The type of behavior exemplified by the tobacco industry, where known harms were hidden and large numbers of people colluded to keep the truth secret and denied the problems, is often referred to as "corporate or institutional denial." It involves an organization or group's active attempts to suppress or downplay information about a harmful product or behavior, often through tactics such as funding biased research, discrediting critics, and manipulating public opinion.
In the case of the tobacco industry, this behavior has been referred to as "tobacco denialism," "tobacco industry denial," or "tobacco industry disinformation." It has been well-documented that the tobacco industry engaged in a concerted effort to hide the risks of smoking, downplay the addictiveness of nicotine, and undermine public health campaigns to reduce tobacco use.
There is no one single psychological explanation for why and how individuals participate in deceptions and manipulations like those employed by the tobacco industry. However, there are a few possible psychological explanations that have been proposed by researchers.
One possible explanation is that of cognitive dissonance. According to this theory, individuals who engage in harmful behaviors or promote harmful products may experience a psychological discomfort when confronted with evidence of the harm caused by their actions. To reduce this discomfort, they may engage in strategies to deny or minimize the harm, including downplaying the evidence, rationalizing their actions, or attacking those who provide evidence of harm.
Another possible explanation is that of groupthink. Groupthink occurs when a group of individuals prioritize consensus and group harmony over critical thinking and independent judgment. In this context, individuals may be less likely to speak up against harmful practices or to question the group's beliefs and actions, even if they have personal doubts or concerns.
A third possible explanation is that of moral disengagement. Moral disengagement occurs when individuals disengage from their moral beliefs or standards, often in situations where they can benefit from harmful actions. This may involve justifying or rationalizing harmful behavior, or minimizing the harm caused by such actions.
It is important to note that these explanations are not mutually exclusive and that many factors may contribute to an individual's decision to participate in deceptive or manipulative behavior. These factors may include personal values, social pressures, financial incentives, and more.
In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the tobacco industry deliberately misled the public and its own employees about the risks of smoking. For example, internal documents from tobacco companies have revealed that executives were aware of the risks of smoking as early as the 1950s, but chose to conceal this information and continue promoting smoking as safe and healthy.
Moreover, as public awareness of the harms of smoking grew, the tobacco industry continued to employ a range of tactics to sow doubt and confusion about the risks of smoking, including funding research to cast doubt on the science linking smoking to health problems, and launching public relations campaigns to promote the idea that smoking was a matter of personal choice and freedom.
Therefore, while it is possible that some individuals who worked for the tobacco industry genuinely believed that smoking was not harmful, it is clear that the industry as a whole was well aware of the risks of smoking and engaged in a range of deceptive and manipulative tactics to mislead the public and maintain its profits.
-
The fossil fuel industry: Like the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry has been accused of funding biased research and campaigns to downplay the risks of climate change and delay action to address it. There is evidence that the industry has known about the risks of climate change for decades, but has engaged in a range of tactics to sow doubt and confusion about the science and resist regulation.
-
The food industry: The food industry has been accused of similar tactics to those used by the tobacco industry, including funding biased research, suppressing evidence of harm, and manipulating public opinion. For example, the sugar industry has been accused of downplaying the risks of sugar consumption and promoting misleading research, while the meat industry has been accused of suppressing evidence of the harm caused by industrial-scale meat production.
-
The pharmaceutical industry: The pharmaceutical industry has been accused of a range of deceptive and manipulative tactics, including downplaying the risks of drugs, promoting drugs for off-label uses, and hiding negative trial results. In some cases, the industry has been found to have engaged in illegal and unethical practices to promote their products and maintain profits.
-
The chemical industry: The chemical industry has been accused of downplaying the risks of exposure to harmful chemicals and lobbying against regulation. There is evidence that the industry has known about the risks of certain chemicals for decades, but has engaged in a range of tactics to delay or avoid regulation, and to cast doubt on the science linking exposure to harm.
These are just a few examples, but they illustrate the ways in which powerful industries and interest groups can use deceptive and manipulative tactics to protect their profits and interests, even at the expense of public health and safety.