Cited by 126Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyPopulism, Right-Wing Movements

Conspiracy Accounts as Intergroup Theories: Challenging Dominant Understandings of Social Power and Political Legitimacy

Open access
Sapountzis, Antonis, Condor, Susan·2013·Political Psychology

Abstract

Conspiracy accounting is often regarded as an atypical, pathological form of political reasoning, and little research has considered how ordinary social actors may refer to political conspiracies in the course of argument. In this article, we consider the spontaneous use of conspiracy narratives by politically engaged G reek citizens in interview discussions of the Macedonian crisis. Analysis revealed that conspiracy narratives were typically used to challenge dominant representations that attributed the Macedonian crisis to G reek xenophobic nationalism. Specifically, conspiracy accounts were used to dispute assumptions concerning G reece's majority status by representing the political opposition as a consortium rather than a single out‐group, by recasting the threat posed to G reece as a matter of realistic rather than symbolic competition, and by extending the historical frame of reference to encompass past and prospective future threats to the G reek people and the G reek state. In conclusion, we note how the use of conspiratorial reasoning may be used to construct complex causal arguments concerning intergroup relations and to challenge dominant ideological assumptions about social hierarchy and political legitimacy. In this respect, conspiratorial reasoning might be regarded as a prototypical form of intergroup representation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/pops.12015

Cites

118 of 118 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Disempowered groups may use conspiracy theories to subvert dominance hierarchies by formulating their own understanding of realities.

    “These include disempowered groups who may use conspiracy theories to subvert dominance hierarchies by formulating their own understanding of realities (Sapountzis & Condor, 2013)”

    From The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories (2017) · cites this paper as Sapountzis & Condor, 2013

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 120 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sapountzis, A., & Condor, S.
Affiliations
  • Democritus University of Thrace (GR)
  • Loughborough University (GB)
Venue
Political Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-15
Volume
34
Issue
5
Pages
731-752
ISSN
  • 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9221
OpenAlex
W1586220072
Cited by
126
References
120
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
17.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Loughborough University Institutional Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Loughborough University Research Repository (Loughborough University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Keywords
conspiracy narratives, Greek nationalism, xenophobia, political legitimacy, social power, political opposition, intergroup relations, social hierarchy, Greece–North Macedonia relations

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