Psychology of credibility: why do we believe celebrities more?

Why do we give more authority to the opinion of celebrities than to that of real experts?

Many people have spent several years studying in order to have expert knowledge on a wide variety of subjects.

However, despite the fact that there are many real expert voices that can be consulted, there are those who, despite not having the proper studies, exercise a dangerous power of influence over many people when they give their opinion about something.

Actors, singers, politicians and other public figures, with their not so expert opinion, can generate a real change of values in society, and not always for the better. Let's take a look at the psychology of credibilitythat is, the influence behind these phenomena.

The psychology of credibility: celebrities vs. pundits

Everyone can have a very varied view on all kinds of issues in this world. To each his own, there are different colors, as it is well said in popular culture. One can give an opinion on how beautiful a painting is, how good a paella tastes, how bad a dress looks on a friend... but what one must be careful about is giving an opinion or stating things that one does not know about and, unfortunately, this is too often done. When a famous actor or actress does it, for example, the impact it can have on society is notorious.

Despite the fact that there are all kinds of qualified experts in this world, such as doctors, psychologists, sociologists, biologists, pharmacists and so on, there are many times when the well-founded opinions of these professionals go unnoticed in contrast to those of other, less expert, but better known people.. Indeed, public figures such as singers, actors, politicians or youtubers have a greater impact on the collective mind and culture when they give their opinions than those of professionals who know about a particular subject.

The problem with giving opinions comes when we give opinions about things that have been proven. Science is the body of knowledge that is responsible for giving us answers to big questions, as well as finding methods to ensure the improvement, welfare and survival of our species. The problem is that there are many people who, without having studied a specific subject in depth, dare to express opinions contrary to what they know. opinions contrary to what science has shown, but who have not studied.

This may not seem like a big deal, but considering that we live in a highly interconnected society, where Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) allow us to share our opinion very quickly, the opinion of just one person, as long as he can share it with many others and it is somewhat important, can already be seen as a real dogma, a real truth.

Charles Darwin vs. George Clooney and Emma Watson, who is more credible?

A study, conducted by Arnocky's group and colleagues in 2018, studied the influence of celebrity opinions on the general public about the theory of evolution. about the theory of evolution. In this study, in which four experiments were conducted, the researchers found that famous public figures, such as George Clooney or Emma Watson, exercised great persuasive power on subjects they did not really know about, much more so than real experts.

For example, if they recommended a book on evolution, they would exert greater credibility with their fans than if a real biologist recommended it. In turn, if these two actors recommended a text that defended a thesis contrary to the evolutionist one, that is, the Christian creation myth, they would also have a great deal of acceptance. That is to say, whether they recommended a pro-evolution or an anti-evolution text, they would exert a corresponding influence in favor of one of these two positions in the audience.

The reason why Arnocky and colleagues decided to choose evolution as a subject to study is because of its importance in the educational and social sphere. Evolutionary theses, at least in developed countries, are part of the educational curriculum, along with a variety of other topics. The objective of science in education is not only to expand the knowledge of the population, but also to protect them from pseudoscientific beliefs that can be very harmful to them. that can be very harmful to them.

Although this is the goal of pro-science education, there has been a worrying trend in the general population about a wide variety of scientific topics, with support for the theory of evolution being one of the most frequently asked questions in sociological surveys. Despite being part of the educational curriculum, support for the idea that Darwin's theory is applicable to the human species barely exceeds 60% in countries such as Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom.

Although the majority of the population supports this idea, a not insignificant minority, close to 40%, is against it. This minority, with varied sociodemographic characteristics, is strengthened or greatly influenced when the celebrity of the moment, such as Chuck Norris or Kirk Cameron, opposes evolution. Despite not being experts in anything beyond being actors, these two characters have given their opinion and contributed to spread beliefs contrary to scientific evidence, based on the ignorance of what evolution is.

Also We also have cases of people who exert a much more powerful influence on young people.. This is the case of Canadian actor Justin Bieber, who questioned the plausibility of the Big Bang. For Bieber, it was not possible that a big explosion could have resulted in the Universe as we know it today, comparing it to someone putting ingots in a box, shaking it and having, as a result, a gold rolex.

But why are celebrities so credible?

In order to explain the psychology of credibility in this context, we must explain how public figures are so important to the collective mind. Celebrities, taking advantage of their visibility and influence, give their opinions and people consider them more credible for a seemingly simple reason: they are role models, people many of us would like to be like. Their opinion is seen as a trait to be acquired and not a few people incorporate it into their repertoire of beliefs..

It should be said that this is not always the case. For example, if we are a fan of a singer who has said that evolution is simply a hoax but we have studied Darwin's theory and we know what evidence there is (fossil record, homologous limbs in different species, genetics...) it is possible that what happens to us is that we enter into a psychological conflict, or rather, cognitive dissonance. It is not because we have a different opinion, or know that the singer is wrong, that we should necessarily stop listening to him, but it is possible that he will not leave us indifferent.

Gullibility can be dangerous

Believing that the theory of evolution is not real, although it is a sign of scientific ignorance, is not necessarily dangerous. Don't you believe that all organisms on the planet have a common origin and have been adapting to events? No problem, you don't believe it and that's it. The problem is when there are hoaxes that directly affect our health..

In recent years, New Age movements have been gaining a lot of strength. It may be because of their mysticism, for being exotic and strange and, as we humans are crazy about novelty, we approach them like flies to honey. But, despite the nature of the average human being, it is not at all ignorable the influence of characters who have encouraged belief in pseudosciences, such as Gwyneth Paltrow.

Others go into the world of conspiracies, such as, for instance soccer player Íker Casillas, who doubts that human beings stepped on the moon.The Apollo mission left laser reflectors there to prove it over the years, or actors like Jim Carrey and Robert De Niro who questioned the beneficial effects of vaccines, siding with those who believe they cause autism. While we can overlook the Moon a bit, we can't overlook vaccines.

In recent years the number of "good" parents who have deprived their children of a necessary vaccination has been increasing. This is not only bad for their offspring, who are more exposed to diseases that are, in fact, potentially preventable. Other people who cannot be vaccinated due to various medical conditions run the risk that the children of anti-vaccine parents will pass diseases on to them and will not be able to defend themselves against them because they do not have a good immune system. Moreover, it can be deduced from this that the anti-vaccine people would rather see their children dead than autistic.