Conspiracy theories are not just a matter of dark corners of the web or shouted comments on social media. More and more often they enter daily conversations, family WhatsApp groups, and the feeds of those who have studied, read newspapers and keep informed. And this is precisely the aspect that intrigues and worries the most: why do even educated people end up believing it?
A less obvious answer is suggested by recent research that brings into play not the level of education, but some profound personality traits, first of all narcissism. A study published in the scientific journal Journal of Personality and Individual Differences analyzed the relationship between narcissism, misinformation and conspiracy theories, showing how the qualification alone is not enough to act as a shield.
When the need to feel special weighs more than skills
For years we have told ourselves that it was above all people with fewer cultural tools who believed in conspiracy theories. That’s partly true, but it’s only part of the picture. History teaches us that conspiracy theories explode especially in moments of uncertainty, when the world seems difficult to decipher: wars, economic crises, pandemics. It is no coincidence that during Covid alternative narratives found fertile ground even among people with degrees, professionals and citizens accustomed to thinking critically.
In fact, conspiracy theories do not only offer explanations. They offer a sense of order, a simple interpretation in a chaotic context. They give the illusion of control and, above all, they allow those who believe in them to feel different from others, more alert, more lucid, less “manipulable”. And this is where narcissism comes in.
What happens when narcissism meets misinformation
The research involved 660 adults with very different levels of education, from high school to doctorates. The participants were given questionnaires to evaluate some narcissistic traits, such as the sense of superiority, the need to stand out and the tendency to seek clear answers, without nuances.
They were subsequently asked how credible they considered some conspiracy claims, including the famous theory according to which the assassination of John F. Kennedy was not the work of a single attacker, but of a well-organised conspiracy. Participants were also asked to recognize fake news disguised as newspaper headlines.
The result was clear: people with more pronounced narcissistic traits tended to accept conspiracy theories and misinformation more easily, regardless of their level of education. When these traits exceed a certain threshold, the difference between those who have studied and those who have not narrows until it almost disappears.
Because intelligence is not enough to protect us
Studying helps, without a doubt. Education provides tools for evaluating sources, distinguishing facts from opinions, and reasoning critically. But human beings are not rational machines. We are very good at so-called motivated reasoning, that is, at using our cognitive abilities to arrive at conclusions that make us feel better.
When a person needs to feel superior to the experts, to have a clear answer in confusing times, or to perceive themselves as “one who has it all figured out,” even a trained brain can bend. Skills, in these cases, do not disappear: they are used to defend a belief, not to question it.
This is why even those who read essays, follow current events and have a solid education can become impervious to denials, especially if these threaten their identity or sense of value.
What does all this tell us about the way we argue
These results help to look at conspiracy theories with a less superficial gaze. It is not just a question of ignorance or bad information, but of psychological needs linked to how we perceive ourselves and how we want to be seen by others.
Understanding this is also fundamental in everyday life. When we talk to friends, relatives or colleagues who are convinced of an unfounded theory, clashing over the data is often not enough. If behind that belief there is a deep need for recognition or security, the discussion risks turning into a wall against a wall.
Perhaps the first step is precisely this: questioning ourselves about our motivations, asking ourselves why we believe certain things and how much the desire to feel right influences our way of interpreting reality. It’s an uncomfortable exercise, but a necessary one if we want to improve public dialogue and reduce the noise of misinformation.
It may not make us infallible, but it can help us be a little less manipulable. And, in times like these, that’s no small thing.
You might also be interested in:
