CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 268Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Meleady, Rose, Douglas, Karen M.·2020·British Journal of Psychology
DOI 10.1111/bjop.12385PMC PMC7004178
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This research experimentally examined the effects of exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories on prejudice and discrimination. Study 1 ( N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group. Study 2 ( N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context – exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants’ willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate. Finally, Study 3 ( N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians). The current research suggests that conspiracy theories may have potentially damaging and widespread consequences for intergroup relations.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Three experiments found that exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories increased prejudice toward the targeted outgroup and, in one study, discrimination; Study 3 also found indirect generalization of prejudice to unrelated secondary outgroups. Effects were generally small and mainly affective rather than cognitive.

Key findings

  • Study 1 (N = 166): exposure to immigrant conspiracy theories increased prejudice toward immigrants (pro-conspiracy M = 3.98, SD = 1.00) compared with anti-conspiracy (M = 3.56, SD = 0.96, p = .023, d = .43) and control (M = 3.53, SD = 0.88, p = .016, d = .50); omnibus F(2, 163) = 3.68, p = .027, η² = .04.
  • Study 2 (N = 173): exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories increased affective prejudice toward Jewish people (M = 3.32, SD = 0.94) versus anti-conspiracy (M = 2.80, SD = 1.00, p = .008, d = .54) and control (M = 2.91, SD = 1.15, p = .034, d = .39); it also increased anti-Jewish voting bias (M = 2.30, SD = 1.60) versus anti-conspiracy (M = 1.66, SD = 0.98, p = .013, d = .48), with mediation via prejudice. No differences emerged for stereotypes or dehumanization (p > .05).
  • Study 3 (N = 114): exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories increased prejudice toward Jewish people (M = 38.25, SD = 21.14) versus control (M = 31.15, SD = 16.10), t(112) = −2.04, p = .044, d = .38. Indirect effects through Jewish prejudice were significant for all 12 secondary outgroups, e.g., Asians (−5.50, SE = 2.68), Arabs (−4.83, SE = 2.34), Irish (−4.75, SE = 2.40), Americans (−4.53, SE = 2.56), Australians (−4.43, SE = 2.22).

Methods

  • Three between-subjects online experiments recruited UK residents via Prolific Academic. Final analyzed samples: Study 1 N = 166 (pro-conspiracy n = 50, anti-conspiracy n = 57, control n = 59); Study 2 N = 173 (pro n = 57, anti n = 56, control n = 60); Study 3 N = 114 (pro n = 52, control n = 62). Exclusions included failed attention screens, reading time under 30 s, and, in Studies 2–3, Jewish origin.
  • Participants read pro-conspiracy, anti-conspiracy, or no-information control material. Study 1 concerned immigrants and terrorism; Studies 2–3 concerned Jewish people and 9/11. Measures included conspiracy belief manipulation checks, semantic-differential prejudice, feeling thermometers, stereotypes, dehumanization, voting intention, and prejudice toward secondary outgroups.
  • Analyses used ANOVAs and pairwise comparisons, plus mediation with Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 and 5,000 bootstrapped resamples.

Limitations

  • The paper states that effects were stronger for affective than cognitive prejudice; Study 2 found no changes in stereotypes or dehumanization. It also notes that discrimination was measured as behavioral intention, not actual behavior, and that manipulation-check items may reflect general fear of foreigners rather than genuine conspiracy beliefs.
  • The paper states that long-term effects were not examined, and mechanisms and moderators remain untested.
  • Evident from the text: samples were UK Prolific participants rather than representative populations; effects were small (η² = .04–.05; d = .38–.54); Study 3 removed the anti-conspiracy condition; and secondary-outgroup effects were indirect only, with no direct effects reported.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjop.12385

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians) in Study 3 (N = 114).

    “Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
  • Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people, compared with anti-conspiracy material or a control, increased prejudice towards this group in Study 2 (N = 173).

    “Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context – exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants’ willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
  • Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union, compared with anti-conspiracy material or a control, exacerbated prejudice towards this group in Study 1 (N = 166).

