You Can’t Tell Me What to Do! Or Maybe You Can

“WEAR A MASK. WASH YOUR HANDS. STAY SIX FEET APART.”

All of these mandates have become so commonplace over the past months that we have stopped paying attention because most people are doing all of these things. But looking back at people’s responses to these public health messages reveals something slightly different: In reaction to the pressure to conform to public health guidance, some Americans seemed to go out of their way to violate each and every one of these recommendations.

These reactions seem to underscore a fundamental human truth—people generally do not like being told what to do. This observation lines up with a classic idea from social psychology, called psychological reactance. When people perceive that they have the freedom to do something, like breathe unmasked air, having someone restrict it causes swift and strong rebellion.

My colleague and I wondered whether this is always the case—do people always react negatively when their ability to act freely and autonomously is threatened? One thought is that people’s responses to these freedom threats could be based on their level of certainty and security with what’s going on in their lives.

Based on decades of research and theorizing, we reasoned that when people have a little bit of freedom, they feel certain and secure; in these cases, trying to take people’s freedom will result in negative responses, like antimask protests and plots to kidnap governors.

On the other hand, we figured that having too much freedom might be overwhelming and cause people to feel threatened, uncertain, and insecure; in these cases, people might not react so negatively to attempts to remove their freedom. In fact, if you believe Erich Fromm, a philosopher from the 1940s, and intergroup relations research from the 2000s, people might actually prefer to have their freedom removed when they have too much of it.

To test these ideas, my colleague and I had college students complete a task meant to arouse feelings of certainty or uncertainty and then threatened to take their freedom. Afterwards, we gauged their reactions to the freedom threat.

Our participants were randomly divided into two groups—the Certain and Uncertain groups. In the first group, students wrote about a time in the recent past when they had felt “very certain about yourself, your life, your future, or your place in the world. A time when you felt very certain and secure.” In the second group, students wrote about a time in the recent past when they had felt “very uncertain about yourself, your life, your future, or your place in the world. A time when you felt very vulnerable and threatened.”

After writing about their experiences for around four minutes, students read a message that was designed to threaten their freedom, targeting an issue that students care a lot about: freedom of choice in class selection the following semester. They read that the school administration was considering a plan that would remove just about all student control over class selection, so that rather than choosing their own classes, the school would decide instead.

Wait! We Can’t Choose Our Own Classes Anymore?

Then we asked them how they felt about the new policy. Was it a good policy, and how threatened did it make them feel?

The students’ answers depended on whether they had written about a certain or uncertain time in their lives. The Uncertain group found the message significantly less threatening than the Certain group. Similarly, students in the Uncertain group had more positive evaluations of the policy than those in the Certain group. Thus, even though no one much liked this new policy, being made to feel uncertain about life made it more acceptable.

Uncertainty and Reactions to COVID-19 Mandates

Although the majority of Americans have taken the pandemic seriously from the get-go, some have eschewed, and even rebelled against, public health directives.

We can speculate on why, based on our data. People’s level of certainty—about the pandemic or their lives continuing as normal—may have affected their responses to these mandates. Perhaps some of the people who reacted most strongly to being told what to do were those who felt certain—sure about triviality of the pandemic, sure about the lack of threat it posed to their well-being. And, on the other hand, perhaps some of the people who followed along with public health guidance were those who felt uncertain—less sure about the seriousness of the pandemic, of its effect on their lives, of whether they might catch a deadly illness.

Knowing the role that people’s level of certainty, or uncertainty, can play in their responses to public health mandates can inform policy decisions the next time a crisis hits. For instance, it might be wise to calibrate the framing of a message based on how people are feeling. For those who feel certain and secure, caution should be exhibited: mandates probably aren’t going to work very well. However, for people feeling uncertain and threatened, strongly worded mandates stand a better chance of being successful.   


For Further Reading

Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Oxford: Academic Press.

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. Oxford: Farrar & Rinehart.

Hogg, M. A. (2000). Subjective uncertainty reduction through self-categorization: A motivational theory of social identity processes. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 223–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772043000040

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2018). A 50-year review of psychological reactance theory: Do not read this article. Motivation Science, 4(4), 281–300. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/mot0000091

Rosenberg, B. D., & Siegel, J. T. (2021). Threatening uncertainty and psychological reactance: Are freedom threats always noxious? Current Psychology. Online April 21, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01640-8


Benjamin D. Rosenberg is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at Dominican University of California. Ben has authored multiple publications and blog posts on the topics of freedom and psychological reactance.

