A lot of research has been dedicated to understanding what makes people believe in conspiracies – and how they might be able to climb out of the rabbit hole again.

Conspiracies do happen. The Watergate scandal in the 1970s, which led to the resignation of US President Richard Nixon, is arguably the most infamous example. The questioning of authority and the official narrative is something that should be encouraged.

But some people believe conspiracy theories that are contrary to evidence. Recent research found 8.9% of New Zealand participants and 10.1% of Australian participants agreed with the (false) claim fluoride is being intentionally added to the water supply by the government to make people less intelligent and easier to control.

What draws people to conspiracies like these?

One prominent theory is that conspiracy beliefs are linked to psychological distress such as anxiety and depression.

Our new research explores the causal relationship – whether psychological distress actually makes people more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. We found very limited evidence for a link between elevated distress and conspiracy beliefs.

What research suggests about conspiracy beliefs

The existential threat model of conspiracy theories suggests experiences of psychological distress can make people more likely to develop conspiracy beliefs because they search for explanations for distressing events.

This model argues distress actually worsens once a conspiracy belief is formed, creating a vicious cycle where distress breeds conspiracy belief which, in turn, generates more distress.

The model also suggests this belief is exacerbated when a despised outgroup (political elites, for example) becomes salient as people try to make sense of their experience.

However, few have rigorously tested this claim. While substantial evidence for a correlation between psychological distress and belief in conspiracy theories has been established, correlation does not imply a causal link.

Some analyses of longitudinal data haven’t found evidence to support the hypothesis. But no one has directly tested the claims of the existential threat model.

We set out to do this using a longitudinal survey.

A longitudinal study isn’t as conclusive as a true experiment but it can establish the sequence of cause and effect and rule out some alternative explanations for a relationship.

Our sample consisted of 995 participants with representatives groups from New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom. Each month from September 2022 to February 2023, we presented participants with a survey, including 11 conspiracy theories and common measures of anxiety, depression and stress. Each month we asked them about their level of agreement with the conspiracy theories, and their levels of psychological distress.

Prior to collecting the data, we preregistered our hypotheses. These boiled down to the ideas that increased distress of different types (anxiety, depression, stress) will subsequently increase belief in conspiracy theories and that such beliefs will subsequently increase distress.

Rethinking the vicious cycle

We found very limited evidence for elevated distress subsequently increasing belief in conspiracy theories.

We also found no evidence to support the converse – that belief in conspiracy theories increases distress.

Our findings suggest beliefs in conspiracy theories may mostly reflect a relatively stable worldview rather than being driven by temporary changes in distress.

This matters because some researchers have suggested interventions that reduce stress could be used to help reduce conspiracy beliefs. However, if stress is not driving conspiracy beliefs, as our results suggest, this approach is unlikely to be effective.

We also found no evidence that conspiracy beliefs cause short-term distress. This challenges the common assumption that beliefs in conspiracy theories inherently cause harm to one’s mental health, particularly stress, anxiety and depression. That said, conspiracy beliefs could still cause harm in other ways – such as by contributing to the flow of misinformation.

Our research challenges the idea of a vicious cycle of conspiracy beliefs. It appears distress may not have a key role in making people “spiral” down the rabbit hole.

Interventions that foster an analytical mindset or include critical thinking skills may be more useful.

Nick Fox, Researcher in Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University; Matt Williams, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University, and Stephen Hill, Associate Professor of Psychology, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Humans have long been searching for a “magic elixir” to make us smarter, and improve our focus and memory. This includes traditional Chinese medicine used thousands of years ago to improve cognitive function.

Now we have nootropics, also known as smart drugs, brain boosters or cognitive enhancers.

You can buy these gummies, chewing gums, pills and skin patches online, or from supermarkets, pharmacies or petrol stations. You don’t need a prescription or to consult a health professional.

But do nootropics actually boost your brain? Here’s what the science says.

What are nootropics and how do they work?

