Cited by 170Misinformation and Its ImpactsSocial and Intergroup PsychologyTerrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence

Blaming a few bad apples to save a threatened barrel: the system-justifying function of conspiracy theories

Open access
Jolley, Daniel, Douglas, Karen M., Sutton, Robbie M.·2018·Political Psychology

Abstract

This research demonstrates that conspiracy theories—often represented as subversive alternatives to establishment narratives—may bolster, rather than undermine, support for the social status quo when its legitimacy is under threat. A pilot study (N = 98) found a positive relationship between conspiracy belief and satisfaction with the status quo. In Study 1 (N = 120), threatening (vs. affirming) the status quo in British society caused participants to endorse conspiracy theories. In Study 2 (N = 159), exposure to conspiracy theories increased satisfaction with the British social system after this had been experimentally threatened. In Study 3 (N = 109), this effect was mediated by the tendency for participants exposed (vs. not exposed) to conspiracy theories to attribute societal problems relatively more strongly to small groups of people rather than systemic causes. By blaming tragedies, disasters, and social problems on the actions of a malign few, conspiracy theories can divert attention from the inherent limitations of social systems.

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/pops.12404

Cites

60 of 60 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. Quinby, L., (1999). Millenial civilization and its discontents: Terminal cynicism, conspiracy mania, and avatarism. The Psychohistory Review, (Winter, 1999), 1-16.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Staffordshire (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Jolley, Daniel
  • Douglas, Karen M.
  • Sutton, Robbie M.
Venue
Political Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02-18
Volume
39
Issue
2
Pages
465-478
ISSN
  • 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9221
OpenAlex
W2589123060
Cited by
170
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 1
FWCI
44.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (acceptedVersion)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (submittedVersion)
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
conspiracy theories, system justification, status quo, social legitimacy, blame attribution, British society

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