Cited by 89Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Right-wing authoritarianism as a predictor of pro-establishment versus anti-establishment conspiracy theories

Wood, Michael J., Gray, Debra·2019·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2018.09.036

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, M. J., & Gray, D.
Affiliations
University of Winchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Wood, Michael J.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
138
Pages
163-166
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2893076599
Cited by
89
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
11.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Winchester
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
right-wing authoritarianism, conspiracy theories, intergroup attitudes, social order, external threats, conspiracy beliefs

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