How Personality Can Help Build Trust Between People from Different Cultures

Uncertainty is scary. Uncertainty makes it hard to know what to expect, how to behave, and whether something good or bad is going to happen. Many people frequently face uncertainty within today’s globalized workplace when employees are expected to quickly form collaborative partnerships with new people from all over the world. Having people from different cultures work together can be good for companies because it brings together unique perspectives and ideas that can increase creativity. But cultural differences also increase uncertainty, and uncertainty may make employees hesitant to share their perspectives and ideas because they don’t know how the other person will react. What if they are critical? Or even worse, what if they take my ideas as their own?

To answer such questions, employees must rely on whatever information is available about that person, which is often limited to surface-level, or physical characteristics such as race, accent, clothing, or gender. People use this kind of information to judge how similar that person is to themselves, which gives them a basis for inferring what to expect from the person. When people are similar to us, it is easier to predict how they will behave. After all, I know how I would behave, so if someone is similar to me then I am less uncertain about how they may behave. Research in social psychology also shows that we have a natural preference for people who we think are similar to us, and this preference guides how we judge and behave towards others. This “similarity effect” happens quickly and automatically, leading us to judge people who are similar to us as more likeable, competent, and trustworthy, even when we first meet them.

Whether cultural differences ultimately help or hurt collaborations in business organizations depends on how much the employees trust one another. When we trust someone, uncertainty isn’t as scary because we believe that the person has good intentions and will treat us well, even though we are uncertain about what they will do. This willingness to trust another person can be seen in trusting behaviors that make us vulnerable to that person, such as open communication, seeking feedback from the other person, and sharing information with him or her, all of which are essential to developing working relationships in which people from different backgrounds can combine their unique perspectives. So the question becomes: How do we enhance trust between people from different cultures?

In a recent study, we tested whether certain personality traits may be useful for identifying people who are more trusting towards people from different cultures (Saef et al., 2019). The study focused on the personality characteristic called Openness to Experience, which is often called just Openness for short. People who are higher in Openness tend to seek out knowledge and experiences with cultures other than their own. Because people who are judged as familiar are also seen as more similar to us, Open people—who are more familiar with different cultures—may judge people from different cultures as more similar to themselves, and therefore trust them more. In addition, because open people view themselves as having more knowledge of and experiences with different cultures and identify as more worldly wise people, Open people may perceive others who also have knowledge of cultures different from their own as more similar, leading them to trust them more.

To examine how people’s level of Openness influenced the way they perceived people from different cultures, we randomly paired White, American college students (referred to as ‘participant’ below) to work with a person (referred to as ‘partner’) from either the same culture or a different (Chinese) culture. After introducing the participants to their partner, we asked participants to rate how similar they thought their partner was to them and then asked participants to play a decision-making game that measured how trusting they acted towards their partner.

Not surprisingly, participants were less trusting towards partners from a different culture because they perceived them to be less similar to themselves.  But participants who rated themselves as higher in Openness trusted partners from other cultures more than those who rated themselves as lower in Openness because they judged them to be more similar to themselves.

This finding suggests that, at the beginning of collaborations between employees from different cultures, people who are high in Openness will be more willing to cooperate and share their ideas with (or trust) people from other cultures than people who are low in Openness. And because trust is a self-reinforcing phenomenon, meaning trust leads to more trust, including someone high in Openness in collaborations between people from different cultures may encourage cooperation and information sharing from people low in Openness. Therefore, whenever people from difficult cultures work together, it may be useful to include at least one person who is high in Openness.


For Further Reading

Crisp, C. B., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (2013). Swift trust in global virtual teams. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 12, 45-58. DOI: 10.1027/1866-5888/a000075

Saef, R., Porter, C., Woo, S. E., & Wiese, C. (2019). Getting off on the right foot: The role of Openness to Experience in fostering initial trust between culturally dissimilar partners. Journal of Research in Personality, 79, 176-187.

Williams, M. (2001). In whom we trust: Group membership as an effective context for trust development. Academy of Management Review, 26, 377–96.
 

Rachel Saef is an Assistant Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology at Northern Illinois University who studies personality in the workplace.

 

The Psychology Behind Conspiracy Theories and Extremist Groups

In today’s political landscape, it’s not uncommon to hear about conspiracy theories or the rise of extremist groups around the world. But why do people adhere to conspiracy beliefs or join extremist groups? To learn more, we interviewed Anni Sternisko, a PhD candidate at New York University who researches conspiracy groups, and Dennis Estrada, a graduate student at Humboldt State University who researches the rise of extremist groups.

