The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 33 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
0 of 33 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories resulted in significantly higher conspiracy theory belief (M = 2.85, SD = 1.31), compared to the control condition (M = 2.09, SD = 0.93), t(112) = 3.59, p < .001, d = .67.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Manipulation check
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As predicted, prejudice towards Jewish people was significantly higher in the experimental condition (M = 38.25, SD = 21.14) compared to the control (M = 31.15, SD = 16.10), t(112) = −2.04, p = .044, d = .38.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pairwise comparisons demonstrated that prejudice was significantly higher in the pro‐conspiracy condition (M = 3.98, SD = 1.00) compared to both the anti‐conspiracy (M = 3.56, SD = 0.96, p = .023, d = .43) and the control condition (M = 3.53, SD = 0.88, p = .016, d = .50).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to immigrant conspiracy theories and prejudice
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A second ANOVA then examined the effect of exposure to conspiracy theories on prejudice. A significant omnibus effect of condition on prejudice was observed, F(2, 163) = 3.68, p = .027, η2 = .04.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to immigrant conspiracy theories and prejudice
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results (see Figure 1) confirmed that the indirect effect was significant in both cases. When compared to both the anti‐conspiracy condition and the control condition, exposure to conspiracy theories increased discrimination towards a Jewish political candidate via increases in prejudice towards this group.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories, prejudice, and discrimination
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: In the mediation analysis, increases in prejudice towards Jewish people caused the increase in anti-Jewish voting bias.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories, prejudice, and discrimination
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories, prejudice, and discrimination
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Manipulation check
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study 2 replicated these results in a different intergroup context where prejudice translated into biased behavioural tendencies towards Jewish people.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
In the paper
“Intergroup threat theory posits that threats to the ingroup promote negative evaluations of outgroups (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Stephan & Stephan, 2000
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Jolley & Douglas, 2014a,b
- Not checked yetcites Clark‐Carter, 1997
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Tausch et al., 2010
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who failed these screening measures were removed from analyses, alongside participants who also indicated that they were of Jewish origin.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pettigrew, 2009
- Not checked yetcites Tausch et al., 2010
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants who either failed an attention screen or spent less than 30 s reading the conspiracy‐related information were removed from the analysis.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swami, 2012
- Not checked yetcites Burhanuddin, 2007
- Not checked yetcites Hadler, 2004
Tests✗ Asserted: fails✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Positive contact with immigrants, for instance, has been shown to produce secondary reductions in prejudice towards homosexual people and homeless people (Pettigrew, 2009).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pettigrew, 2009
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Clark‐Carter, 1997
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Swami (2012) also observed in a Malay sample that belief in Jewish conspiracy theories was negatively associated with attitudes towards Chinese people.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Swami, 2012
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § GENERAL DISCUSSION · boosted
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > The present research
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Background > Consequences of conspiracy theories
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pettigrew, 2009
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories, prejudice, and discrimination
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The pro-conspiracy articles increased prejudice because of their conspiracy content rather than merely their negative portrayal of the outgroup.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Method > Participants and design
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > Results and discussion > Exposure to Jewish conspiracy theories and prejudice
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > STUDY 3
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Aberson, 2015
- Not checked yetcites Wolsko, Park, Judd, & Bachelor, 2003
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We know that conspiracy beliefs can remain heightened after 2 weeks following exposure to conspiracy theories (vs. control; Kim & Cao, 2016).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim & Cao, 2016
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We know that intentions do not always correlate strongly with behaviour (Sheeran, 2002).”
§ Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes prejudice which spreads across groups > GENERAL DISCUSSION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sheeran, 2002
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
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).”
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”
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.
Citations
Cites
The Social psychology of intergroup relations
Austin, W. G., & Worchel, S. (1979) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 11,577
Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self‐Categorization Theory
REID, F. J. M. (1987) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1987.tb00799.x · Cited by 8,145
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · Cited by 7,364
Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective
McCrae, R., & Costa, P. (2005) · doi:10.4324/9780203428412 · Cited by 2,355
The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 · Cited by 2,208
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 · cited 2×
“In recent years, psychologists have made significant progress in understanding why people believe conspiracy theories (see Douglas et al., 2017).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232 · cited 4×
“Prior to data analysis, an anticipated small–medium effect size (g2) 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 (ClarkCarter, 1997).”
InfluentialSelf-citationLacking control increases illusory pattern perception
Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1159845 · Cited by 1,119 · cited 1×
“…vein, research has shown that people turn to conspiracy theories when they are anxious (Grzesiak-Feldman, 2013), feel powerless (Abalakina-Paap et al., 1999; van Prooijen & Acker, 2015; Whitson & Galinsky, 2008), or lack socio-political control (Bruder, Haffke, Neave, Nouripanah, & Imhoff, 2013).”
Goertzel, T. (1994) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3791630 · Cited by 1,094 · cited 1×
“Conspiracy theories explain the ultimate causes of significant events as the secret actions of malevolent groups, who cover up information to suit their own interests (e.g., Douglas, Sutton, & Cichocka, 2017; Goertzel, 1994; McCauley & Jacques, 1979).”
BackgroundBruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225 · Cited by 1,049
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Campion‐Vincent V., 2005, Rumor mills: The social impact of rumor and legend (social problems and social issues)
- Douglas K. M., 2015, The psychology of conspiracy
- Hayes A., 2013, Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach (methodology in the social sciences)
- Stephan W. G., 2000, “The Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology” Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 23
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 201–267 of 267
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.003.0006
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.003.0005
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.003.0001
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.003.0007
Contemporary Challenges to Democracy
(2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108779104.025
The antidepressant hoax: Conspiracy theories decrease health-seeking intentionsPreprint
Natoli, E., & Marques, M. D. (2022) · PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/8aedm · Cited by 1
Theoretical Model of Behavioral Consequences of Faith in Conspiracy Theory
Ярош, Н. С., & Artiukhova, V. (2021) · Visnyk of V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. A Series of Psychology · doi:10.26565/2225-7756-2021-70-10 · Cited by 1
Contagious conspiracy theories and potential pathways to address them
Cookson, D. (2020) · PsyPag Quarterly · doi:10.53841/bpspag.2020.1.115.17
On Ethically Informing Citizens About Political Conspiracies
Varelius, J. (2023) · Journal of Media Ethics · doi:10.1080/23736992.2023.2193956
Business and Entrepreneur Context of Content Creator
Ernayani, R., Hamzah, A., Lapoliwa, G. E. S., Saepudin, A. A., & Rinandiyana, L. R. (2023) · Jurnal Komunikasi Profesional · doi:10.25139/jkp.v7i1.6012
Monological or Ideological? Themes and Psychosocial Predictors of Conspiracy BeliefPreprint
Cosgrove, T. J., Bahr, M., & Fritzon, K. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/2kwbx
Edward L. Bernays’ Propagandatheorie
Matern, S. (2023) · Verlag Barbara Budrich eBooks · doi:10.3224/84743007
Cosgrove, T. J., Bahr, M., & Fritzon, K. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ka7jb
Jijyan, H. (2023) · Analytical Bulletin of Armenian and Regional Studies (ABARS) · doi:10.56673/18294502-23.16-55
Faktor-Faktor Demografi dalam Keyakinan Konspiratif di Indonesia
Rikardi, A. A. (2024) · SEURUNE Jurnal Psikologi UNSYIAH · doi:10.24815/s-jpu.v7i1.36194
QAnon: A False Prophets Conspiracy
Šolc, V. (2024) · Global Journal of Cultural Studies · doi:10.6000/2817-2310.2024.03.10
Դավադրապաշտական տեսությունների տարածման դրական և բացասական հետևանքների համեմատական վերլուծություն
Բաբաջանյան, Լ. (2023) · Bulletin of Yerevan University E Philosophy Psychology · doi:10.46991/bysu:e/2024.15.1.044
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.002.0003
Multivariate Analyses and Technical Details
Fox, J., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.005.0001
Fox, J., Topor, L., & Topor, L. (2021) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780197580349.002.0005
Halama, P., & Teličák, P. (2024) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-024-06647-5
“…quences, such as vaccination refusal (Ripp & Röer, 2022), increase in non-normative political actions (Imhoff et al., 2021), intergroup prejudices (Jolley et al., 2020), etc. Con - spiracy belief is defined as the belief in the existence of various actors acting in secret to achieve hidden…”
Do stress and anxiety lead to belief in conspiracy theories?
Fox, N., & Williams, M. N. (2024) · Routledge Open Research · doi:10.12688/routledgeopenres.17925.2
The Empire of Beliefs and Digital Worlds : What Does Contemporary Science Say?
Bronner, G. (2024) · The Tocqueville Review/La revue Tocqueville · doi:10.3138/ttr.45.2.11 · Cited by 1
Tam, L., & Kim, S. (2025) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2025.102543
An Analysis of the Evolving Attitudes of Supporters of Justice-Involved Youth in Japan
Udagawa, Y. (2025) · Child & Youth Services · doi:10.1080/0145935x.2025.2468163
“Furthermore, exposure to conspiracy theories not only fosters prejudice against the target group but also extends this prejudice to other outgroups (Jolley et al., 2020).”
Valsecchi, N., Cristofaro, V. D., Pellegrini, V., Salvati, M., & Giacomantonio, M. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5179062
Cosgrove, T. J., Bahr, M., & Fritzon, K. (2025) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/ka7jb_v2
Sánchez-Zavala, A., Avendaño, D., Durón-Ramos, M. F., Martínez-Vázquez, A., & Fasce, A. (2025) · Environment and Behavior · doi:10.1177/00139165251359472
“Being exposed to conspiracy narratives can directly increase prejudice and discrimination (Jolley et al., 2019) as well as lower individuals’ intentions to reduce their carbon footprint, which has detrimental effects on climate (Jolley & Douglas, 2013).”