    “Study 1 (N = 166) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning immigrants to Britain from the European Union (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) exacerbated prejudice towards this group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
  • Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people, compared with anti-conspiracy material or a control, reduced participants' willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate in Study 2 (N = 173).

    “Study 2 (N = 173) found the same effect in a different intergroup context – exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people (vs. anti‐conspiracy material or a control) increased prejudice towards this group and reduced participants’ willingness to vote for a Jewish political candidate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
  • Findingown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people increased prejudice towards this group in Study 3 (N = 114).

    “Finally, Study 3 (N = 114) demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories about Jewish people not only increased prejudice towards this group but was indirectly associated with increased prejudice towards a number of secondary outgroups (e.g., Asians, Arabs, Americans, Irish, Australians).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
  • May combine two claims. 19
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 20

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Study 3 showed that exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories not only increased prejudice towards this group but also indirectly increased prejudice towards a range of other groups.

    “Study 3 then showed that exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories not only increased prejudice towards this group but also indirectly increased prejudice towards a range of other groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, prejudice was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 3.32, SD = 0.94) than in the anti-conspiracy condition (M = 2.80, SD = 1.00, p = .008, d = .54) and the control condition (M = 2.91, SD = 1.15, p = .034, d = .39).

    “Pairwise comparisons confirmed that prejudice was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 3.32, SD = 0.94) than the anti‐conspiracy condition (M = 2.80, SD = 1.00, p = .008, d = .54) and the control condition (M = 2.91, SD = 1.15, p = .034, d = .39).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, discrimination towards a Jewish political candidate was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 2.30, SD = 1.60) than in the anti-conspiracy condition (M = 1.66, SD = 0.98, p = .013, d = .48), and marginally higher than in the control condition (M = 1.88, SD = 1.37, p = .097, d = .28).

    “Specifically, discrimination towards a Jewish political candidate was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 2.30, SD = 1.60) than the anti‐conspiracy condition (M = 1.66, SD = 0.98, p = .013, d = .48), and marginally higher than the control condition (M = 1.88, SD = 1.37, p = .097, d = .28).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, belief in Jewish conspiracy theories was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 2.78, SD = 1.45) than in the anti-conspiracy condition (M = 1.48, SD = 1.55, p < .001, d = .87) and the control condition (M = 1.93, SD = 1.00, p < .001, d = .68).

    “Specifically, belief in Jewish conspiracy theories was significantly higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 2.78, SD = 1.45) than the anti‐conspiracy condition (M = 1.48, SD = 1.55, p < .001, d = .87) and the control condition (M = 1.93, SD = 1.00, p < .001, d = .68).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Study 2 replicated these results in a different intergroup context where prejudice translated into biased behavioural tendencies towards Jewish people.

    “Study 2 replicated these results in a different intergroup context where prejudice translated into biased behavioural tendencies towards Jewish people.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories had significant indirect effects on prejudice towards each of the 12 secondary outgroups via prejudice towards Jewish people, with the spreading apparent across a range of outgroups including Americans, Arabs, the elderly, poor people, and people on benefits.

    “Significant indirect effects emerged in each case.”
    • Also stated in: § Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice · hedged
      “This spreading of prejudiced attitudes was apparent across a range of different outgroups including Americans, Arabs, the elderly, poor people, and people on benefits.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In Study 2, exposure to conspiracy theories did not change the stereotypes of Jewish people, nor did it lead to the dehumanization of a Jewish person.

    “In Study 2, we found that exposure to conspiracy theories did not change the stereotypes of Jewish people, nor did exposure to conspiracy theories lead to the dehumanization of a Jewish person.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The pro-conspiracy manipulation enhanced conspiracy beliefs (relative to the control and anti-conspiracy condition) and these beliefs mediated the effect of the manipulation on outgroup prejudice.

    “We were also able to show that the pro‐conspiracy manipulation enhanced conspiracy beliefs (relative to the control and anti‐conspiracy condition) and that these beliefs mediated the effect of the manipulation on outgroup prejudice, further increasing confidence in our account.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories may be damaging not just because they increase prejudice and discrimination towards the implicated group, but because this prejudice then has the potential to spread across multiple social outgroups.