What makes conspiracy theories or extremist groups attractive to people?

Anni Sternisko (AS): Conspiracy theories respond (with varying degrees of success) to fundamental human needs such as people’s desire to make sense of the world. In a recent article, we argue that what makes conspiracy theories alluring might vary from person to person and situation to situation. Someone who wants to feel unique might be drawn to conspiracy theories primarily because they are unconventional beliefs (e.g., flat earth conspiracy theory). Others might be primarily attracted to conspiracy theories because they provide simplistic and definite answers to complex questions and events (e.g., climate change is a hoax).

It is important to note that not all conspiracy theories are irrational or wrong. Many conspiracy theories turn out to be true (e.g., the Tuskegee experiment). We are all conspiracy theorists to some extent, which is good as it encourages critical engagement. Beliefs in irrational and false conspiracy theories, however, go beyond “healthy wariness” and emerge from a unique composition of individual predispositions, motives, and context.

Dennis Estrada (DE): I would argue that uncertainty is a significant contributor to the rise of extremist groups in the United States and perhaps around the world. Uncertainty regarding our attitudes and beliefs can be triggered by something as simple as a snide comment from a friend or a conflict 1,000 miles away. With the nature of uncertainty, individuals are motivated to reduce their uncertainty as quickly as possible and by any means necessary. Previous research suggests that joining a group is an effective way of reducing uncertainty, as groups provide blueprints (i.e., prototypes) that individuals can adhere to. Individuals are given this prototype, that essentially tells them how to think, feel, and act, leaving little to no room for any self-doubt.

However, just because we experience uncertainty doesn’t mean we’ll automatically become an extremist overnight. There are various factors that contribute to the likelihood of joining an extremist group at an individual level (e.g., a perception of lack of control) and group level (e.g., goals, social structure).

It appears that certain conspiracy groups or extremist groups are becoming part of the mainstream culture. Why is this?

AS: It is important to distinguish between an increase in attention to conspiracy theories and an increase in the belief in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, there is little research on how either attention or belief change over time. Some historical and polling data from the US suggest that the prevalence of belief in conspiracy theories remained fairly stable over the past century. What we perceive as an overwhelming expansion of conspiracy theory beliefs might actually just reflect a rampant increase in media coverage. In fact, some of the statistics reported by the media about the prevalence of certain conspiracy theory beliefs are based on flawed methods.

With this in mind, we see that certain conspiracy theories are currently occupying significant space in the public discourse (e.g., COVID-19 conspiracy theories, Europe’s Generation Identity). There are many reasons as to why this might be the case. The world has been undergoing significant economic and societal changes and was just hit by a pandemic.

People are anxious and uncertain. Many feel left behind and alienated from certain groups, or even society at large. In these situations, people latch onto conspiracy theories. I speculate that conspiracy theories that address society’s most prevalent concerns are most likely to go viral. Additionally, social norms around the dissemination of conspiracy theories have shifted. Even elite public figures have been publicly entertaining conspiracy theories. This can further push conspiracy theories into the mainstream.

DE: I believe we can understand why extremism has entered the mainstream by examining research on what prompts extremism itself. Research by Arie Kruglanski suggests that the underlying reason behind individuals joining and acting on behalf of extremist groups may be due to individuals seeking a higher purpose and meaning in life. Research by Arron Kay suggests that individuals are more likely to seek out ideologies that espouse high degrees of personal control when they feel powerless. The unifying theme in research on extremism is that fear and a longing for purpose, manifested in different forms, motivate individuals to seek out ideologies and groups that reaffirm their purpose and reduce sentiments of fear. I’d thus argue that extremist groups are becoming part of the mainstream discussion reflects the fear and longing for purpose that is currently being experienced by people around the world.

Are there ramifications for these beliefs entering the mainstream culture?

AS:  I believe that the prevalence of (false) conspiracy theories in public discourse poses a serious threat to the individual and to society at large. For instance, research found that conspiracy theories motivate engagement in violent and criminal actions. In fact, the FBI recently labeled QAnon as a domestic terrorism threat. Conspiracy theory beliefs are also associated with hostility towards minorities, discrimination, and diminished intentions to vaccinate or reduce one’s CO2 footprint. Growing (albeit correlational) evidence also suggests that conspiracy theories may play a crucial role in the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, my colleagues Jay Van Bavel, Aleksandra Cichocka, Aleksandra Cislak, and I found that people who believe more strongly in COVID-19 conspiracy theories report less engagement in physical distancing and physical hygiene and are less supportive of public-health policies aiming to contain the pandemic.

