Rumour Psychology

Rumours and Safety

As paradoxical as it sounds, the 21st century is marked not only by scientific and technological miracles, but also by many illogical theories and rumours we tend to believe. And their numbers are only growing. Scientific spread makes it easier for the creators of rumours and conspiracy theories to imitate science. This is further strengthened by the fact that scientific world is already full of questionable or false theories and hypotheses. Some of them lack facts and evidence. In those cases people often choose what they want to believe and deny the facts conflicting with their beliefs. Such behaviour is in our nature which, fortunately, is more often than not influenced by knowledge of the surrounding world that is based on education and science.

Rumours are easily circulated, given, that nowadays information can be spread in a flash. Moreover, the evolution of society, morale and ethic norms are lagging behind the rapid progress of science. GMO‘s, cloning, nuclear energy or nanotechnologies – are they safe? Are they developed and used by responsible people? Questions like that are impossible to ignore. Society is concerned; there is a lack of information about a high variety of technological novelties and the possible outcome of their use. The system of scientific education for society is of insufficient effectiveness. Even the television is flooded with ghost and astrology shows. It is no surprise that even an educated modern person sometimes has difficulties differentiating between a scientific fact or a theory and a pseudo-scientific or an ordinary conspiracy theory.

So, what should we do to resist rumours that may cause panic? In his new book “Counterknowledge” Damian Thompson said that the internet accelerated the spread of pseudo-science and rumours in the world. However, people are capable of ignoring rumours, they only need more information and they need to be shown more ways how to look for it, because modern technologies allow verifying the facts and finding out the truth very quickly. 

Surely, the best way to combat rumours, panic and misleading or false information is good sense, which can be trained in many ways by the internet too.

Psychologist Olegas Lapinas offers several simple ways how to sort out fact from fable.

Expert’s Opinion on the Spread of Rumours

Olegas Lapinas, psychologist

Why rumours are so tenacious?
O. Lapinas: Rumours keep us going. Faster, that is. Because it usually takes us a long time to figure something out. A rumour, on the other hand, gives us a simple answer. It usually implies that something is beneficial to somebody and somebody’s aim is egoistic. For instance, popular rumours may be characterized by a sentence “they only think of money.” And it does not even matter if “they” are energy sector or pharmaceutical industry representatives. They want to harm us and they only care for their own good. Then other aspects, such as ecological issues, are left behind. Such a simplified picture makes our life easier.

Is a tendency to believe rumours stereotypical, formed in all of our minds?
O. Lapinas: It lies in our minds. The process of rumour formation is called “erasure”. We like to erase complex information. If you, for instance, took part in a complex training and you were asked what you were doing there, your answer would be: “we were taught to clap our hands for success.” The rest is erased. Approximately 30 % of information disappears. Thus, your brain erases information that explains other aspects of nuclear energy. Our brain erases information that is related to the ways to escape the accident, but not to the danger itself.

Rumours are often spread deliberately. What psychological methods are applied?
O. Lapinas: Indeed, there are such methods. Rumour is accompanied by certain indicators. For example, such indicators are phrases like “I am not sure if it is true…”, “I am just saying what I heard…”, “I do not believe it myself, but some say…” Denial is an even trickier indicator. Imagine an article in a newspaper with a headline: “Fire-fighter denies setting his child on fire.” Information like that stays in our minds. Verbal constructions like “I am not stating that...” or “does not admit that...” have the same effect.

Are these methods universal?
O. Lapinas: I believe they are, moreover, Lithuanian population is characteristic of a certain cultural correction. People in Lithuania are more likely to be focused on a problem rather than on its solution. For instance, if we took a group of Norwegians and a group of Lithuanians and told them that there was an accident in a nuclear power plant reactor, Lithuanians would right way acknowledge a huge problem: “we are going to analyse the situation and find out whose fault this is. Those responsible will be punished...”  Whereas Norwegians will think of best ways to eliminate this breakdown: “we will seek Mr. Larsen‘s, Mr. Janson‘s and Mr. Frikson‘s opinion on the matter, and we will give a raise to the author of the best idea.” This is the reason why it is so easy to spread the rumour by using the words like “whose fault it is...” in Lithuania.

Are there some mechanisms helping to fight the spread of rumours?
O. Lapinas: Probably the main mechanism is a systematic training to think positively. When a problem is not defined clearly, it needs to be specified. Sayings like “causes threat” should not be “swallowed”.  These are highly unspecific words. We should automatically think what a word “threat” means. Hypnosis can be eliminated by specific questions. For example, what happens when you hear that someone is exerting pressure on someone else? Usually we tend to “swallow” such a statement. Instead, we should find out what “exerting pressure” really means. After some research, we realise that it only meant a public comment. For instance, if I declared publicly that we need to eat cowberries, I could be accused of exerting pressure. Then follows the scrutiny "who benefits from that and how exactly O. Lapinas is related to cowberry producers? Here is a picture of him in a library with a cowberry producers’ manager. Then he denies having any relation to the manager.” This is perfectly enough for a rumour to develop.

What if a rumour is already in the air? For example, let us remember an incident when someone called to school and said that children should not be allowed to go outside. Then teachers called their colleagues. This is how a rumour about allegedly exploded nuclear power plant near Saint Petersburg was spread. What would you recommend in this case?
O. Lapinas: To be honest, I never read newspapers. The less I read popular press, the better is my mood. If seriously, I would become accustomed with reasonable scepticism. “How do you know?” ­– this question is very natural for children. If you told them that it is bad to eat chocolate, they would ask how you know that. After hearing your answer that a scientist thinks so, a child would ask: “which scientist?” Or if you are afraid of hurting someone else’s feelings because one might be offended by such a question, you may ask that question in your mind.

I am sure that reliability level of verbal information is quite low. It is often created by person’s eyesight and hearing, which very often mislead us.

Could we say that we also tend to believe malicious rumours because for a long time our government would hide the truth or simply deny everything?
O. Lapinas: Yes, such an explanation might be right. We developed a habit to read between the lines. Often we make an assumption that no one is going to tell us the truth. I, for instance, participated in circulating one rumour myself. I was then fascinated by a feeling of omnipotence. I used to tell everyone that in Switzerland, in CERN‘s large hadron collider, the big bang of the Universe will repeat its course. People’s eyes would fly open, just in case. One physicist later said that the big bang was hardly a size of an atom.

What is the best way to fight rumours?
O. Lapinas: No doubt that people should trust institutions responsible for their security and the government. There should be clear channels for reliable information on different topics. Speaking of ordinary people, inhabitants, the most important thing is to learn to think critically. Socrates, Plato and other ancient Greek philosophers would start from the simplest learning to think critically. It was a training of practical scepticism. Hearing any rumour or questionable information, one should ask a right question. For instance if someone says that coffee damages teeth, one should definitely ask that person: “How do you know?”, “how many people you know got their teeth damaged by coffee?”, “what “damage” means?”, “was it really coffee that caused the damage?” When we learn to think in such a way, we become sensible sceptics and we will never be tricked by saboteurs or provocateurs.