    “We argue that exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories may be damaging not just because they serve to increase prejudice and discrimination towards the implicated group, but because this prejudice then has the potential to spread across multiple social outgroups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Intergroup threat theory posits that threats to the ingroup promote negative evaluations of outgroups.

    “Intergroup threat theory posits that threats to the ingroup promote negative evaluations of outgroups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Stephan & Stephan, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Study 1, an anticipated small-medium effect size (η2) of 0.059 based on previous research required a sample size of approximately 150 for 80% power of detecting the effect.

    “Prior to data analysis, an anticipated small–medium effect size (η2) of 0.059 based on previous research (e.g., Jolley & Douglas, 2014a,b) required a sample size of approximately 150 for 80% power of detecting the effect (Clark‐Carter, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Jolley & Douglas, 2014a,b

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Clark‐Carter, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Contact between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland improves attitudes not just towards the religious outgroup, but also towards racial minority groups.

    “Similarly, contact between Catholics and Protestants in northern Ireland has been shown to improve attitudes not just towards the religious outgroup, but also towards racial minority groups (Tausch et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Tausch et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 2, participants who failed attention checks or spent less than 30 s reading the conspiracy theory material, and participants of Jewish origin, were removed from analyses.

    “Participants who failed these screening measures were removed from analyses, alongside participants who also indicated that they were of Jewish origin.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Effects emerge via a process of attitude generalization in which intergroup contact improves attitudes towards the primary outgroup, and these more positive attitudes then generalize to other, uninvolved outgroups.

    “Effects emerge via a process of attitude generalization in which intergroup contact improves attitudes towards the primary outgroup, and these more positive attitudes then generalize to other, uninvolved outgroups (Pettigrew, 2009; Tausch et al., 2010).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pettigrew, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Tausch et al., 2010

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to a pro-conspiracy condition, an anti-conspiracy condition, or a control condition in a between-subjects design.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either the pro‐conspiracy condition (n = 57), anti‐conspiracy condition (n = 56), or control condition (n = 60) in a between‐subjects design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 1, participants who failed an attention screen or spent less than 30 s reading the conspiracy-related information were removed from analysis.

    “Participants who either failed an attention screen or spent less than 30 s reading the conspiracy‐related information were removed from the analysis.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    It has been suggested that Jewish conspiracy theories in Malaysia reflect displaced resentment of Chinese people; thus, the reported link with Jewish conspiracy theories may be a mask for anti-Chinese prejudice.

    “However, as discussed by Swami (2012), it has been suggested that Jewish conspiracy theories in Malaysia reflect displaced resentment of Chinese people (Burhanuddin, 2007; Hadler, 2004; Siegel, 2000); thus, the reported link with Jewish conspiracy theories may be a mask for anti‐Chinese prejudice.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Swami, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Burhanuddin, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hadler, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Positive contact with immigrants produces secondary reductions in prejudice towards homosexual people and homeless people.

    “Positive contact with immigrants, for instance, has been shown to produce secondary reductions in prejudice towards homosexual people and homeless people (Pettigrew, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pettigrew, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Correlational results cannot rule out the possibility that effects exist only because people who harbour high levels of prejudice are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories about the implicated group.

    “Correlational results cannot rule out the possibility that effects exist only because people who harbour high levels of prejudice are more likely to endorse conspiracy theories about the implicated group.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    In Study 2, an anticipated small-medium effect size (η2) of 0.059 required a sample size of approximately 150 for 80% power of detecting the effect.

    “Similarly, to Study 1, an anticipated small–medium effect size (η2) of 0.059 required a sample size of approximately 150 for 80% power of detecting the effect (Clark‐Carter, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Clark‐Carter, 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Swami (2012) observed in a Malay sample that belief in Jewish conspiracy theories was negatively associated with attitudes towards Chinese people.

