Ideas and Society

Have you ever scrolled through social media and come across a shocking conspiracy theory that was so stunning that you had to immediately share it with others? It’s exciting to feel like you’ve discovered the “real story,” especially when the official version seems convoluted or incomplete. These intriguing stories can be fun to talk about and provide a sense of relief in the face of uncertainty.

It is easy to become engrossed in stories that promise to reveal secrets, have unexpected turns, and provide sensational news. However, sharing these stories may lead to unintended negative consequences. As followers of Christ, we are counseled to seek after things that are true, honest, just, pure, virtuous, lovely, of good report, and praiseworthy.¹ We are not doing that if we are spreading false conspiracies.

We are also counseled to build unified communities; to be “perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”² As I will discuss below, we should not spread false conspiracy theories. And we even ought to be careful when spreading information about true conspiracies. We don’t know how our words may be used by others. Even accurate facts can be taken out of context, leading others to draw false or exaggerated conclusions. Because of the way even a true conspiracy in our midst can lead us to be suspicious and untrusting of others, it can lead to disunity and contention in our society.

Captivating Combinations

Of course, discussing conspiracy theories can be captivating and entertaining.³ But the thrill of a conspiracy theory has a lot to do with how the story is told. Researchers found that when people were told about the Notre Dame Cathedral fire in a way that suggested that the fire was set deliberately, and that the truth was hidden from the public, people experienced stronger emotions than when they were told the official version that the Notre Dame fire was a tragic accident, and that all the relevant information has been shared with the public. The researchers said, “Much like a scary movie or detective novel, conspiracy theories typically involve spectacular narratives that include mystery, suspected danger, and unknown forces that one does not fully comprehend.”⁴

Research has also found that conspiracy theories can also help us to feel like we have some control over events that may otherwise be hard to understand.⁵ They may appear to fill in the gaps when official narratives seem lacking.⁶ Yet, this allure masks significant dangers: conspiracy theories can fracture our communities and undermine societal trust.

Both scripture and history warn us that conspiracies are real and consequential. For example, the Book of Mormon warns us that secret combinations, or hidden alliances, have existed among all people, that they caused the destruction of the Jaredites and Nephites, and that any nation that allows such “murderous combinations” to spread over the nation shall be destroyed.⁷ It is easy to see, for example, how drug cartels that infiltrate the government could destroy a society.

We read in Doctrine and Covenants section 89 that the Word of Wisdom was given “[i]n consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days.” One such conspiracy was called “Operation Berkshire” and involved seven of the world’s major tobacco companies, who conspired to promote doubt about the scientific evidence linking smoking to serious diseases.⁸

We all know that Watergate was a real conspiracy. In fact, any time people agree in secret to carry out some nefarious plan, they are involved in a conspiracy. They may do it for gain, and as they hide what they’ve done, they may sow confusion in their wake.

However, we may imagine a conspiracy exists when it does not. Just because people stand to gain from something happening, and just because the facts surrounding some event are confusing, it does not logically follow that there must be a conspiracy. For example, the sinking of the Titanic has been attributed to overlooked iceberg warnings, design flaws, and crew decisions.⁹ Although some insurers gained financially since they were able to charge higher premiums after the disaster,¹⁰ there is no evidence that they colluded to cause the Titanic to sink. Sometimes people gain an advantage from an event by coincidence.

Sometimes figuring out how or why something happened can be hard. There are problems of memory and human perception that contribute to this confusion.¹¹ But it does not mean that people who are incorrectly recounting the events are seeking to cover up a conspiracy. As an attorney, I have found that it is not uncommon for one eyewitness to remember things differently from another and for both of them to remember things differently from what the physical evidence showed. In one case, a man testified that after an automobile accident, he saw the driver covered in glass and blood. However, the photographs, medical records, and testimony of the driver herself proved that there was no broken glass and no blood. One might have been tempted to think that the man was trying to gain some advantage for the driver. However, he had no relationship with her and had nothing to gain. He simply remembered the events wrong.

