replace facts.
The Need to Feel Safe.
Powerlessness is a breeding ground for conspiracies. When citizens feel they have lost control of their health, their future, or their voice, conspiracy theories provide a dark comfort. . “At least someone is in charge,” the thinking goes, even if that someone is a corrupt actor. Better a cruel plan than no plan at all.
This psychological response played out on a global scale during COVID-19, when conspiracy theories about viruses, vaccines, and shadowy elites flooded the information space. For many, these weren’t just wild stories, they were coping mechanisms.
The key insight for policymakers is stark: the less secure people feel, the more vulnerable they are to radicalization through conspiracy theories. Societal resilience therefore begins with human dignity manifested in economic, physical, and civic terms. Disinformation thrives where public trust collapses.
The Need to Belong.
Belief is not just about reason; it’s also about identity. Conspiracies often come wrapped in a package of “us vs. them.” The believer becomes part of a heroic in-group who “sees the truth,” while the masses are asleep. This not only validates the person, but it also offers a sense of community.
Today’s digital echo chambers weaponize this instinct. Algorithms reward outrage and tribalism. Believers congregate in online spaces where doubt is punished and group loyalty is paramount. Once inside the community, conspiracies are not merely tolerated but celebrated. Believing is belonging and belonging is believing.
Governments and civil society must grasp that this is more than a cognitive battle, it’s also a crisis of community. People are not only misled, they are also recruited. They’re not just consuming content but also becoming part of something larger than themselves. And once there, they tend to amplify these narratives and even create new content of their own.
From Psychological Insights to Strategic Action.
The data from this new study of studies shows these three motives: the need to know, the need to feel safe, and the need to belong are all linked to conspiracy beliefs. While the correlations are moderate, they are consistent across cultures, age groups, and contexts. This consistency points to a broader reality: conspiracy thinking is not a quirk of some cultures or generations. It is a human phenomenon.
But this is also good news. If these needs are universal, so too are the opportunities for intervention. Thus, a broad set of universally applicable solutions emerges:
Strategic communication grounded in transparency and accountability must be the first line of defense. A vacuum of credible information is the conspiracy theorist’s best ally.
Civic empowerment programs, especially those that build digital and critical thinking skills, can help inoculate populations against cognitive manipulation.
Community-based resilience efforts which create spaces for dialogue, belonging, and participation, offer a healthier alternative to conspiratorial belonging. People who don’t feel lonely are a lot less likely to seek and find community in conspiracy-based groups.
Finally, governance itself must become more anticipatory and deliver more effectively. Disinformation is not just a problem of content. Its ability to spread far and wide is a symptom of unmet societal needs.
In hybrid warfare, the battlefield is often cognitive and fought not with tanks, but with narratives. Today’s adversaries exploit psychological vulnerabilities to degrade societal cohesion from within. Conspiracy theories are not just fringe beliefs; they are the tip of a larger spear aimed at our ability to act collectively.
The path forward demands more than myth-busting or fact-checking. It requires understanding the why behind belief and addressing it.
Today, disinformation is sown like seeds, and frustrated human needs are the fertile ground they grow in. And like any terrain, it can be shaped through policy, education and building trust.
To be clear, conspiracy theories are not going away but their power can be reduced. Not by ridicule or censorship, but by meeting the very needs that make them appealing in the first place. The future of democratic resilience may well depend on it.
Chris Kremidas-Courtney is a senior advisor at Greece Fact Chek, a senior visiting fellow at the European Policy Centre, and associate fellow at the Geneva Centre for Security Policy.