CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 155Misinformation and Its ImpactsParanormal Experiences and BeliefsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 59 of the 59 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Can Conspiracy Beliefs Be Beneficial? Longitudinal Linkages Between Conspiracy Beliefs, Anxiety, Uncertainty Aversion, and Existential Threat

Open access
Liekefett, Luisa, Christ, Oliver, Becker, Julia C.·2023·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
DOI 10.1177/01461672211060965PMC PMC9896259
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Research suggests that conspiracy beliefs are adopted because they promise to reduce anxiety, uncertainty, and threat. However, little research has investigated whether conspiracy beliefs actually fulfill these promises. We conducted two longitudinal studies ( N Study 1 = 405, N Study 2 = 1,012) to examine how conspiracy beliefs result from, and in turn influence, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat. Random intercept cross-lagged panel analyses indicate that people who were, on average, more anxious, uncertainty averse, and existentially threatened held stronger conspiracy beliefs. Increases in conspiracy beliefs were either unrelated to changes in anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat (Study 2), or even predicted increases in these variables (Study 1). In both studies, increases in conspiracy beliefs predicted subsequent increases in conspiracy beliefs, suggesting a self-reinforcing circle. We conclude that conspiracy beliefs likely do not have beneficial consequences, but may even reinforce the negative experience of anxiety, uncertainty aversion, and existential threat.

Overview

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 · 10.1177/01461672211060965

Cites

59 of 59 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 59 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. 10.2307/3560240 · DOI
  2. Nocun K., 2020, Fake Facts—Wie Verschwörungstheorien unser Denken bestimmen

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–155 of 155

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Liekefett, L., Christ, O., & Becker, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Osnabrück University (DE)
  • FernUniversität in Hagen (DE)
Corresponding author
Liekefett, Luisa
ORCID
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2021-12-29
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
167-179
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/01461672211060965
PMC
PMC9896259
OpenAlex
W4200624585
Cited by
155
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25
FWCI
31.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Paranormal Experiences and Beliefs
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
conspiracy beliefs, anxiety, uncertainty aversion, existential risk, belief persistence, threat mitigation, psychological well-being
MeSH terms
Affect, Anxiety, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, HIV Infections, Uncertainty

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