The Psychology of Scrolling

Social media contributes significantly to the spread of conspiracy theories. Social media algorithms prioritize content that drives engagement.¹² As we quickly scroll through alarming images and emotional statements, the emotional triggers in our brain are activated, and we click on, comment, or share the post.¹³ It may arouse anger or fear and a fight or flight response, causing us to respond quickly without slowing down and thinking through what we are seeing.¹⁴

Another reason we may share a theory out could be out of some deep urge to protect others and help them know the “truth.”¹⁵ Perhaps we are exhilarated by the act of sharing “inside information.”¹⁶ Or maybe, we just think the post raises interesting points.¹⁷

Regardless of the reason, social media amplifies conspiracy theories. Researchers confirmed this by analyzing over 265,000 social media posts that appeared between January and March 2020 related to the COVID-19 pandemic. They found that stories reinforcing conspiracy theories went viral at a higher rate than other stories.¹⁸

Once we are committed to a conspiracy theory and have shared the post, we can become emotionally invested in defending the position ourselves. According to the “commitment and consistency” principle of psychology, “[o]nce someone has made a commitment to do something, they are more likely to behave consistently or to follow through with the committed behaviour.”¹⁹ A person who commits to a position may even subsequently expand their support. This was illustrated when homeowners were asked to put up a large sign in their yards advocating for safe driving. Most initially refused. But when a different group was asked to display a smaller sign with a similar message, and then approached later with a request for a larger sign, a large number agreed. Thus, committing to a message in a small way can lead to subsequent commitment in a larger way.²⁰

As we defend the post and think of arguments in favor of the position, we can become more convinced that there really is a conspiracy, even when there is none. We may continue to research the subject and come across some information that is true, and supports the theory, and some that is false. Through a psychological effect called “motivated reasoning,” we have a natural tendency to interpret information or construct arguments in a way that suits our desires, emotions, group identities, or preexisting goals.²¹ This helps explain how members of doomsday cults can maintain their beliefs even after seeing their end-of-the-world prophecies fail, and how police can adopt tunnel vision in criminal investigations, leading to wrongful convictions.²²

Another natural tendency, known as “confirmation bias,” can affect our research by causing us to notice, accept, and remember the information that confirms our theory, but reject the evidence that challenges our theory, rather than reforming or rejecting the theory.²³ Confirmation bias was illustrated in an experiment at Stanford University, where participants were asked if they supported or opposed capital punishment. All participants were given the same two studies to review. Afterward, both groups interpreted the results of the studies in ways that supported their preexisting views rather than modifying their beliefs after reading the studies. Participants simply accepted evidence from the studies that confirmed their prior views and rejected contradictory data.²⁴

Due to what is called the “continued influence effect,” misinformation tends to persist in our minds and can continue to influence our beliefs or behaviors, even after we receive correct information.²⁵ For example, participants in one study read a story that incorrectly claimed that a warehouse fire was caused by flammable material in a wardrobe. A group of those participants was later told that the wardrobe was actually empty. Despite the correction, many participants still inferred that the dangerous materials likely caused the fire.²⁶

Also, information that challenges our deeply held beliefs can feel like a personal attack and can have a “backfire effect,” causing us to hold more tightly to our beliefs rather than reconsider them.²⁷ For example, independent fact-checkers identified 32 false statements made by a politician. When supporters of the politician were given the information, trust in their candidate increased by 12% after seeing the corrections. They perceived the fact-checking as a biased attack by opponents and thus the information reinforced, rather than undermined, their prior beliefs.²⁸

Social media also brings like-minded people together. As we encounter others who share our beliefs, and avoid those who do not, we become more confident, emboldened, and convinced. It is satisfying and exhilarating to find others who believe the same things. As we share our own information and ideas with our virtual friends, the information becomes amplified as it is spread among others in the expanding echo chamber.²⁹

When someone claims a conspiracy exists, it can be easy to get sucked in, “particularly in societal crisis situations such as a pandemic, a terrorist strike, a war, a revolution, a natural disaster, or the unexpected death of a celebrity.”³⁰ In the face of an existential threat, our natural ability to see patterns between events, persons, and places increases so that we are more likely to see patterns in such things as snowy pictures, stock market information, or abstract art, even when such patterns do not actually exist.³¹ The fact that we might see the image of a horse in a group of clouds does not mean that someone put it there.

We also have a natural ability to detect when people are acting intentionally or not, helping us to distinguish between friends and enemies.³² However, when facing a threat, we may experience “hyperactive agency detection.” This can cause us to believe there is some kind of evil, complex scheme behind events that are actually random.³³ For example, when a computer crashes at work, or a car fails to start when we are late, we might subconsciously attribute these events to some malicious intent (“The universe is out to get me!”) even though they are random mechanical failures.³⁴

A related concept is the “intentionality bias,” which “is the tendency to interpret other people’s behaviour as deliberate.”³⁵ This explains why so many of us are enraged at being cut off in traffic, when the person cutting us off may not have even noticed they were doing so.

In the face of significant events, the “intentionality bias” can join with the “proportionality bias,” which is “the tendency to believe that big events have big causes,”³⁶ to cause us to think that a simple explanation, or mere coincidence, is not sufficient to explain a terrible and frightening catastrophe.

Thus, finding a pattern may satisfy an urge we have had to understand otherwise unfathomable events. It may confirm suspicions we have had about others. A straightforward answer, with the promise of hidden knowledge, can satisfy our desire for confidence in the face of anxiety and threatening circumstances.³⁷

As we encounter the same conspiracy theory repeatedly, such as through memes, videos, or social media posts, they can seem more credible, regardless of whether they are true or not.³⁸ As we see people react to such posts with comments, “likes” or reaction emojis, it can affect how we feel about them as well through the “bandwagon effect.”³⁹ Regarding the use of memes in spreading conspiracy theories, one researcher commented, “memes play a significant role in reinforcing the culture of online conspiracy theorist communities. Members gravitate towards memes that validate their ‘conspiracist worldview,’ and these memes become an important part of their storytelling. Their simple, shareable format then enables the rapid spread of harmful beliefs.”⁴⁰

From Suspicion to Social Harm

Therefore, before spreading conspiracy theories, it is important that we fight those urges and suspicions, take a step back, and examine the evidence. If we do not, we risk falsely accusing innocent people. When innocent people are accused of wrongdoing, an injustice occurs. Innocent people may even be wrongfully punished. Of course, that person will lose confidence in our system, but so will others when the injustice is discovered. We will all naturally wonder, “How could this have happened?” and “What if it happens to me?”

The damage is greater when the innocent people consist of those groups in society that run things, including corporations and the government. When one corporation is exposed as a wrongdoer, we start to ask ourselves whether we can trust other corporations. Is my food safe? Is my car safe? Is anything safe?

When government actors are exposed as being part of a conspiracy, our confidence in the system takes a greater hit. We may wonder whether the people on whom we rely to keep us safe and protect our rights are themselves a threat to our rights and safety. If people do not trust the system to enforce our laws, they may withdraw from political and community activity. They begin to take the law into their own hands. As paranoia takes over, neighbor turns against neighbor, and our society fractures.

A real-world example can be found in the story of Edgar Maddison Welch. On December 4, 2016, Welch drove from North Carolina to the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant in Washington, D.C., armed with an AR-15 assault rifle and a revolver to investigate a false conspiracy theory about Democrats harboring child sex slaves there. “Patrons fled when they saw Welch enter the restaurant, and when he encountered a locked storage closet, he fired multiple times. No one was injured.”⁴¹ Welch later pleaded guilty and wrote, “It was never my intention to harm or frighten innocent lives, but I realize now just how foolish and reckless my decision was.”⁴²

Of course, where true conspiracies to do harm exist, they should be stopped because of the harm they can cause. However, we should be careful when spreading information about conspiracies, even when they are true. One of the main dangers of false conspiracies can be realized when we recklessly spread information about true conspiracies: People can lose confidence in the institutions of society.  As we lose confidence in groups that may otherwise serve and protect us, we may forego the service and protection they provide as we surrender to our fears. As we spread frightening information about those groups, others may lose confidence as well.