DE: The mainstream acceptance of extremism and extremist groups will have ramifications at all levels of society. For example, at the individual level we might see uncertainty become a new constant in people’s lives. Extremist ideology and groups, now more in the mainstream, may be seen as more legitimate and thus as a more viable option for reducing this uncertainty. This then leads us to ramifications at a broader social level, where the pro-normative messages that extremist groups offer may push discussions and individuals further to the left or right of the political spectrum. In short, I would expect to see the polarization of sociopolitical ideologies and parties in the mainstream arena, as we’re currently beginning to see in the United States.

Is there research to suggest we can curb the spread of harmful conspiracy theories or extremist groups?

AS: Conspiracy theories are powerful beliefs that people are reluctant to abandon. Compounded by the fact that they are not falsifiable and tend to spread faster than true information, combating the spread of conspiracy theories turns out to be extremely difficult. Yet researchers have identified some promising strategies. For instance, exposing people to information that debunks a conspiracy theory can prevent later adoption. Relatedly, cultivating critical media engagement can reduce the spread of misinformation. Eradicating conspiracy theory beliefs once they are established is hard, but not impossible. For instance, research suggests that a respectful, continuous, fact and logic-based discourse can uproot false beliefs. One of the most fruitful strategies to combat conspiracy theory beliefs may be to meet the underlying needs that drive people towards conspiracy theories initially. Can we find ways to affirm that everyone is a special and valuable member of our community? How can we ensure people’s voices are being heard? How do we restore and strengthen inter-personal trust? Can we find ways to mitigate a hostile narrative of us vs. them? Finding answers to such questions will be crucial in fighting conspiracy theory beliefs and misinformation.

DE: Yes! Arie Kruglanski has done some incredible work regarding curbing the spread of extremism and even deradicalizing extremists around the globe. Deradicalization can be defined as a process through which extremists slowly re-adopt a sense of normalcy by gradually loosening their commitment to their (extremist) ideology and the use of violence to achieve their goals. At the individual level, Kruglanski suggests that shifting the belief that violent extremism is morally justifiable and acceptable to unjustifiable and unacceptable, can loosen the grip of extremist ideology on individuals. At the social level, established deradicalization programs in Sri Lanka have found success in curbing extremism by focusing on dismantling the strict hierarchy in extremist groups. By separating leaders and followers, one thus dismantles the group’s structure, its prototype and entitativity, and allows the possibility of breaking through the echo chamber that is present in extremist groups. This in turn gives extremist members the option to turn away from the extremist ideologies without repercussions or a support system to fall back on.

Special thanks to Anni Sternisko and Dennis Estrada for answering our questions. Responses have been modified for brevity and grammar.

Dealing with Uncertainty

In light of the recent spread of the COVID-19 virus, there are many individual differences in how people react to a potential pandemic. Here, Dr. Kappes explains how imagining the consequences of one’s behaviour can shift attitudes towards optimism and pessimism, and how these attitudes may contrast with the benefits to society.

What is uncertainty and how does it relate to a pandemic like COVID-19?

People experience uncertainty when they have imperfect information about their current situation, the outcome of a decision, or potential consequences of an outcome. For instance, people might not know if they have COVID-19, they might not know if going somewhere will mean getting COVID-19 or spreading it to others, and they might not know the consequences of having COVID-19, which can range from relatively benign to lethal. And it is obvious that more information will not make the uncertainty disappear. Pandemics operate in complex environments in which many probabilistic events interact. Put differently, pandemics will always involve uncertainty.

How does our behavior change during these times of uncertainty?

In the beginning, most people’s behaviour will change little. In general, humans are protected quite well from processing threatening information too deeply, and to use this information to change their beliefs (Sharot, 2011). Most people will think for a long time that they will be fine, and the uncertainty around the topic supports such beliefs. This might be quite good for the person holding slightly optimistic beliefs, protecting them from stress and panic. But for society, this might be more problematic.

Take, for instance, preventive behaviours such as self-quarantine or handwashing. Here, self-interest such as wanting to go out, seeing friends etc. is in conflict with interests for others—putting them at interest. Our research and research from others suggests that when people want to leave their home (or any preventive behaviour) and contemplate the consequences for others, they tend to be optimistic: they assume that their self-interested action will work out fine for others (Dana et al., 2006; Kappes et al., 2018). In the example, they would assume that probably nobody would get infected, and hence it would be fine to quickly go to the supermarket to get some groceries. Such optimistic beliefs help people to remain calm, but have negative consequences for spreading the disease.

