Cited by 136Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Collective narcissism and the growth of conspiracy thinking over the course of the 2016 United States presidential election: a longitudinal analysis

Open access
Golec de Zavala, Agnieszka, Federico, Christopher M.·2018·European Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

Using data from a longitudinal study of American adults collected between July and November 2016, we examine the hypothesis that American collective narcissism (CN) would uniquely predict increases in conspiracy thinking during the 2016 presidential campaign. Going beyond previous findings, our results indicate that CN (but not in‐group identification) predicted growth in general conspiracy thinking—that is, a tendency to view political events in terms of group‐based conspiracies—over the course of the 2016 US presidential campaign. This relationship is found even after accounting for other predictors such as demographics, political knowledge, social trust, authoritarianism, and need for cognitive closure.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ejsp.2496

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Berinsky A. J., 2012, Rumors, truths, and reality: A study of political misinformation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. M.
Affiliations
  • Department of Psychology Goldsmiths, University of London London UK
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Venue
European Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-06
Volume
48
Issue
7
Pages
1011-1018
ISSN
  • 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0992
OpenAlex
W2800626544
Cited by
136
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2
FWCI
23.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repositório do ISCTE-IUL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Keywords
collective narcissism, conspiracy beliefs, 2016 US presidential election, ingroup identification, political conspiracy, authoritarianism, need for cognitive closure, social trust, political knowledge, longitudinal change

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