CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 237Misinformation and Its ImpactsParanormal Experiences and BeliefsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beliefs in conspiracy theories and the need for cognitive closure

Open access
Leman, Patrick J., Cinnirella, Marco·2013·Frontiers in Psychology
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00378PMC PMC3694217
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

An important component of conspiracy theories is how they influence, and are influenced by, the evaluation of potential evidence. Some individuals may be more open minded regarding certain explanations for events whereas others may seek closure and thus cut off a conspiracy explanation. Two studies examined the relationship between the need for cognitive closure (NFCC), levels of belief in real world conspiracy theories, and the attribution of conspiracy theories to explain events. A first, small (N = 30) and preliminary study found no relationship between NFCC and beliefs in conspiracy theories, suggesting that both advocates and opponents of conspiracy explanations do not differ on this dimension. A second study (N = 86) revealed that evidence for and against conspiracy theories had an influence on attributions of the likelihood of a conspiracy to explain a novel event. Specifically, after reading evidence individuals with high levels of belief in conspiracy theories tended to rate a conspiracy explanation as more likely whereas those with low levels of belief rated it as less likely. However, when the need for cognitive closure (NFCC) was experimentally lowered the effects of prior beliefs in conspiracy theories diminished.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00378

Cites

47 of 47 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 49 references

2 of the 49 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Fiske S. T. Taylor S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 233

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Leman, P. J., & Cinnirella, M.
Affiliations
Royal Holloway University of London (GB)
Corresponding author
Leman, Patrick J.
ORCID
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Publisher
Frontiers Media SA
Published
2013
Volume
4
Pages
378-378
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00378
PMC
PMC3694217
OpenAlex
W2061321207
Cited by
237
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 42 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1
FWCI
14.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
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 theories, need for cognitive closure, conspiracy beliefs, evidence evaluation, prior beliefs, belief updating, openness to experience

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