This optimistic thinking flips when people imagine how, for instance, a COVID-19 infection might impact the health and well-being of another person. And even though they could think that the other person might be young and able to cope well with the disease (an optimistic assumption), people tend to become negative; they seem to assume that worst case (the other person is vulnerable), and now refrain from self-interested action and show a strong preferences for preventive behaviours. It is as if contemplating the social consequences of preventive actions turns normally optimistic people into pessimists, and they do what they can to prevent the spread of the disease.

What are some healthy ways to cope with uncertainty?

As pointed out above, the “right” way to cope with uncertainty depends on the perspective (individual versus society) and the time perspective (now or later). When people, for instance, contemplate whether frequent hand washing will or will not stop them from spreading disease, they will most likely feel safe and calm, but also decrease their handwashing. Good for the person in the here and now, bad for society, especially in the long run. On the other hand, if they focus on how infecting somebody else might lead to a serious illness of another person, they become pessimistic, assume the worst case scenario, and wash their hands. This might feel not that great for the individual, especially in the here and now, but is better for society.


References

Dana, J., Weber, R. A., & Kuang, J. X. (2006). Exploiting moral wiggle room: Experiments demonstrating an illusory preference for fairness. Economic Theory, 33(1), 67–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00199-006-0153-z

Kappes, A., Neise, A.-M., Faber, N., Kahane, G., Savulescu, J., & Crockett, M. J. (2018). Uncertainty about the impact of social decisions increases prosocial behavior. Nature Human Behaviour.

Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21(23), R941–R945.

Coping with Uncertainty

Do you fear the unknown or see it as a friend? How comfortable are you in uncertain situations? Objectively speaking, of course, nothing is ever certain.  "The future's not ours to see," as the song proclaims. Subjectively, however, people often feel certain about things and rest assured that their worldviews hold true. They generalize from experience and assume that whatever has been will continue to be: that taking their habitual route to work will get them there, that their head cold will be gone within days, that the sun will rise in the east, and that their life routines will continue unperturbed.

Life inevitably involves change, however. Sometimes the pace and magnitude of change surpass people's ability to adjust to it. When that happens, people are confronted head-on with uncertainty.

In recent decades, world events evoked feelings of uncertainty in millions of people. Most recently, the COVID-19 pandemic fostered fear of an unseen and unknown virus.  Abundant evidence attests that people's overwhelming reactions to the COVID-based uncertainty were anxiety and fear. Data from around the globe showed a spike in reported distress tied to the pandemic. The 2020 report of the World Health Organization (WHO) showed a 35 percent increase in distress in China, 60 percent in Iran, and 45 percent in the U.S. In regions of Ethiopia, there has been a threefold increase in the frequency of depression and anxiety relative to the pre-pandemic rate. Overall, figures from different corners of the world told the same story: people were deeply disconcerted by the pandemic.

But one doesn't need the pandemic to observe that people feel troubled by uncertainty. This theme has resounded loudly in folk wisdom and scientific psychology alike. My own decades-long work on the need for cognitive closure also highlights how people try to escape from uncertainty by "jumping to conclusions," using stereotypes, and engaging in categorical "black and white" thinking oblivious to nuance. Psychological theory and research generally portray uncertainty as threatening.

Must people feel anxious and fearful in the presence of uncertainty, and do all they can to escape it? Or can people embrace the opportunities uncertainty affords, and look for the silver lining in its murky cloud?

Some people are more distraught by uncertainty than others. Moreover, some uncertainties are more upsetting than others. The COVID pandemic, for example, presented a great uncertainty associated with the risk of infection and its highly negative outcomes: the possibility of dying or suffering a long illness, losing family and friends to the pandemic, or losing a job or one's home because of the pandemic's economic repercussions.

Not all uncertainties are threatening, however. In fact, some bring to mind downright delightful outcomes: A trip to a new country, expecting a new baby, or initiating a relationship that promises to be interesting, rewarding, and meaningful. So, perhaps it is not uncertainty itself that causes distress, but rather the negative outcomes that people associate with the uncertain situation.

The positive and negative outcomes people associate with uncertainty depend on how they are represented in our conscious minds. When the situation is ambiguous and uncertain, people may foresee either its positive or negative consequences. In that sense, uncertainty is a bit like a Rorschach ink blot. Some people may project onto it their inner "demons," hence feel fearful and strive to escape the uncertain situation; others may project onto it their inner "angels," hence feel hopeful and welcome it.

