CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 685Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The social consequences of conspiracism: exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Douglas, Karen M.·2014·British Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjop.12018
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The current studies explored the social consequences of exposure to conspiracy theories. In Study 1, participants were exposed to a range of conspiracy theories concerning government involvement in significant events such as the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Results revealed that exposure to information supporting conspiracy theories reduced participants' intentions to engage in politics, relative to participants who were given information refuting conspiracy theories. This effect was mediated by feelings of political powerlessness. In Study 2, participants were exposed to conspiracy theories concerning the issue of climate change. Results revealed that exposure to information supporting the conspiracy theories reduced participants' intentions to reduce their carbon footprint, relative to participants who were given refuting information, or those in a control condition. This effect was mediated by powerlessness with respect to climate change, uncertainty, and disillusionment. Exposure to climate change conspiracy theories also influenced political intentions, an effect mediated by political powerlessness. The current findings suggest that conspiracy theories may have potentially significant social consequences, and highlight the need for further research on the social psychology of conspiracism.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjop.12018

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 67 references

1 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. 10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.01 · DOI
  2. Dunlap R. E., 2001, Only one in four Americans are anxious about the environment, Gallup News Service: Poll analyses
  3. Hayes A. F., 2012, Indirect and direct effects of a multicategorical causal agent in statistical mediation analysis
  4. Hofstadter R., 1971, The fear of conspiracy, 2
  5. Moore J., 1990, Conspiracy of one
  6. Plomin R. S., 1997, Political paranoia

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–400 of 683

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Jolley, Daniel
  • Douglas, Karen M.
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-01-04
Volume
105
Issue
1
Pages
35-56
ISSN
  • 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8295
DOI
10.1111/bjop.12018
OpenAlex
W1995170713
Cited by
685
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 86 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 50 · 2022: 106 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 71 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 35 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
46.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (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 beliefs, conspiracy theories, political participation, political impotence, uncertainty, political disillusionment
MeSH terms
Analysis of Variance, Female, Government, United Kingdom, Homicide, Humans, Deception, Male, Models, Psychological, Persuasive Communication, Politics, Power, Psychological, Psychology, Social, Public Opinion, Surveys and Questionnaires, Students, Intention, Uncertainty, Trust, Young Adult, Climate Change, Carbon Footprint

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