Romanian psychologist and chemist Cornelius E. Giurgea coined the term nootropics in the early 1970s to describe compounds that may boost memory and learning. The term comes from the Greek words nӧos (thinking) and tropein (guide).

Nootropics may work in the brain by improving transmission of signals between nerve cells, maintaining the health of nerve cells, and helping in energy production. Some nootropics have antioxidant properties and may reduce damage to nerve cells in the brain caused by the accumulation of free radicals.

But how safe and effective are they? Let’s look at four of the most widely used nootropics.

1. Caffeine

You might be surprised to know caffeine is a nootropic. No wonder so many of us start our day with a coffee. It stimulates our nervous system.

Caffeine is rapidly absorbed into the blood and distributed in nearly all human tissues. This includes the brain where it increases our alertness, reaction time and mood, and we feel as if we have more energy.

For caffeine to have these effects, you need to consume 32-300 milligrams in a single dose. That’s equivalent to around two espressos (for the 300mg dose). So, why the wide range? Genetic variations in a particular gene (the CYP1A2 gene) can affect how fast you metabolise caffeine. So this can explain why some people need more caffeine than others to recognise any neurostimulant effect.

Unfortunately too much caffeine can lead to anxiety-like symptoms and panic attacks, sleep disturbances, hallucinations, gut disturbances and heart problems.

So it’s recommended adults drink no more than 400mg caffeine a day, the equivalent of up to three espressos.

2. L-theanine

L-theanine comes as a supplement, chewing gum or in a beverage. It’s also the most common amino acid in green tea.

Consuming L-theanine as a supplement may increase production of alpha waves in the brain. These are associated with increased alertness and perception of calmness.

However, it’s effect on cognitive functioning is still unclear. Various studies including those comparing a single dose with a daily dose for several weeks, and in different populations, show different outcomes.

But taking L-theanine with caffeine as a supplement improved cognitive performance and alertness in one study. Young adults who consumed L-theanine (97mg) plus caffeine (40mg) could more accurately switch between tasks after a single dose, and said they were more alert.

Another study of people who took L-theanine with caffeine at similar doses to the study above found improvements in several cognitive outcomes, including being less susceptible to distraction.

Although pure L-theanine is well tolerated, there are still relatively few human trials to show it works or is safe over a prolonged period of time. Larger and longer studies examining the optimal dose are also needed.

3. Ashwaghanda

Ashwaghanda is a plant extract commonly used in Indian Ayurvedic medicine for improving memory and cognitive function.

In one study, 225-400mg daily for 30 days improved cognitive performance in healthy males. There were significant improvements in cognitive flexibility (the ability to switch tasks), visual memory (recalling an image), reaction time (response to a stimulus) and executive functioning (recognising rules and categories, and managing rapid decision making).

There are similar effects in older adults with mild cognitive impairment.

But we should be cautious about results from studies using Ashwaghanda supplements; the studies are relatively small and only treated participants for a short time.

4. Creatine

Creatine is an organic compound involved in how the body generates energy and is used as a sports supplement. But it also has cognitive effects.

In a review of available evidence, healthy adults aged 66-76 who took creatine supplements had improved short-term memory.

Long-term supplementation may also have benefits. In another study, people with fatigue after COVID took 4g a day of creatine for six months and reported they were better able to concentrate, and were less fatigued. Creatine may reduce brain inflammation and oxidative stress, to improve cognitive performance and reduce fatigue.

Side effects of creatine supplements in studies are rarely reported. But they include weight gain, gastrointestinal upset and changes in the liver and kidneys.

Where to now?

There is good evidence for brain boosting effects of caffeine and creatine. But the jury is still out on the efficacy, optimal dose and safety of most other nootropics.

So until we have more evidence, consult your health professional before taking a nootropic.

But drinking your daily coffee isn’t likely to do much harm. Thank goodness, because for some of us, it is a magic elixir.

Nenad Naumovski, Professor in Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Canberra; Amanda Bulman, PhD candidate studying the effects of nutrients on sleep, University of Canberra, and Andrew McKune, Professor, Exercise Science, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.