“Fighting fire with fire”, or “meta-conspiracy” prebunking

Conspiracy theories are notoriously difficult to challenge, and traditional “prebunking” techniques, which involve giving people counterarguments in advance, may be less successful among people who are already inclined towards conspiracist thinking.  

In this new paper from the CONSPIRACY_FX project, we propose that instead of simply providing counterarguments, it may be useful to reframe a conspiracy theory as part of a bigger hidden plot or “meta-conspiracy” instead, effectively “fighting fire with fire.” 

To test this approach, we conducted two pre-registered experiments, one focusing on COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy theories and the other on climate change conspiracy theories. We presented a plausible narrative that the conspiracy theories themselves are being deliberately manufactured or amplified as part of a nefarious plot by hidden actors (e.g., fossil fuel companies or ideological networks). Participants either received the “meta-conspiracy” prebunking message, a standard prebunking message (i.e., simply introducing doubts and counterarguments against the specific conspiracy theory), exposure to the specific conspiracy theories themselves, or a control message (no prebunking).   

We measured belief in the target conspiracy theories (vaccine or climate denial), belief in plausible meta-conspiracy theories, and behavioural intentions such as willingness to vaccinate, or intent to reduce one’s carbon footprint.  Although results suggested the “meta-conspiracy” approach didn’t directly reduce belief in conspiracy theories, it did nudge people toward a belief in the new “meta” explanation, and people who adopted this broader narrative tended to believe less in the original conspiracy theory, as well as showing more positive behavioural intentions (such as being more open to vaccination or climate action).  

We called this effect “belief switching”.  Instead of completely removing conspiracist thinking, this intervention shifts people towards a different, potentially more constructive, story. However, we should also caution that this type of “fighting fire with fire” framing is delicate as it may introduce those who have not encountered conspiracy narratives yet to their content. Nevertheless, we found that those who were already susceptible to conspiracist reasoning were most receptive to the intervention, suggesting that “”fighting fire with fire” may be persuasive due to its conspiracist framing of reliable information.