Why Do We Trust the Untrustworthy? The Psychology of Mistrust in a Misinformed Age
How did we end up here, where institutions built on checks and balances are doubted while unfounded claims gain our loyalty?
Have you ever wondered why we’re drawn to narratives that tell us everyone is out to get us? Why do we distrust the painstaking work of scientists, historians, and journalists—people who dedicate their lives to seeking the truth—while placing blind faith in individuals or groups with little oversight, no expertise, and dubious motives?
The answer lies in the fascinating intersection of psychology, sociology, and our need to feel in control in an increasingly complex world.
Let’s unpack this together.
The Allure of the Conspiracy
Conspiracy theories often flourish during uncertain times. When life feels out of control, our brains seek patterns to create order out of chaos. If we can connect the dots—however tenuously—we feel safer.
It’s human nature to want answers, and when those answers are complicated, we turn to simpler, emotionally satisfying narratives. Conspiracy theories offer exactly that:
Patterns where none exist: This is called illusory pattern recognition—our brain’s habit of seeing connections that aren’t there【1】.
Agency in the unexplained: When we don’t understand something, we ascribe it to a purposeful force, often a shadowy “other”【2】.
These mental shortcuts might have helped our ancestors survive, but in today’s world of fake news and echo chambers, they’ve led us astray.
The Psychology of Mistrust
Certain personality traits and social dynamics make us more susceptible to conspiracy theories. Research highlights the following tendencies:
Narcissism and Arrogance: Individuals with inflated self-esteem or a need to feel superior often distrust experts because acknowledging expertise means admitting gaps in their own knowledge【3】.
Distrust of Authority: Some people are predisposed to believe that all power is corrupt and that institutions operate purely out of self-interest【4】.
Social Dominance Orientation: The “dog-eat-dog world” mentality predisposes some to view others as inherently manipulative and predatory【5】.
Paranoia and Neuroticism: High levels of anxiety and worry create fertile ground for mistrust【6】【7】.
Compounding these traits is the natural tendency of groups to pit themselves against perceived threats. Conspiracy theories solidify group identity by painting an outside force as hostile. This collective narcissism reinforces an “us versus them” mentality that makes mistrust feel justified—even righteous【8】.
When Institutions Fail: The Seeds of Distrust
It’s no secret that some of our most trusted institutions have failed us in the past. Documented cases of misconduct have fueled public skepticism:
Tobacco Industry Deception: For decades, cigarette companies concealed the health risks of smoking, leading to widespread misinformation and public health crises【9】.
Pharmaceutical Industry Malpractices: Instances of corruption in the pharmaceutical sector, such as unethical marketing and price-gouging, have eroded trust【10】.
Academic Fraud: The infamous case of Andrew Wakefield, who falsely linked vaccines to autism, is a prime example. His fraudulent research, later retracted, has had a lasting negative impact on public health【11】【12】. Subsequent extensive research has found no credible evidence supporting his claims. In fact, Wakefield's study was retracted by The Lancet in 2010, and he was later stripped of his medical license due to ethical violations and fraudulent conduct.
BMJ Multiple large-scale studies have consistently demonstrated no association between the MMR vaccine and autism. For instance, a comprehensive review by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that vaccines do not cause autism. Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
These examples highlight that while institutions are designed with checks and balances, they are not immune to corruption. However, it’s important to note that these failures often come to light because of institutional safeguards like whistleblowing, peer review, and public accountability.
The Paradox of Conspiracy Theories
Ironically, the spread of conspiracy theories may serve the very agendas they claim to oppose. If a shadowy organization sought to control or mislead the public, promoting baseless claims would be an effective strategy.
Misinformation creates confusion and mistrust, making it harder for people to discern the truth. When we share unverified claims, we inadvertently contribute to this chaos. Asking questions is not the issue; claiming something is true without evidence—and spreading that claim—is the real problem.
We all have a responsibility to verify the information we consume and share. Passing on bad information is almost as harmful as creating it in the first place.
