CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 414Misinformation and Its ImpactsParanormal Experiences and BeliefsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Someone is pulling the strings: hypersensitive agency detection and belief in conspiracy theories

Open access
Douglas, Karen M., Sutton, Robbie M., Callan, Mitchell J., Dawtry, Rael J., Harvey, Annelie J.·2016·Thinking & Reasoning
DOI 10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We hypothesised that belief in conspiracy theories would be predicted by the general tendency to attribute agency and intentionality where it is unlikely to exist. We further hypothesised that this tendency would explain the relationship between education level and belief in conspiracy theories, where lower levels of education have been found to be associated with higher conspiracy belief. In Study 1 (N = 202) participants were more likely to agree with a range of conspiracy theories if they also tended to attribute intentionality and agency to inanimate objects. As predicted, this relationship accounted for the link between education level and belief in conspiracy theories. We replicated this finding in Study 2 (N = 330), whilst taking into account beliefs in paranormal phenomena. These results suggest that education may undermine the reasoning processes and assumptions that are reflected in conspiracy belief.

Overview

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 · 10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Coady D., 2006, Conspiracy theories: The philosophical debate
  2. Douglas K. M., 2015, The psychology of conspiracy (pp. 183–200)
  3. Plomin R. S., 1997, Political paranoia
  4. Swami V., 2010, The Psychologist, 23, 560

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Understanding Conspiracy Theories

    Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12568 · Cited by 1,511

    “Douglas et al. (2016) demonstrated that the relationship was explained in part by the tendency for people with lower levels of education to also be more likely to attribute agency and intentionality where it does not, or is unlikely, to exist. Van Prooijen (2017) found support for two additional mediating factors—grea…”
    BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citation

  • The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories

    Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721417718261 · Cited by 1,316

    “It is also associated with the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of co-occurring events (Brotherton & French, 2014) and the tendency to perceive agency and intentionality where it does not exist (Douglas et al., 2016).”
    BackgroundSelf-citation

  • Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England

    Freeman, D., Waite, F., Rosebrock, L., Petit, A., Causier, C., East, A., Jenner, L., Teale, A.-L., Carr, L., Mulhall, S., et al. (2022) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720001890 · Cited by 714

    “…status (Freeman & Bentall, 2017), less analytic thinking (Swami, Voracek, Stieger, Tran, & Furnham, 2014), lower levels of education and income (Douglas, Sutton, Callan, Dawtry, & Harvey, 2016; Freeman & Bentall, 2017), and being a member of a disadvantaged social group (Davis, Wetherell, &…”

  • Why Education Predicts Decreased Belief in Conspiracy Theories

    van Prooijen, J. (2016) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3301 · Cited by 577

    “Previous research indicated a negative relationship between education level and belief in conspiracy theories, such that people with high education levels are less likely to believe in conspiracy theories than people with low education levels (Douglas et al., 2016; Van Prooijen et al, 2015).”
    Background

  • Prevention is better than cure: addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories

    Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2017) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12453 · Cited by 446

    Self-citation

See all 414

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., Callan, M. J., Dawtry, R. J., & Harvey, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Kent (GB)
  • University of Essex (GB)
  • Anglia Ruskin University (GB)
Corresponding author
Douglas, Karen M.
ORCID
Venue
Thinking & Reasoning
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2015-08-18
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
57-77
ISSN
  • 1354-6783 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0708
DOI
10.1080/13546783.2015.1051586
OpenAlex
W2282522361
Cited by
414
References
84
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4
FWCI
84.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
  • Thinking & Reasoning (publishedVersion)
  • Anglia Ruskin Research Online (Anglia Ruskin University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Open Access at Essex (University of Essex) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • The University of Bath Online Publications Store (The University of Bath) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
conspiracy beliefs, agency detection, intention attribution, educational attainment, supernatural beliefs, inanimate objects

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