Graphs of the Day: Predictors of Conspiratorial Thinking
Conspiracy theorists see the world as dangerous, trust their intuition, and have a sense of superiority
The graph below shows some of the many predictors of conspiratorial thinking. Positive correlations imply that higher scores on the predictor are associated with more conspiratorial thinking; negative correlations imply that higher scores are associated with less. RWA = right-wing authoritarianism; SDO = social dominance orientation; AOT = actively open-minded thinking. And yes, “bullshit receptivity” is a technical term in psychology…
The strongest predictors of conspiratorial thinking fall into three main clusters:
perceiving the world as dangerous and threatening;
trusting one’s intuition/having odd beliefs and experiences; and
antagonism and a sense of superiority.
This graph shows the specific predictors associated with each cluster.
Both graphs come from a new meta-analysis by Shauna Bowes and colleagues, canvassing an impressive 158,473 participants. Here’s the abstract; click here to read the paper.
A tidal wave of research has tried to uncover the motivational and personological correlates of conspiratorial ideation, often studying these two classes of correlates in parallel. Here, we synthesize this vast and piecemeal literature through a multilevel meta-analytic review that spanned 170 studies, 257 samples, 52 variables, 1,429 effect sizes, and 158,473 participants. Overall, we found that the strongest correlates of conspiratorial ideation pertained to (a) perceiving danger and threat, (b) relying on intuition and having odd beliefs and experiences, and (c) being antagonistic and acting superior. Considerable heterogeneity was found within these relations––especially when individual variables were lumped together under a single domain––and we identified potential boundary conditions in these relations (e.g., type of conspiracy). Given that the psychological correlates of conspiratorial ideation have often been classified as belonging to one of two broad domains—motivation or personality—we aim to understand the implications of such heterogeneity for frameworks of conspiratorial ideation. We conclude with directions for future research that can lead to a unified account of conspiratorial ideation.