What might predispose some people to accentuate the positive and others to accentuate the negative? Recently my colleagues and I identified two factors that influence these tendencies. One is what we call the long-term history of outcomes, especially one's childhood outcomes. In a recent study we carried out with 495 American adults we found that people with more positive childhood perceptions of their parents (including the parents' perceived warmth, involvement, and autonomy support) were more tolerant of uncertainty and had more positive attitudes toward several uncertain events such as a blind date, the first day of school, or the birth of a new sibling.

We also found that people who had experienced adverse childhood experiences (e.g., being insulted and put down by adults, skipping meals because of food shortages, witnessing beatings or stabbings) were more intolerant of uncertainty, which subsequently predicted negative attitudes to the same uncertain events.

Research also reveals that a long-term history of outcomes can be overridden by recent outcomes, at least temporarily. When something good happens, it is like a shot of optimism, inducing hope that the next outcome will be good as well. And when something bad happens, pessimism about impending outcomes sets in. Yet the impact of positive and negative outcomes wears off, and soon people are back to their baseline level of optimism or pessimism, driven largely by their long-term outcome history.

In a study designed to test these ideas, we first asked 461 people how good or bad their long-term outcomes had been. For example, people indicated how much they agreed with statements like, "More good things than bad things have happened to me in the past;" and "In my life, everything has always worked out well." Then participants responded to a 10-item general knowledge test. We varied the feedback participants received to alter their short-term outcomes. Half of the participants received positive feedback indicating that they did well on the quiz, whereas the other half received negative feedback indicating that they did poorly.

Our main interest was in how participants' long-term and short-term outcomes affected their positive and negative feelings about an uncertain situation, specifically "having to stay in a place where they have never been before." Their feelings about the uncertain situation were measured either immediately after they received the outcome of the quiz, or after a 2-day delay.

When their feelings about the uncertain situation were assessed immediately after receiving feedback, those who received positive feedback about their quiz performance felt better about the uncertain situation than those who received negative feedback. Participants' long-term outcome histories, in contrast, had no effect on feelings about the uncertain situation.  In sum, short-term outcomes can override the effect of long-term histories on people's feelings about an uncertain situation.

The results completely reversed when feelings were measured two days later. Here, the quiz feedback had no effect on people's feelings about the uncertain situation, but their long-term history of outcomes did.  People who viewed their outcome histories as mostly positive felt better about the uncertain situation than people with more negative long-term histories.  After two days, the effect of test feedback on feelings about uncertainty disappeared, and long-term outcome histories once again predicted how people felt about an uncertain situation.

In general, then, baseline levels of optimism or pessimism linked to a history of good or bad life outcomes determine how people feel about uncertain situations.  Short-term positive or negative outcomes can temporarily override this tendency, but only briefly.

Fortunately, optimism and pessimism aren't set in stone and can be modified. Optimism can be learned by changing the way people explain their failures and successes as Martin Seligman has demonstrated. The dread of negative outcomes can be overcome by adopting what Carol Dweck has called a growth mindset, the belief that our abilities (like intelligence) and other attributes (like moral character) are malleable and can be developed through learning.  Similarly, grit––the ability to persist at goal pursuit despite stumbling blocks—can also be systematically developed, as Angela Duckworth has shown. Finally, the Buddhist approach recommends learning to detach oneself from outcomes, both good and bad, and to welcome uncertainty as a friend, whatever seems to be lying in its wings.

In short, people can embrace rather than escape uncertainty, and benefit from the opportunities that uncertainty offers. Almost any uncertain situation has a silver lining waiting to be discovered. The COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, for all the loss and restrictions it imposed, allowed some people to cultivate their hobbies, enjoy nature, and help others. Or consider Travis Roy, a gifted hockey player, who was permanently paralyzed in an accident.  Undaunted, he obtained a college degree and became a gifted inspirational speaker who raised millions of dollars for spinal injury research.

No matter how dire the situation may seem, people with an optimistic mindset may be able to see possibilities and seize opportunities in uncertain situations. Ultimately, that is the hopeful message of the psychological study of uncertainty. 


For Further Reading

Kruglanski, A. W. (Un) Certain: How to turn your biggest fear into your greatest power. London:  Penguin/Random House, UK. 2023

Kruglanski, A. W. The psychology of closed-mindedness. New York: Psychology Press, 2004.


Arie Kruglanski is a Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Maryland, College Park.  He has served as editor of several scientific journals and as President of the Society for the Study of Motivation. He studies human judgment and decision-making, the interface between motivation and cognition, group and intergroup processes, the psychology of human goals, and the social psychological aspects of terrorism.

