Cited by 186Misinformation and Its ImpactsDeception detection and forensic psychologyCrime Patterns and Interventions

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 58 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 1 are not checked yet; none of the 50 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Belief in conspiracy theories and intentions to engage in everyday crime

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Douglas, Karen M., Leite, Ana C., Schrader, Tanya·2019·British Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

Belief in conspiracy theories is associated with negative outcomes such as political disengagement, prejudice, and environmental inaction. The current studies – one cross‐sectional ( N = 253) and one experimental ( N = 120) – tested the hypothesis that belief in conspiracy theories would increase intentions to engage in everyday crime. Study 1 demonstrated that belief in conspiracy theories predicted everyday crime behaviours when controlling for other known predictors of everyday crime (e.g., Honesty–Humility). Study 2 demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories (vs. control) increased intentions to engage in everyday crime in the future, through an increased feeling of anomie. The perception that others have conspired may therefore in some contexts lead to negative action rather than inaction.

Checked 2026-10-09 · 1 reference not checked yet

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Belief in conspiracy theories predicted greater everyday crime in a cross-sectional UK sample, and experimental exposure to conspiracy material increased future everyday crime intentions via anomie. The findings suggest conspiracy beliefs can promote active antisocial behavior, not only disengagement or inaction.

Key findings

  • Study 1: conspiracy beliefs were positively correlated with everyday crime behaviors (r = .26, p < .001) and uniquely predicted them in hierarchical regression (β = .15, p < .05; Step 3 R² = .35, ΔR² = .02), controlling for demographics, HEXACO traits, and moral identity. Honesty-Humility was the strongest predictor (β = −.39, p < .001).
  • Study 2: exposure to a conspiracy article increased intentions to engage in everyday crime in the future (conspiracy M = 2.50, SD = 1.39 vs. control M = 2.02, SD = .93; t(118) = −2.2464, p = .027, d = 0.41).
  • Study 2 mediation: conspiracy exposure marginally increased anomie (conspiracy M = 4.32, SD = .97 vs. control M = 3.96, SD = 1.07; t(118) = −1.916, p = .058, d = 0.34), and anomie mediated the effect on everyday crime intentions (mean estimate = .12, SE = .07, 95% CI [.0060, .3012]). Disillusionment did not differ between conditions (t(118) = .118, p = .906).
  • Manipulation check: conspiracy endorsement was higher in the conspiracy condition (M = 4.28, SD = 1.15) than control (M = 3.84, SD = 1.20; t(118) = −2.03, p = .044, d = 0.37).

Methods

  • Study 1: cross-sectional online UK Prolific sample (abstract reports N = 252; Method reports N = 253: 93 male, 157 female, 3 transgender; M age = 36.97, SD = 11.71). Measures included HEXACO-60, Moral Identity Scale, general and specific conspiracy beliefs, and the Everyday Crime Scale for past behavior and intentions; conspiracy items were combined into one scale (α = .96) and everyday crime items into one scale (α = .84). Main analysis was hierarchical regression entering age/gender, HEXACO and moral identity, then conspiracy beliefs.
  • Study 2: experimental UK Prolific sample of N = 120 (32 male, 88 female; M age = 33.88, SD = 10.35), randomized to a conspiracy article (n = 60) or control (n = 60). Measures included a conspiracy manipulation check, anomie, disillusionment, and future everyday crime intentions; mediation was tested with PROCESS Model 4 using 5,000 bootstraps.

Limitations

  • Stated: social desirability may have affected self-reports; the outcome was intentions rather than actual behavior; financial situation could not be ruled out; the design could not test whether conspiracy theories appeal to those already predisposed to immoral behavior or alter perceived norms; longitudinal designs, alternative causal paths (e.g., anomie → conspiracy), and other mediators/moderators (e.g., moral disengagement, social identity) remain untested.
  • Stated: Study 2 effect sizes were moderate, and Honesty-Humility explained the largest variance in Study 1.
  • Evident from the text: Study 1 sample size is inconsistent (abstract N = 252 vs. Method N = 253), and Study 2’s anomie condition difference is only marginal (p = .058) even though the mediation confidence interval excludes zero.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjso.12311

Cites

56 of 58 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 50 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

Show all 35 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 20
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 32
44 of 44
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The role of conspiracy theories in predicting everyday crime is unexplored, and researchers have paid less attention to whether conspiracy beliefs lead individuals to engage in unethical behaviours themselves.

    “However, researchers have paid less attention to whether conspiracy beliefs lead individuals to engage in unethical behaviours themselves.”
    “However, the role of conspiracy theories in predicting everyday crime remains unexplored.”
1 of 1

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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.

  • Consistentt(118) = -2.03reported p = .044 · recomputed p = .045

    “t(118) = -2.03,p = .044”

  • Consistentt(118) = -2.2464reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “t(118) = -2.2464,p = .027”

  • Consistentt(118) = -1.916reported p = .058 · recomputed p = .058

    “t(118) = -1.916,p = .058”

  • Consistentt(118) = 0.118reported p = .906 · recomputed p = .906

    “t(118) = .118,p = .906”

  • ConsistentF(1, 118) = 5reported p = .027 · recomputed p = .027

    “F(1,118) = 5.00, p = .027”

5 of 5

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Figure marks the total effect as p < .01 despite reporting p = .027

    Minor

    The figure marks the .48 total-effect estimate with two asterisks, defined as p < .01. The text reports p = .027 for the same conspiracy-versus-control effect on crime intentions.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 55 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Jolley D., Exposure to intergroup conspiracy theories promotes generalized prejudice

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–185 of 185

Metadata

Authors
Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., Leite, A. C., & Schrader, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Staffordshire (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Jolley, Daniel
Venue
British Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-19
Volume
58
Issue
3
Pages
534-549
ISSN
  • 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8309
OpenAlex
W2909408410
Cited by
186
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 38 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 4
FWCI
46.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Durham Research Online (Durham University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
British Psychological Society
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
Keywords
conspiracy theories, everyday crime, anomie, honesty-humility, political disengagement, prejudice
MeSH terms
Adult, Anomie, Crime, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Politics, Social Behavior, Thinking

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