Reasons to believe: A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs.

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY Psychological bulletin Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1037/bul0000463
Mikey Biddlestone, Ricky Green, Karen M Douglas, Flávio Azevedo, Robbie M Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka
{"title":"Reasons to believe: A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs.","authors":"Mikey Biddlestone, Ricky Green, Karen M Douglas, Flávio Azevedo, Robbie M Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka","doi":"10.1037/bul0000463","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Belief in conspiracy theories has been linked to harmful consequences for individuals and societies. In an effort to understand and mitigate these effects, researchers have sought to explain the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories. This article presents a wide-ranging systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on conspiracy beliefs. We analyzed 971 effect sizes from 279 independent studies (N<sub>participants</sub> = 137,406) to examine the relationships between psychological motives and conspiracy beliefs. Results indicated that these relationships were significant for all three analyzed classes of motivation: epistemic (<i>k</i> = 114, <i>r</i> = .14), existential (<i>k</i> = 121, <i>r</i> = .16), and social motivations related to the individual, relational, and collective selves (<i>k</i> = 100, <i>r</i> = .16). For all motives examined, we observed considerable heterogeneity. Moderation analyses suggest that the relationships were weaker, albeit still significant, when experimental (vs. correlational) designs were used, and differed depending on the conspiracy measure used. We statistically compare the absolute meta-analytic effect size magnitudes against each other and discuss limitations and future avenues for research, including interventions to reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20854,"journal":{"name":"Psychological bulletin","volume":"151 1","pages":"48-87"},"PeriodicalIF":17.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000463","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Belief in conspiracy theories has been linked to harmful consequences for individuals and societies. In an effort to understand and mitigate these effects, researchers have sought to explain the psychological appeal of conspiracy theories. This article presents a wide-ranging systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on conspiracy beliefs. We analyzed 971 effect sizes from 279 independent studies (Nparticipants = 137,406) to examine the relationships between psychological motives and conspiracy beliefs. Results indicated that these relationships were significant for all three analyzed classes of motivation: epistemic (k = 114, r = .14), existential (k = 121, r = .16), and social motivations related to the individual, relational, and collective selves (k = 100, r = .16). For all motives examined, we observed considerable heterogeneity. Moderation analyses suggest that the relationships were weaker, albeit still significant, when experimental (vs. correlational) designs were used, and differed depending on the conspiracy measure used. We statistically compare the absolute meta-analytic effect size magnitudes against each other and discuss limitations and future avenues for research, including interventions to reduce susceptibility to conspiracy theories. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological bulletin
Psychological bulletin 医学-心理学
CiteScore
33.60
自引率
0.90%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Psychological Bulletin publishes syntheses of research in scientific psychology. Research syntheses seek to summarize past research by drawing overall conclusions from many separate investigations that address related or identical hypotheses. A research synthesis typically presents the authors' assessments: -of the state of knowledge concerning the relations of interest; -of critical assessments of the strengths and weaknesses in past research; -of important issues that research has left unresolved, thereby directing future research so it can yield a maximum amount of new information.
期刊最新文献
The gender convergence effect in older age: A meta-analytic review comparing modern attitudes toward younger, middle-aged, and older women and men. Teacher-student relationships and student outcomes: A systematic second-order meta-analytic review. Effects of acute exercise on cognitive function: A meta-review of 30 systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Parents favor daughters: A meta-analysis of gender and other predictors of parental differential treatment. Cognitive factors underlying mathematical skills: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1