People like to be told what they already know. Remember that. They get uncomfortable when you tell them new things... What people think they want is news, but what they really crave is olds... telling people that what they think they already know is true
(Pratchett, 2000)

I heard a story about how not everything on the Internet is 100% accurate. You may have heard this story. But have you heard the one about the psychological reasons which account for why people tend to be swayed by incorrect or misleading information on the Internet?
Your brain is really, really lazy – and it wants you to feel good

Our brains have a natural tendency to cut corners and this leads to a number of so-called biases, some of which are discussed below. Your brain strives to put in the least amount of effort possible to make decisions, and the easier an answer comes to mind the more likely you are to favour it.
In the aftermath of 9/11, people over-estimated the dangers of flying – the relentless news coverage inevitably led to the terrifying images coming to mind very easily. As a result, Americans opted to fly less and drive more. It is estimated that more people died in resulting car journeys than from the attack itself.

We are emotional decision-makers. In the instance noted above, people used a mental shortcut known as the availability heuristic, wherein the prominence of the tragedy in their minds led to the notion of flying as dangerous to be judged as disproportionately dangerous.
Humans typically believe that they see the world as it is. Known as naïve realism, they believe that what they see and hear is an accurate reflection of what is actually out there. This is not the case. Much of what is seen or heard is ambiguous and humans tend to try and make sense of things so they they can feel in more control of their environment.

When presented with something we do not understand, a wrong answer can feel better than no answer at all. Rather than tolerate the uncertainty, we tend to fill the gaps – even if it results in being incorrect. An incorrect model of the world feels better than no model at all.
Naïve realism is partially responsible for what must be one of the greatest disappointments of modern times – democratic outcomes in politics. We tend to believe that other people are much like ourselves (the false consensus effect), associating with likeminded others. This leads to a deceptive illusion of what people are like, what they believe - and consequently how we expect them to vote.
And let’s not forget that your search results have become iteratively refined to match your existing beliefs, attitudes, and preferences. It all creates an echo chamber.
The Internet is a big distraction machine, and in the absence of seemingly reliable sources, it can all get rather overwhelming. Enter so-called fake news and conspiracy theories (call it what you will).


Conspiracy theories as stories

Amongst other things, belief in conspiracy theories is associated with a loss in control, via the tendency to find patterns which do not exist. This is important. People are far more swayed by conspiracies than they are aware of and exposure to conspiracies causes people to be less likely to vote and reduce their carbon footprint, to name but a few examples from experimental work. False beliefs, as noted earlier, kill people.
A cruel and unsafe world is made more secure in the knowledge that somebody, somewhere is in control and in charge, as illustrated by conspiracy theories.
Good stories provide a simple and coherent account of people’s actions and intentions, and simple explanations are more likely to be judged as true as they are easier to understand. The media inevitably paints simple pictures, and in doing so distort reality, impacting on the quality of our decisions.
Stories are how our minds work, organising a messy world into a meaningful tale. And we love nothing more than an underdog story.
Such stories routinely play out in sport and politics (and in fictionalised politics, such as the last season of Netflix show House of Cards). We get behind underdogs, and political candidates framed as underdogs have an advantage from being more likeable, further perceived as more attractive.

Classic research

 finds that framing international conflict between Israel and Palestine in terms of who is the underdog (using a novel method which showed Israel appearing geographically vast in comparison with Palestinian territories, or Israel appearing small in relation to the entire Middle East) finds that the one which appeared smallest was the one we side with.