    “Swami (2012) also observed in a Malay sample that belief in Jewish conspiracy theories was negatively associated with attitudes towards Chinese people.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Swami, 2012

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories can increase prejudice towards the target group, which can then generalize to other, uninvolved groups.

    “In Study 3, we provide the first evidence that exposure to conspiracy theories not only increases prejudice towards the outgroup implicated in the alleged conspiracy but also towards other, uninvolved outgroups.”
    • Also stated in: § GENERAL DISCUSSION · boosted
      “Third, and perhaps most importantly, the current research demonstrates how the prejudice‐enhancing effects of intergroup conspiracy theories are not limited to the group targeted by the conspiracy but can spread to other, uninvolved groups.”
    • Also stated in: § GENERAL DISCUSSION · boosted
      “Our research demonstrates that exposure to conspiracy theories can increase prejudice towards the target group, which can then generalize to other, uninvolved groups.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The secondary outgroups (Americans, Irish, Australians, Asians, rich people, feminists, housewives, disabled people, elderly people, Arabs, people on benefits, and poor people) are uninvolved in the alleged Jewish conspiracy.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductreasoning

    In Study 3, a small-medium effect size (d) of 0.54 determined from the previous studies required a sample size of approximately 110 for 80% power of detecting the effect.

    “A small–medium effect size (d) of 0.54 determined from the previous studies required a sample size of approximately 110 for 80% power of detecting the effect.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given

    In Study 3, participants who failed attention screening measures, and those who indicated they were of Jewish origin, were removed from analysis.

    “As in the previous studies, participants who failed attention screening measures were removed from the analysis, alongside those participants who indicated they were of Jewish origin.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Previous research has demonstrated that conspiracy theories can prevent individuals from engaging in society in a positive way.

    “Previous research has demonstrated how conspiracy theories can prevent individuals from engaging in society in a positive way, and an emerging literature points to the potentially damaging effect of conspiracy theories for intergroup relations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In intergroup relations, the attitudinal consequences of encounters with outgroup members can generalize to the outgroup as a whole, and from there to other, secondary outgroups (the secondary transfer effect).

    “In the intergroup relations literature, research demonstrates that the attitudinal consequences of our encounters with outgroup members can generalize to the outgroup as a whole, and from there to other, secondary outgroups. This effect is known as a secondary transfer effect (Pettigrew, 2009).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pettigrew, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Exposure to conspiracy theories not only affects attitudinal prejudice but also intended behaviour towards the outgroup.

    “Results are demonstrated in a different intergroup context with a different target outgroup, and also show that exposure to conspiracy theories not only affects attitudinal prejudice but also intended behaviour towards the outgroup.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to a pro-conspiracy condition, an anti-conspiracy condition, or a control condition in a between-subjects design.

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either a pro‐conspiracy condition (n = 50), anti‐conspiracy condition (n = 57), or control condition (n = 59) in a between‐subjects design.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The consequences of exposure to conspiracy theories for intergroup relations may be much broader than originally conceived, suggesting a widespread negative impact on intergroup relations.

    “Ultimately, however, findings suggest the consequences of exposure to conspiracy theories for intergroup relations may be much broader than originally conceived, and capable of reducing more widespread intergroup tolerance.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
      “Together, this research suggests that conspiracy theories can have a widespread negative impact on intergroup relations.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Across Studies 1 and 2, exposure to conspiracy theories increased prejudice towards the outgroup implicated in the conspiracy theory (Study 1), which, in turn, can lead to discrimination towards that group (Study 2).

    “Across two studies, we have experimentally demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories can increase prejudice towards the outgroup implicated in the conspiracy theory (Study 1), which, in turn, can lead to discrimination towards that group (Study 2).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
    • Rests on an assumption: In the mediation analysis, increases in prejudice towards Jewish people caused the increase in anti-Jewish voting bias.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Positive intergroup contact has been shown to primarily produce more favourable outgroup evaluations (affective), which scholars argue is because cognitive dimensions (e.g., stereotypes) of prejudice are more resistant to change.