Can Conspiracy Beliefs Be Beneficial?

Conspiracy theories flourish in times of crisis. From the great fire of Rome in A.D. 64 to the plague outbreaks in 1349, and the recent Coronavirus pandemic—history is full of examples where people explained significant social or political events through alleged conspiracies, and scapegoated certain social groups or individuals in this process.

A conspiracy is a secret plot by powerful people, the alleged conspirators. These conspirators pursue their interests regardless of the consequences for others or society as a whole, which is why conspiracies tend to have harmful consequences for the general public. A conspiracy belief is the conviction that a conspiracy has taken (or is currently taking) place. Well-known examples are the belief that Bill Gates is using the Coronavirus vaccines to gain control over the world population, or that the 9/11 terrorist attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government.

And yes, you might wonder—actual conspiracies do happen in the world. Consider for example the Volkswagen emissions scandal: a secret plan by a powerful group that had harmful consequences for society. Or, arguably, the systematic covering up of sexual misconduct in the Catholic church. These 'real' conspiracies differ from more implausible conspiracy theories in that they involve different actors with different aims and goals, and are restricted to a limited amount of people, events, and institutions. In contrast to implausible conspiracy theories, 'real' conspiracies are less overarching, and more limited by time and geography. They also tend to become uncovered by official means of investigation.

Why Do People Believe in Conspiracy Theories?

Obviously, some people do, even when the theories appear implausible and there is no convincing evidence to support them. This question has kept researchers busy for many years. Social psychological research so far suggests that fundamental needs for security and certainty play an important role in the adoption of conspiracy beliefs. While official explanations for events like the pandemic are often complex and incomplete, conspiracy theories offer seemingly simple answers that leave no questions open. On top of that, conspiracy beliefs allow a person to brush off any counter-evidence very easily: If anyone says something against the theory, well, then that person must be in on it, too!

These characteristics of conspiracy beliefs have sparked the idea that they may be especially appealing to people who do not deal well with uncertainty, a proposition that has been supported by research. Conspiracy beliefs have an additional feature that makes them attractive, particularly to individuals who strive to feel safe and in control: Since conspiracy theories posit that the world is controlled by a small group of powerful people, they imply that the world is, in fact, controllable. Such a worldview may be more comforting than believing in a world where nobody is in control, and bad things happen just by accident.

But Do Conspiracy Beliefs Actually 'Work'?

Can they be beneficial in the sense that they make people feel safer, less anxious, and less distressed by uncertainty? This is the question that my coworkers and I set out to answer at the beginning of the Coronavirus pandemic. We conducted two studies that asked the same people several times, over a span of time, about the extent to which they (a) experienced a range of anxiety symptoms, (b) felt distressed by uncertainty ("uncertainty aversion"), (c) felt insecure and in danger ("existential threat"), and (d) believed in conspiracies (for example, by asking their agreement with statements like "I believe that events that at first glance seem unrelated are often the result of secret activities").

Would changes in conspiracy beliefs be followed by changes in anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat at a later time point? If conspiracy beliefs were actually beneficial for people, then one would expect increases in conspiracy beliefs to be followed by decreases in these undesirable feelings.  

But this is not what happened. Instead, when we interviewed participants four times every two weeks, we found the opposite result: Increases in conspiracy beliefs were followed by subsequent increases in anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. That is, being more convinced of a conspiracy actually made people feel worse. In a way, this is not surprising: Conspiracy theories consist of a worldview that is filled with suspicion and mistrust, and provide many additional triggers to feel anxious and uncertain about.

However, we did not find this harmful effect of conspiracy beliefs in a second study, which had more people and longer time gaps (four months) between measurements. Together, the two studies suggest that conspiracy beliefs are most likely not beneficial with regard to the experience of anxiety, uncertainty, and threat. Whether they are actually harmful to the well-being of individuals needs to be confirmed by future research.

What Do People Get Out of Conspiracy Beliefs?

Many possibilities come to mind. Embracing conspiracy theories may simply be an entertaining way to overcome boredom. Or it may offer people a sense of connection and a community of like-minded others. Nevertheless, despite these potential benefits, it is important to keep in mind that people who believe in conspiracies may also suffer from their beliefs. Most likely, they are worried about the consequences of the alleged conspiracy for themselves and their loved ones. They should be approached with empathy and sensitivity.


