The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resolving the puzzle of conspiracy worldview and political activism: Belief in secret plots decreases normative but increases non-normative political engagement.
Abstract
It is a hitherto open and debated question whether the belief in conspiracies increases or attenuates the willingness to engage in political action. In the present paper, we tested the notion, whether a) the relation between belief in conspiracies and general political engagement is curvilinear (inverted U-shaped) and b) there may be opposing relations to normative vs. non-normative forms of political engagement. Two pre-registered experiments (N = 194; N = 402) support both propositions and show that the hypothetical adoption of a worldview that sees the world as governed by secret plots attenuates reported intentions to participate in normative, legal forms of political participation but increases reported intentions to employ non-normative, illegal means of political articulation. These results provide first evidence for the notion that political extremism and violence might seem an almost logical conclusion when seeing the world as governed by conspiracies.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“the belief in conspiracies diminishes the inclination towards legitimate political engagement while fostering a greater tolerance for illegitimate and potentially violent political actions (Imhoff et al., 2020).”
From The Seed of Doubt: Examining the Role of Alternative Social and News Media for the Birth of a Conspiracy Theory (2024) · cites this paper as Imhoff et al., 2020
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
The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0089177 · Cited by 1,232
Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception
Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1159845 · Cited by 1,119
Goertzel, T. (1994) · Political Psychology · doi:10.2307/3791630 · Cited by 1,094
Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M. (2014) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12018 · Cited by 685
The Influence of Control on Belief in Conspiracy Theories: Conceptual and Applied Extensions
van Prooijen, J., & Acker, M. (2015) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3161 · Cited by 407
Information equivalence in survey experiments
Dafoe, A., Zhang, B., & Caughey, D. (2018) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1017/pan.2018.9 · Cited by 356
Swami, V. (2012) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00280 · Cited by 337
Too special to be duped: need for uniqueness motivates conspiracy beliefs
Imhoff, R., & Lamberty, P. K. (2017) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2265 · Cited by 260
Belief in conspiracy theories and intentions to engage in everyday crime
Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., Leite, A. C., & Schrader, T. (2019) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjso.12311 · Cited by 186
Jolley, D., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2018) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12404 · Cited by 170
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Imhoff, R., Dieterle, L., & Lamberty, P.
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2019-11-28
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 12
- Type
- Preprint
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