Conspiracy theories, personality dimensions and personality disorders
Starčević, V., & Janča, A. (2025) · Current Opinion in Psychiatry · doi:10.1097/yco.0000000000001037
Biddlestone, M., Azevedo, F., Chalmers, J., Gronfeldt, B., & Zibell, H. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7010338/v1
Cleveland, M., & Papadopoulos, N. G. (2025) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/s1548-643520250000022005
Georgiou, N., Šrol, J., Quarisa, M., Čavojová, V., & Merva, R. (2026) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.70048
Мухаметов, Р. С. (2026) · Sociological Journal · doi:10.19181/socjour.2026.32.1.3
Wischerath, D., Piwek, L., Roscoe, J. F., & Davidson, B. I. (2026) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.70137
“…harmful outcomes: prejudice against the outgroup, like increased anti-Asian sentiments at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014; Jolley et al., 2020), reduced health outcomes, like lower vaccine uptake rates (Jolley & Douglas, 2017; Oliver & Wood, 2014), risks to democracy…”
Pedrazzani, A., & Sumbul, U. (2026) · Political Studies · doi:10.1177/00323217261442716
National ethics and public compliance in Indonesia: evidence from two policy cases
Ludigdo, U., Mashuri, A., & Hasanah, N. (2026) · Cogent Psychology · doi:10.1080/23311908.2026.2672802
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0009
Topic Modeling and Word Embedding
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.005.0001
Linguistic Patterns in Online Conspiracy Theory
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0001
Opportunities for Future Research
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0010
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0005
From Mindsets and Algorithms to a Cultural Toolkit
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0004
Why Do Online Conspiracy Theories Matter?
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0002
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.002.0001
Online Conspiracy Theorizing as Conversational Coordination
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0008
Fake News, Rumors, Folk Theories
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0003
Online Conspiracy Rabbit Hole as a Semantic Cascade
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0006
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.002.0006
How We Studied Conspiracy Theories
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.005.0002
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.002.0007
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.001.0001
Karlsson, P., Josefsson, T., Svensson, S., & Andersson, L. (2026) · Scandinavian Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/sjop.70120
Linguistic Signature of Superspreaders
Rao, H., & Greve, H. R. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197772324.003.0007
Papathanasiou, C., & Apostolidis, T. (2026) · Howard Journal of Communications · doi:10.1080/10646175.2026.2677531
Veale, J. F. (2026) · International Journal of Transgender Health · doi:10.1080/26895269.2026.2682499 · Cited by 1
Q or Abuse? Blurred Boundaries and Naming Harm
Mulcahy, R., & Simpson, J. (2026) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83797-787-120261011
de Carvalho, C. P., Ramos, J. P., Simas, C., Barbosa, P., Carthy, S., & Pinto, M. (2026) · Campbell Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1177/18911803261459099
“The phenomenon has also been found to influence how individuals perceive outgroup members, including their levels of prejudice (Jolley et al., 2020; Kofta et al., 2020), voting behaviour (Cantarella et al., 2023), and support for restrictions on others’ civil liberties (Kim & Park, 2023; Price &…”
You Can (Not) Play with Us: Conspiracy Theories, Media, and Ostracism
Baghumyan, A., Rohrbach, T., & Adam, S. (2026) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302261460770
The Distinct Nomological Pathways of Psychological Factors of Conspiracy Mentality
Mashuri, A., & Zaduqisti, E. (2026) · Psychology and Developing Societies · doi:10.1177/09713336261467856
Marini, M., Salvati, M., & Sbordone, F. L. (2026) · Journal of Homosexuality · doi:10.1080/00918369.2026.2695664
Calderón-Carvajal, C., Vergara-Toro, L., & Lay-Lisboa, S. (2026) · Behavioral Science · doi:10.3390/bs16081375
“…studies have shown that exposure to conspiracy theories concerning specific social groups increases intergroup prejudice, promotes social exclusion, and may even generalize negative attitudes toward other minority groups not directly involved in the conspiracy narrative (Jolley et al., 2020).”
Flakus, M., Waszkowski, A., Plisiecki, H., Małyska, K., & Pokropek, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Social Psychology · doi:10.3389/frsps.2026.1886614
ABCDE of Deception: A Relational Research Ethics Proposal
Verbeke, K., Baeyens, D., Piasecki, J., Krawczyk, T., & Borry, P. (2026) · Bioethics · doi:10.1111/bioe.70178
Cosgrove, T. J., Bahr, M., & Fritzon, K. (2026) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.70283
Another one bites the dust? Threatened meat-eater identity and veg*n conspiracy beliefs
Adamczyk, D., Korczak, N., & Marchlewska, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Social Psychology · doi:10.3389/frsps.2026.1899432
Suerdem, A. K., Zdravkov, S., & Ivanov, M. J. (2026) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341946
“Conspiracy theories are “for losers” [55], as they often emerge among individuals who feel politically marginalized or powerless, channeling frustration toward perceived out-groups [56] - particularly when access to reliable information or cognitive resources is limited.”
Metadata
- 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
- 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
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
