Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Something’s Going on Here

Psychological Predictors of Belief in Conspiracy Theories

Published Online:August 02, 2018https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000268

Abstract

Abstract. Research on individual-difference factors predicting belief in conspiracy theories has proceeded along several independent lines that converge on a profile of conspiracy believers as individuals who are relatively untrusting, ideologically eccentric, concerned about personal safety, and prone to perceiving agency in actions and profundity in bullshit. The present research represents the first attempt at an integrative approach to testing the independent contributions of these diverse factors to conspiratorial thinking. Two studies (N = 1,253) found that schizotypy, dangerous-world beliefs, and bullshit receptivity independently and additively predict endorsement of generic (i.e., nonpartisan) conspiracy beliefs. Results suggest that “hyperactive” agency detection and political orientation (and related variables) might also play a role. The studies found no effects of situational threats (mortality salience or a sense of powerlessness) – though it remains to be seen whether real-world instantiations of situational threats might move some people to seek refuge in conspiratorial ideation.

References

  • Abell, F., Happé, F. & Frith, U. (2000). Do triangles play tricks? Attribution of mental states to animated shapes in normal and abnormal development. Cognitive Development, 15, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2014(00)00014-9 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Brotherton, R., French, C. C. & Pickering, A. D. (2013). Measuring belief in conspiracy theories: The generic conspiracist beliefs scale. Frontiers in psychology, 4, 279. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00279 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Darwin, H., Neave, N. & Holmes, J. (2011). Belief in conspiracy theories. The role of paranormal belief, paranoid ideation and schizotypy. Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1289–1293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.02.027 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J. & Harvey, A. J. (2016). Someone is pulling the strings: Hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories. Thinking & Reasoning, 22, 57–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I. & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Edmundson, M., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Gore, W. L. & Widiger, T. A. (2011). A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits. Assessment, 18, 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111408228 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Greenberg, J., Solomon, S. & Pyszczynski, T. (1997). Terror management theory of self-esteem and cultural worldviews: Empirical assessments and conceptual refinements. In M. P. ZannaEd., Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 61–139). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60016-7 First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Hart, J. (2014). Toward an integrative theory of psychological defense. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691613506018 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Imhoff, R. & Lamberty, P. K. (2017). Too special to be duped: Need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 724–734. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2265 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J. & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marks, G. & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.102.1.72 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Miller, J. M., Saunders, K. L. & Farhart, C. E. (2016). Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 824–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12234 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Moulding, R., Nix-Carnell, S., Schnabel, A., Nedeljkovic, M., Burnside, E. E., Lentini, A. F. & Mehzabin, N. (2016). Better the devil you know than a world you don’t? Intolerance of uncertainty and worldview explanations for belief in conspiracy theories. Personality and Individual Differences, 98, 345–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.060 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T. & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J. & Fugelsang, J. A. (2015). On the reception and detection of pseudo-profound bullshit. Judgment and Decision Making, 10, 549–563. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Pyszczynski, T., Greenberg, J. & Solomon, S. (1999). A dual-process model of defense against conscious and unconscious death-related thoughts: An extension of terror management theory. Psychological Review, 106, 835–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.835 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rosenblatt, A., Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., Pyszczynski, T. & Lyon, D. (1989). Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 681–690. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J. & Rothschild, Z. K. (2010). An existential function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 434–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017457 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Swami, V., Voracek, M., Stieger, S., Tran, U. S. & Furnham, A. (2014). Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition, 133, 572–585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C. & Atkinson, M. D. (2016). What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Research Quarterly, 69, 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915621621 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Uscinski, J. E. & Parent, J. M. (2014). American conspiracy theories. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van der Tempel, J. & Alcock, J. E. (2015). Relationships between conspiracy mentality, hyperactive agency detection, and schizotypy: Supernatural forces at work? Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.010 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Elk, M. (2013). Paranormal believers are more prone to illusory agency detection than skeptics. Consciousness and cognition, 22, 1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2013.07.004 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Prooijen, J. W. & Acker, M. (2015). The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29(5), 753–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3161 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van Prooijen, J. W., Krouwel, A. P. & Pollet, T. V. (2015). Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6, 570–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567356 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • White, S. J., Coniston, D., Rogers, R. & Frith, U. (2011). Developing the Frith‐Happé animations: A quick and objective test of theory of mind for adults with autism. Autism Research, 4, 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.174 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Whitson, J. A. & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159845 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Winkler, G., Arton, G., Vylenz, D., Winkler, M. (Producers), Vylenz, D. & Winkler, M. (Directors) (2003). The mindscape of Alan Moore [Motion picture]. United States: Shadowsnake Films. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar