Cited by 261Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyParanormal Experiences and Beliefs

Does it take one to know one? Endorsement of conspiracy theories is influenced by personal willingness to conspire

Open access
Douglas, Karen M., Sutton, Robbie M.·2011·British Journal of Social Psychology

Abstract

We advance a new account of why people endorse conspiracy theories, arguing that individuals use the social-cognitive tool of projection when making social judgements about others. In two studies, we found that individuals were more likely to endorse conspiracy theories if they thought they would be willing, personally, to participate in the alleged conspiracies. Study 1 established an association between conspiracy beliefs and personal willingness to conspire, which fully mediated a relationship between Machiavellianism and conspiracy beliefs. In Study 2, participants primed with their own morality were less inclined than controls to endorse conspiracy theories - a finding fully mediated by personal willingness to conspire. These results suggest that some people think 'they conspired' because they think 'I would conspire'.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02018.x

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Freud, S. (1896). Further Remarks on the Neuro-Psychoses of Defence. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume III (1893-1899). Early Psycho-Analytic Publications, 157-185.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M.
Affiliations
University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
Douglas, Karen M.
Venue
British Journal of Social Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-04-12
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
544-552
ISSN
  • 0144-6665 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8309
OpenAlex
W1928059346
Cited by
261
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 2
FWCI
19.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
Keywords
conspiracy theories, projection, Machiavellianism, social cognition, moral self
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Cooperative Behavior, Female, United Kingdom, Humans, Machiavellianism, Male, Models, Theoretical, Power, Psychological, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review