    “For example, positive intergroup contact has been shown to primarily produce more favourable outgroup evaluations (affective), which scholars argue is because cognitive dimensions (e.g., stereotypes) of prejudice are more resistant to change (e.g., Aberson, 2015; Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Bachelor, 2003).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Aberson, 2015

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Bachelor, 2003

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Conspiracy beliefs can remain heightened after 2 weeks following exposure to conspiracy theories (vs. control).

    “We know that conspiracy beliefs can remain heightened after 2 weeks following exposure to conspiracy theories (vs. control; Kim & Cao, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Kim & Cao, 2016

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Intentions do not always correlate strongly with behaviour.

    “We know that intentions do not always correlate strongly with behaviour (Sheeran, 2002).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sheeran, 2002

      Not checked in the free run.

33 of 33

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.

    “The pro‐conspiracy article began by arguing that there are many reasons to be suspicious of immigrants. The article then continued to provide specific examples such as immigrants have been found to be working on behalf of terrorist organizations.”
    “The anti‐conspiracy article was similar in content and length to the pro‐conspiracy article but differed by arguing that there are few reasons to be suspicious of immigrants being involved with terrorist organizations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the mediation analysis, increases in prejudice towards Jewish people caused the increase in anti-Jewish voting bias.

    “A mediation analysis was then conducted to examine whether the effect of exposure to conspiracy theories on anti‐Jewish discrimination could be explained by increased prejudice towards this group.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The samples of UK residents recruited via Prolific Academic are representative enough to generalize the effects to the wider UK population.

    “Participants were all residents of the United Kingdom and received a small fee in exchange for their participation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The secondary outgroups (Americans, Irish, Australians, Asians, rich people, feminists, housewives, disabled people, elderly people, Arabs, people on benefits, and poor people) are uninvolved in the alleged Jewish conspiracy.

    “Participants then completed this same measure to indicate their feelings towards a number of other, secondary groups, specifically Americans, Irish, Australians, Asians, rich people, feminists, housewives, disabled people, elderly people, Arabs, people on benefits, and poor people (adapted from Harwood et al., 2011).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The experimental exposure to conspiracy theories is analogous to real-world exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories.

    “In a between‐groups design, participants were exposed to either information that supported conspiracy theories surrounding Jewish people (pro‐conspiracy condition) or no information (control condition).”
5 of 5

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(2, 163) = 7.5reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 163) = 7.50, p = .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 163) = 3.68reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(2, 163) = 3.68, p = .027”

  • ConsistentF(2, 170) = 21.51reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(2, 170) = 21.51, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 170) = 4.03reported p = .019 · recomputed p = .019

    “F(2, 170) = 4.03, p = .019”

  • ConsistentF(2, 170) = 3.29reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .040

    “F(2, 170) = 3.29, p = .040”

  • Consistentt(112) = 3.59reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(112) = 3.59, p < .001”

  • Consistentt(112) = -2.04reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .044

    “t(112) = −2.04, p = .044”

7 of 7

Self-check

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

Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Campion‐Vincent V., 2005, Rumor mills: The social impact of rumor and legend (social problems and social issues)
  2. Douglas K. M., 2015, The psychology of conspiracy
  3. Hayes A., 2013, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach (methodology in the social sciences)
  4. Stephan W. G., 2000, “The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology” Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Jolley, D., Meleady, R., & Douglas, K. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Staffordshire (GB)
  • University of East Anglia (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Jolley, Daniel
ORCID
Venue
British Journal of Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-13
Volume
111
Issue
1
Pages
17-35
ISSN
  • 0007-1269 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8295
DOI
10.1111/bjop.12385
PMC
PMC7004178
OpenAlex
W2920857031
Semantic Scholar
5ce9536c3c75b041c75cdc3a8436284e5b770af4
Cited by
268
References
58
Citations by year
2026: 38 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 40 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 24
FWCI
60.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • British Journal of Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Staffordshire University
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
prejudice, discrimination, intergroup relations, Jews
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Asia, Australia, European Union, Female, United Kingdom, Group Processes, Humans, Ireland, Jews, Male, Politics, Prejudice, Arabs, Emigrants and Immigrants

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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