If I uncover actual corruption in my local police department, I may not turn to my local police for help until the wrongs have been rooted out. As others hear about the scandal, they may lose confidence in the police generally, and not just those in the tainted department that I have exposed, even though true conspiracies tend to be more limited and specific, rather than all-encompassing cover-ups.

If a person falsely believes I am a threat, since they no longer trust the system, they may take matters into their own hands and personally threaten me. Thus, spreading conspiracy theories, true or false, sows chaos and violence and thereby can cause actual harm where perhaps none existed before.⁴³

Therefore, if we happen to uncover a true conspiracy, rather than sharing the information with countless “friends” on social media, it would be wise to contact a qualified attorney experienced in whistleblower protections, government oversight, or national security matters. It is best to avoid public disclosure without legal guidance, as unauthorized release may expose one to legal risk or jeopardize ongoing investigations. And when we encounter any claims of conspiracy, before we do anything else to act on them, we should investigate their accuracy.

Discernment in the Digital Age

As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we are taught to seek truth and build Zion through love and unity. We have been commanded to “not bear false witness” against others,⁴⁴ to gossip,⁴⁵ or even to stir up conflict in the community.⁴⁶ Such actions can wound our families, wards, and neighborhoods. In a world overflowing with information–and misinformation–how do we know which stories to trust? How do we guard our hearts and minds against the chaos that falsehoods can create?

There are steps we can take that can help us to avoid being duped into believing in false conspiracy theories. As we scroll through our social media feed and see alarming claims, before clicking, commenting, or sharing, we can slow down and analyze the claim. Research has shown that “deliberation and analytical thinking decrease conspiracy beliefs,” since it makes us more aware of logical fallacies and more able to avoid the kinds of psychological traps that can lead to unwarranted beliefs.⁴⁷ The scriptures also teach that we should be “quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”⁴⁸ So here are some things to do when a conspiracy theory pops up:

• Check the Evidence: Does the post provide verifiable facts or just dramatic statements? Are we just expected to take the author’s word for it? Or are there links to official documents, reputable news outlets, or expert analysis?
• Evaluate the Source: Who wrote the post? Is that person a recognized expert? Does the source have some bias or agenda that could undermine their reliability?
• Beware of Emotional Manipulation: Does the text use strong emotional language? Conspiracy theories often rely on emotion rather than facts to persuade.
• Look for Logical Fallacies: Are there leaps in logic? Ask whether the conclusion follows from the evidence, or whether there are gaps and assumptions.
• Seek Corroboration: Is the story backed up by multiple, independent, and reputable sources? If only fringe sites or social media posts support a claim, it’s probably not reliable.
• Consider Alternative, Simpler Explanations: Are other, less sensational explanations ignored or dismissed? Conspiracy theories often present a single, dramatic narrative and reject all other, often simpler, explanations.
• Fact-Check using reputable sites: Use reputable fact-checking sites to see what evidence exists for or against the claim.
• Think Twice Before Sharing: Finally, ask whether sharing the post builds faith or does it foster fear? Would leaders in the Church share it? Am I following the Savior’s counsel to “love thy neighbor” and build unity in how I communicate?

We live in a time of deep distrust of institutions and of each other. The stability of our society, in countless ways, depends on mutual trust. Spreading unverified, sensational claims can undermine that trust. By choosing truth, kindness, and careful speech, we strengthen our families, wards, and society. In a world where rumors travel faster than facts, let each of us be known for gentle, truthful, and uniting words.

Footnotes

¹ Phillip. 4:8; Articles of Faith 1:13.