For Further Reading

Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261

Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2023). What are conspiracy theories? A definitional approach to their correlates, consequences, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329

Liekefett, L., Christ, O., & Becker, J. C. (2023). Can conspiracy beliefs be beneficial? Longitudinal linkages between conspiracy beliefs, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 49(2), 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211060965


Luisa Liekefett is a doctoral candidate at the University of Osnabrück in Germany. She studies psychological responses to societal crises, such as conspiracy beliefs, collective action, and protests.

Unpredictable Love

Are you single? Do you use dating apps when looking for a new partner? When using dating apps like Tinder and Bumble, many think they know they find a particular "type" attractive as far as who they are seeking in the dating pool. Our research examined whether this was so. We investigated whether preferences for a particular type of partner are stable or whether they are determined by the situation.

Previous research investigating partner choice has often tried to explain what exactly determines a person's partner preferences, but those studies rarely took more temporary psychological states into account. We propose, however, that people's temporary feelings of uncertainty (such as due to the COVID-19 pandemic or a financial crisis) may affect their partner preferences.

To test our proposition, my co-author Kobe Millet and I conducted four studies to test the extent in which uncertain events (such as COVID-19) influence the types of partners that men and women feel attracted to. We discovered that partner preferences may not be as stable as one might like to think. In times of uncertainty, people seem to seek out partners that fit with stereotypes (women who are tender-looking and caring versus men who are tough-looking and strong), whereas this need becomes less in times of certainty.

Which Facial Features of the Opposite Sex Are More Attractive Under Uncertainty?

In the first study, respondents were asked to imagine a situation in which they felt uncertain (for example, a drop in housing prices due to an economic crisis, or being faced with too many choice options) or certain (such as trust in good education, or assurance of basic services). This task brought feelings of uncertainty to the forefront of people's minds.

They then saw photos of potential dating partners. A professional graphic designer modified the pictures to create for each face a version with tender facial features and a version with tough facial features. For the tender feature faces, the outer facial contour was made less angular, and the tip of the nose, cheeks, and lips were rounded. For the tough feature faces, the nose and chin were made sharper and the jawbone more angular. The respondent then indicated which face they found most attractive and whether they would like to go on a date with that person.

Two photos of the same woman

An example of a female face with tender versus tough facial features

The results showed that under uncertainty, women felt more attracted to men with tougher facial features, whereas men felt more attracted to women with more tender facial features. However, this gender difference disappeared when people felt—men and women found both partners equally attractive regardless of facial structure.

To gain confidence in these findings, we used in the next study a morphing technique to create images of the same face that gradually changed from extremely tender to extremely tough. This time we asked participants to either think about COVID-19 and how it made them feel uncertain or about a regular day in their lives. Even with the novel method, our results were the same, such that when thinking about COVID-19 uncertainty, male respondents felt more attracted to the female with more tender features, whereas female respondents to the male with tougher features. And, again, this preference disappeared when people thought of a regular day.

Female and male face gradually changing from very tender to very tough facial features, by using a morphing technique

Why Are There Gender Differences in Partner Preference Under Uncertainty?

Two subsequent studies also revealed that in uncertain times, men and women reported being more attracted to a partner with tender or tough features because they related these facial features to stereotypical gender roles. While women with tender features were thought to be a caring type, men with hard features were believed to be stronger. Apparently, stereotypes play a greater role in mate selection during uncertain times.

External and unpredictable events, such as a climate disaster or the corona pandemic, create a lot of uncertainty. We often feel the urge to seek certainty during times such as these. We do this partly by looking for order and structure. Using stereotypes makes us feel like we have more certainty about the world, by quickly categorizing people into groups. Conversely, people may fall back less on stereotypical gender roles in times and places where they feel more secure and certain.

These insights are not only important to better understand people's partner preferences, but are also practically applicable. For example, perhaps candidates on dating sites can adjust how to present themselves in uncertain times, by accentuating tender or tougher features. In addition, a female model with tender, softer features (or a male model with tough, harder features) might be better used in product commercials in times of crisis.

Thus, when you believe that you feel attracted to the same types of guys or gals when you are looking for a date, you may be wrong. In uncertain times you may end up with a much more stereotypical date than when times are more predictable.


For Further Reading

Van Horen, F., & Millet, K. (2022). Unpredictable love? How uncertainty influences partner preferences. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2854


Femke van Horen is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Her research interests include environmental uncertainty, sustainability, and the effectiveness of product imitation strategies.

Kobe Millet is an Associate Professor of Marketing at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include consumer psychology, environmentally (un)friendly decision-making, and prosocial behavior.