Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality
Abstract
In the present research, we examined people's tendency to endorse or question belief in conspiracy theories. In two studies, we tested the hypothesis that the perceived morality of authorities influences conspiracy beliefs, particularly when people experience uncertainty. Study 1 revealed that information about the morality of oil companies influenced beliefs that these companies were involved in planning the war in Iraq, but only when uncertainty was made salient. Similar findings were obtained in Study 2, which focused on a bogus newspaper article about a fatal car accident of a political leader in an African country. It is concluded that uncertainty leads people to make inferences about the plausibility or implausibility of conspiracy theories by attending to morality information. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Conspiracy belief is stronger when people experience distress as a result of feeling uncertain.
“Also, research suggests that conspiracy belief is stronger when people experience distress as a result of feeling uncertain (van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013).”
From The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (2017) · cites this paper as van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013
Turning towards conspiracy theories seems to be motivated by societal crises and feelings of fear, uncertainty, and perceived lack of control.
“Turning towards conspiracy theories also seems to be motivated by societal crises and the feelings of fear, uncertainty, and a perceived lack of control.”
From The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory (2024) · cites this paper as van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013
The findings align with the assumption that conspiracy theories flourish in times of uncertainty and serve as a form of collective sense making.
“Overall, our findings align with the assumption that conspiracy theories flourish in times of uncertainty (van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013) and serve as a form of collective sense making (Kou et al., 2017).”
From The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory (2024) · cites this paper as van Prooijen & Jostmann, 2013
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 46 · Cited by 403
- Authors
- van Prooijen, J., & Jostmann, N. B.
- Affiliations
- Department of Social and Organizational Psychology VU University Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- ORCID
- Jostmann, Nils B.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2012-12-17
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 109-115
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2123486042
- Cited by
- 403
- References
- 46
- Citations by year
- 2026: 25 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 45 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 47 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 3
- FWCI
- 34.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
- Keywords
- conspiracy theories, conspiracy beliefs, uncertainty, perceived morality, authority figures, oil companies, Iraq War, plausibility judgments, political leaders
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