² 1 Cor. 1:10. See also Acts 4:32; Rom. 12:16 & 15:5-6; Phillip. 2:1-2; Mos. 18:21; Moses 7:18; D&C 6:6; 38:27.

³ J.-W. van Prooijen, J. Ligthart, S. Rosema, and K. Xu, “The entertainment value of conspiracy theories,” British Journal of Psychology 113, no. 1 (2021): 25–48, https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12522.

⁴ J.-W. van Prooijen, J. Ligthart, S. Rosema, and K. Xu, “The entertainment value of conspiracy theories.”

⁵ Jennifer A. Whitson, Joongseo Kim, and Cynthia S. Wang, “Regulatory Focus and Conspiratorial Perceptions: The Importance of Personal Control,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 45, no. 1 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218775070.

⁶ Irena Pilch et al., “Contemporary Trends in Psychological Research on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Systematic Review,” Frontiers in Psychology 14 (February 8, 2023), https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1075779.

⁷ Ether 8:18-26.

⁸ Neil Francey and Simon Chapman, “‘Operation Berkshire’: the International Tobacco Companies’ Conspiracy,” BMJ 321, no. 7257 (August 5, 2000): 371–374, https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7257.371.

⁹ “How Did the Titanic Really Sink?,” Naval History Magazine, U.S. Naval Institute, October 1996, https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/1996/october/how-did-titanic-really-sink.\

¹⁰ Garrett McGrath, “Insurance and the Titanic,” The Tontine Coffee-House, September 25, 2022, https://tontinecoffeehouse.com/2022/09/26/insurance-and-the-titanic/.

¹¹ Jeffrey M. Zacks, “Event Perception and Memory,” Annual Review of Psychology 71 (January 2020): 165–91, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-051101.

¹² Smitha Milli, Micah Carroll, Yike Wang, Sashrika, and Andrea D., “Engagement, User Satisfaction, and the Amplification of Divisive Content in Social Media Ranking Algorithms,” PNAS Nexus 4, no. 3 (2025): pgaf062, https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf062.

¹³ “The Psychology of Social Media: How Scrolling Shapes Your Mind,” Achieve Psychology, accessed September 27, 2025, https://www.achievepsychology.org/post/the-psychology-of-social-media-how-scrolling-impacts-your-mind; “Social Media and the Brain,” Center for Humane Technology, accessed September 27, 2025, https://www.humanetech.com/youth/social-media-and-the-brain.

¹⁴ Dominik A. Stecula and Mark Pickup, “Social Media, Cognitive Reflection, and Conspiracy Beliefs,” Frontiers in Political Science 3 (2021), https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/political-science/articles/10.3389/fpos.2021.647957/full.

¹⁵ Rumi Holbech Nielsen and Thomas Wold, “How Perceiving Oneself as an Altruistic Person Can Motivate One to Spread Misinformation on Social Media,” Cogent Social Sciences 11 (2025), https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2025.2518443.

¹⁶ “Secrets of Social Media Revealed 50 Years Ago,” Harvard Business Review, June 17, 2011, https://hbr.org/2011/06/secrets-of-social-media-reveal.

¹⁷ The New York Times Customer Insight Group, “The Psychology of Sharing,” Foundation Marketing, accessed September 29, 2025, https://foundationinc.co/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NYT-Psychology-Of-Sharing.pdf.

¹⁸ Papakyriakopoulos, Orestis, Juan Carlos Medina Serrano, and Simon Hegelich. “The Spread of COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories on Social Media and the Effect of Content Moderation.” Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, August 11, 2020. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/the-spread-of-covid-19-conspiracy-theories-on-social-media-and-the-effect-of-content-moderation/.

¹⁹ Naomi Isenberg and Markus Brauer, “Commitment and Consistency,” in The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Psychology (2022), https://psych.wisc.edu/Brauer/BrauerLab/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Isenberg-and-Brauer-2022.pdf.

²⁰ Learning Loop, “Commitment & Consistency,” https://learningloop.io/plays/psychology/commitment-&-consistency.

²¹ Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

²² Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

²³ Gagliardi, Lorenzo. “The Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracy Beliefs: A Literature Review.” SSRN Electronic Journal, December 28, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1111/joes.12604.

²⁴ “Confirmation Bias,” Simply Psychology, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html.

²⁵ Mark W. Susmann and Duane T. Wegener, “The Role of Discomfort in the Continued Influence Effect of Misinformation,” Memory & Cognition 50, no. 2 (2022): 435–448, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-021-01232-8.

²⁶ Hollyn M. Johnson and Colleen M. Seifert, “Sources of the Continued Influence Effect: When Misinformation in Memory Affects Later Inferences,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20, no. 6 (1994): 1420-1436, https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.20.6.1420.

²⁷ Gagliardi, “The Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracy Beliefs: A Literature Review.”

²⁸ “Backfire Effect – Definition, Examples, and How to Overcome It,” Cognitive Bias Lab, September 2, 2025, https://www.cognitivebiaslab.com/bias/bias-backfire-effect/.

²⁹ Mohsen Mosleh, Cameron Martel, Dean Eckles, and David G. Rand, “The Echo Chamber Effect on Social Media,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, no. 9 (March 2, 2021): e2023301118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118.

³⁰ Jan-Willem van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence: The Unique Role of Conspiracy Theories in Social Justice Research,” Social Justice Research 35, no. 1 (September 28, 2021): 88–106, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-021-00376-x.

³¹ Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

³² Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

³³ Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

³⁴ Stephen Chamberlain, “Hyperactive Agency Detection and the Suspension of Disbelief,” Stephen Chamberlain, accessed October 12, 2025, https://www.stephenchamberlain.net/society-culture/hyperactive-agency-detection-and-the-suspension-of-disbelief.

³⁵ Bortolotti, Lisa. “Is it Pathological to Believe Conspiracy Theories?” Transcultural Psychiatry 61, no. 5 (August 1, 2024): 749–755. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11629588/.

³⁶ Bortolotti, “Is it Pathological to Believe Conspiracy Theories?”

³⁷ Van Prooijen, “Injustice Without Evidence.”

³⁸ Jérémy Béna, Mathias Rihet, Ophélie Carreras, and Patrice Terrier, “Repetition could increase the perceived truth of conspiracy theories,” Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, May 23, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02276-4.

³⁹ Fangcao Lu and Yanqing Sun, “COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: The effects of combining direct and indirect online opinion cues on psychological reactance to health campaigns,” Computers in Human Behavior 127 (October 22, 2021): article 107057, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.107057.

⁴⁰ “Memes spread conspiracy theories by uniting online groups, shows new research,” Phys.org, January 2025, https://phys.org/news/2025-01-memes-conspiracy-theories-online-groups.html.

⁴¹ CBS News, “Pizzagate gunman recorded video for daughters, said he’s standing up for children,” CBS News, June 14, 2017, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/pizzagate-gunman-records-video-for-daughters-saying-he-standing-up-for-children/.

⁴² CBS News, “Pizzagate gunman recorded video,” June 14, 2017.

⁴³ “Some of the negative consequences of conspiracy theories have also been identified in recent years, such as political disengagement (Jolley & Douglas, 2014a), illegal political action (Imhoff, Dieterle, & Lamberty, 2021), violence (Jolley & Paterson, 2020; Uscinski & Parent, 2014).” Daniel J. Green, Amelia M. K. Smith, and Karen L. Douglas, “Making an impression: The effects of sharing conspiracy theories,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 104 (2023): article 104398, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2023.104398.

⁴⁴ Exodus 20:16; Exodus 23:1; Prov. 25:18; Psalm 27:12; Leviticus 19:16

⁴⁵ Proverbs 11:13 (NIV) Proverbs 16:28 (NIV)

⁴⁶ Proverbs 6:16-19 (NIV).

⁴⁷ Gagliardi, “The Role of Cognitive Biases in Conspiracy Beliefs: A Literature Review.”

⁴⁸ James 1:19 (NIV).