The Improbability of Large-Scale Secrets
Here’s another reason to question grand conspiracies: the improbability of large-scale secrecy. Research suggests that the likelihood of keeping a secret decreases exponentially as the number of people involved increases.
For example:
To sustain a conspiracy for 5 years, fewer than 2,521 people can be involved.
To maintain secrecy for 10 years, fewer than 1,000 people can participate.
A 100-year conspiracy would require fewer than 125 collaborators【13】.
This mathematical perspective underscores the logistical impossibility of many conspiracy theories, especially those requiring thousands of participants across multiple organizations.
Why Institutions Aren’t Perfect—But Are Still Essential
It’s true that no institution is infallible. Fraud, bias, and mistakes can occur anywhere humans are involved. But what makes institutions valuable is their built-in systems of accountability:
Peer Review: In science, research is vetted by experts before publication.
Checks and Balances: In governments and large organizations, power is distributed to prevent abuse.
Ethical Standards: Professions like journalism and academia have codes of conduct to guide decision-making.
While these systems aren’t flawless, they’re leagues ahead of individuals or groups operating without any oversight. Believing that institutions are uniformly corrupt ignores the fact that they are often self-correcting.
Breaking Free from the Mistrust Cycle
So, how do we resist the pull of misinformation and conspiracy?
Engage in Analytical Thinking: Studies show that lower levels of analytic thinking are linked to conspiracy beliefs【14】. Pause before accepting a claim. Ask yourself: Is there evidence? Is it credible?
Consider the Source: Who benefits from this narrative? Is the person or group accountable to anyone?
Embrace Complexity: The truth is often messy and multifaceted. Simplistic answers to complex problems are rarely accurate.
Strengthen Your Information Diet: Seek out diverse, credible sources. Avoid the echo chamber effect by exposing yourself to multiple perspectives.
Reclaiming Trust
The irony of mistrusting institutions while trusting unchecked individuals is stark. It’s like doubting the integrity of a bridge built by engineers while putting your faith in someone who’s never held a hammer.
Trust doesn’t mean blind faith—it means understanding the systems that safeguard truth and holding them accountable when they falter. The next time you encounter a claim, ask yourself: Does this story unify us or divide us? Is it rooted in evidence or fear?
Because here’s the thing: mistrust may feel like control, but true empowerment comes from understanding.
What do you think? Let’s discuss.
References
Whitson JA, Galinsky AD. Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science. 2008;322(5898):115-117.
Riek BM, Mania EW, Gaertner SL. Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2006;10(4):336-353.
Cichocka A, Marchlewska M, Golec de Zavala A. Does self-love or self-hate predict conspiracy beliefs? Narcissism, self-esteem, and the endorsement of conspiracy theories. Soc Psychol Pers Sci. 2016;7(2):157-166.
Imhoff R, Bruder M. Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude. Eur J Pers. 2014;28(1):25-43.
Swami V, Coles R, Stieger S, et al. Conspiracist ideation in Britain and Austria: Evidence of a monological belief system and associations between individual psychological differences and real-world and fictitious conspiracy theories. Br J Psychol. 2011;102(3):443-463.
Wagner-Egger P, Bangerter A. Conspiracy theories and paranoia: Causal relationships and differences. Eur J Psychol. 2007;3(2):25-34.
Hollander BA. The politics of paranoia: Conspiracy theorists and political parties. Media Commun. 2017;5(2):44-54.
March E. The dark side of conspiracy theories: The link between the dark triad of personality and belief in conspiracy theories. Pers Individ Dif. 2019;135:40-45.
Proctor RN. The history of the discovery of the cigarette–lung cancer link. J R Soc Med. 2012;105(2):52-58.
Angell M. The truth about the drug companies. N Engl J Med. 2004;351(18):1891-1893.
Godlee F, Smith J, Marcovitch H. Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent. BMJ. 2011;342:c7452.
Deer B. How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed. BMJ. 2011;342:c5347.
Grimes DR. On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147905.
Swami V, Voracek M, Stieger S, et al. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition. 2014;133(3):572-585.