CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 267Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 71 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Toward a more fine-grained understanding of the connect and disconnect between paranoia and belief in conspiracy theories

Imhoff, Roland, Lamberty, Pia·2018·European Journal of Social Psychology
DOI 10.1002/ejsp.2494
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Public discourse and scholarly literature often make a strong connection between paranoid thought and belief in conspiracy theories. We report one meta‐analysis and two correlational studies across two distinct cultural contexts (total N = 578) to provide an estimate for their association but also evidence for their distinctiveness via a multi‐trait‐multi‐method approach. Whereas the meta‐analysis (k = 11 studies) provided support for a reliable association between paranoia and conspiracy beliefs, the two additional studies provide direct evidence for their distinctiveness and divergent associations with other constructs. Although both assume sinister intentions of others, beliefs in conspiracy theories are more specific in who these others are (powerful groups) than paranoia (everyone). In contrast, paranoia was more restricted in terms of who the target of the negative intentions is (the self) than conspiracy theorizing (society as a whole). In light of this and distinct associations of conspiracy beliefs with political control and trust but not (inter‐)personal control and trust (like paranoia), we propose to treat the two as distinct (albeit correlated) constructs with conspiracy beliefs reflecting a political attitude compared to paranoia as a self‐relevant belief.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2494

Cites

71 of 71 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Adorno T. W., 1947, Dialektik der Aufklärung [Dialectic of enlightenment], 177
  2. Derogatis L. R., 1994, SCL‐90‐R symptom checklist‐90‐R administration, scoring and procedures manual
  3. Franke G. H., 1995, SCL‐90‐R. Die Symptom‐Checkliste von Derogatis‐Deutsche Version
  4. Imhoff R., 2010, Zwei Formen des modernen Antisemitismus? Eine Skala zur Messung primären und sekundären Antisemitismus [Two forms of modern antisemitism? A scale for the measurement of primary and secondary antisemitism], Conflict & Communication, 9, 1
  5. Imhoff R., 2015, The psychology of conspiracy, 122
  6. Klein O., 2015, The psychology of conspiracy, 162
  7. Kofta M., 2001, Od myśli i uczuć do decyzji i działań, 60
  8. Rosseel Y., 2012, Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling and more
  9. Shapiro D., 1965, Neurotic styles

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 267

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P.
Affiliations
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Imhoff, Roland
ORCID
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-05-30
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
909-926
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
DOI
10.1002/ejsp.2494
OpenAlex
W2799716520
Semantic Scholar
47550a1d8d5b54bb390d03c1b1d299c52887c2b9
Cited by
267
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 39 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 3
FWCI
43.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
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
paranoia, conspiracy beliefs, conspiracy theories, paranoid thinking, political control, trust, interpersonal control, self-relevance, construct distinctiveness

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