HRPYC81
Project 5 Assignment 2 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 2026
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Conceptualisation of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
Conspiracy theory beliefs have been conceptualised as a complex psychological
phenomenon that reflects individuals’ attempts to make sense of uncertain, threatening, or
ambiguous events. Early and contemporary scholars converge on the idea that these beliefs
involve explanations that attribute significant events to secret plots orchestrated by powerful
groups, yet they differ in the emphasis placed on cognitive, motivational, and social
dimensions. For instance, Karen M. Douglas and colleagues conceptualise conspiracy
beliefs as attempts to explain events through hidden, malevolent intentions of coordinated
actors, highlighting the role of perceived threat and intentionality in shaping such beliefs
(Douglas et al., 2019). Similarly, Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt emphasise that
conspiracy theories are grounded in evolved psychological mechanisms that promote
vigilance toward potential coalitions that may pose danger, suggesting an adaptive basis for
such beliefs (van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018).
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Conceptualisation of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
Conspiracy theory beliefs have been conceptualised as a complex psychological
phenomenon that reflects individuals’ attempts to make sense of uncertain,
threatening, or ambiguous events. Early and contemporary scholars converge on the
idea that these beliefs involve explanations that attribute significant events to secret
plots orchestrated by powerful groups, yet they differ in the emphasis placed on
cognitive, motivational, and social dimensions. For instance, Karen M. Douglas and
colleagues conceptualise conspiracy beliefs as attempts to explain events through
hidden, malevolent intentions of coordinated actors, highlighting the role of perceived
threat and intentionality in shaping such beliefs (Douglas et al., 2019). Similarly, Jan-
Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt emphasise that conspiracy theories are
grounded in evolved psychological mechanisms that promote vigilance toward
potential coalitions that may pose danger, suggesting an adaptive basis for such
beliefs (van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018).
Despite these shared elements, differences emerge in how scholars structure the
dimensions of conspiracy beliefs. Some researchers distinguish between a general
conspiracy mentality and specific conspiracy beliefs. Roland Imhoff argues that a
general conspiracy mentality represents a stable predisposition to perceive events
as conspiratorial, whereas specific conspiracy beliefs refer to endorsement of
particular narratives such as political or health-related conspiracies (Imhoff et al.,
2022). In contrast, Joseph Uscinski and colleagues conceptualise conspiracy beliefs
within a broader socio-political framework, highlighting how political attitudes and
group identities shape the endorsement of specific conspiratorial narratives (Uscinski
et al., 2022).
A key point of convergence across the literature is that conspiracy beliefs typically
contain identifiable dimensions. These include pattern perception, where individuals
detect meaningful connections between unrelated events; agency, which involves
attributing intentional actions to powerful actors; coalition, referring to the belief that
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
groups collaborate secretly; threat, indicating that the alleged conspiracy is harmful;
and secrecy, which makes such beliefs resistant to falsification (van Prooijen & van
Vugt, 2018). These dimensions differentiate conspiracy beliefs from ordinary
explanations by combining intentionality with hidden coordination and perceived
harm.
Differences also arise in how researchers interpret the function of these dimensions.
Some scholars emphasise epistemic motives, suggesting that conspiracy beliefs
serve to reduce uncertainty by providing explanations for complex events (Douglas
et al., 2017). Others highlight existential motives, proposing that such beliefs restore
a sense of control when individuals feel powerless (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020). A
further perspective focuses on social motives, arguing that conspiracy beliefs can
reinforce group identity and intergroup distinctions (Biddlestone et al., 2021).
A workable definition that synthesises these perspectives is that conspiracy theory
beliefs are structured belief systems in which individuals interpret events as the
outcome of secret, intentional, and harmful actions by coordinated groups, driven by
underlying cognitive, motivational, and social processes. This definition captures
both the common elements identified across studies and the multidimensional nature
of the construct, while acknowledging that conspiracy beliefs can vary in content,
intensity, and function depending on individual and contextual factors.
1.2 Psychological Factors Influencing Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
1.2.1 Anxiety and Perceived Lack of Control
Anxiety has consistently been identified as a key emotional factor influencing
conspiracy theory beliefs. Individuals experiencing heightened anxiety often seek
explanations that provide meaning and structure to uncertain situations. Empirical
evidence indicates that anxiety increases susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs because
such beliefs offer simplified causal narratives that reduce psychological discomfort
(Krüppel et al., 2023). Similarly, perceived lack of control has been linked to
increased conspiracy thinking, as individuals compensate for feelings of
powerlessness by endorsing explanations that restore a sense of order and
predictability (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020). These findings demonstrate that
Project 5 Assignment 2 2026
Unique number:
Due Date: 2026
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Conceptualisation of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
Conspiracy theory beliefs have been conceptualised as a complex psychological
phenomenon that reflects individuals’ attempts to make sense of uncertain, threatening, or
ambiguous events. Early and contemporary scholars converge on the idea that these beliefs
involve explanations that attribute significant events to secret plots orchestrated by powerful
groups, yet they differ in the emphasis placed on cognitive, motivational, and social
dimensions. For instance, Karen M. Douglas and colleagues conceptualise conspiracy
beliefs as attempts to explain events through hidden, malevolent intentions of coordinated
actors, highlighting the role of perceived threat and intentionality in shaping such beliefs
(Douglas et al., 2019). Similarly, Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt emphasise that
conspiracy theories are grounded in evolved psychological mechanisms that promote
vigilance toward potential coalitions that may pose danger, suggesting an adaptive basis for
such beliefs (van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018).
DISCLAIMER & TERMS OF USE
Educational Aid: These study notes are intended to be used as educational resources and should not be seen as a
replacement for individual research, critical analysis, or professional consultation. Students are encouraged to perform
their own research and seek advice from their instructors or academic advisors for specific assignment guidelines.
Personal Responsibility: While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information in
these study notes, the seller does not guarantee the completeness or correctness of all content. The buyer is
responsible for verifying the accuracy of the information and exercising their own judgment when applying it to their
assignments.
Academic Integrity: It is essential for students to maintain academic integrity and follow their institution's policies
regarding plagiarism, citation, and referencing. These study notes should be used as learning tools and sources of
inspiration. Any direct reproduction of the content without proper citation and acknowledgment may be considered
academic misconduct.
Limited Liability: The seller shall not be liable for any direct or indirect damages, losses, or consequences arising from
the use of these notes. This includes, but is not limited to, poor academic performance, penalties, or any other negative
consequences resulting from the application or misuse of the information provided.
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
THE PSYCHOLOGY OF CONSPIRACY BELIEFS
1. LITERATURE REVIEW
1.1 Conceptualisation of Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
Conspiracy theory beliefs have been conceptualised as a complex psychological
phenomenon that reflects individuals’ attempts to make sense of uncertain,
threatening, or ambiguous events. Early and contemporary scholars converge on the
idea that these beliefs involve explanations that attribute significant events to secret
plots orchestrated by powerful groups, yet they differ in the emphasis placed on
cognitive, motivational, and social dimensions. For instance, Karen M. Douglas and
colleagues conceptualise conspiracy beliefs as attempts to explain events through
hidden, malevolent intentions of coordinated actors, highlighting the role of perceived
threat and intentionality in shaping such beliefs (Douglas et al., 2019). Similarly, Jan-
Willem van Prooijen and Mark van Vugt emphasise that conspiracy theories are
grounded in evolved psychological mechanisms that promote vigilance toward
potential coalitions that may pose danger, suggesting an adaptive basis for such
beliefs (van Prooijen & van Vugt, 2018).
Despite these shared elements, differences emerge in how scholars structure the
dimensions of conspiracy beliefs. Some researchers distinguish between a general
conspiracy mentality and specific conspiracy beliefs. Roland Imhoff argues that a
general conspiracy mentality represents a stable predisposition to perceive events
as conspiratorial, whereas specific conspiracy beliefs refer to endorsement of
particular narratives such as political or health-related conspiracies (Imhoff et al.,
2022). In contrast, Joseph Uscinski and colleagues conceptualise conspiracy beliefs
within a broader socio-political framework, highlighting how political attitudes and
group identities shape the endorsement of specific conspiratorial narratives (Uscinski
et al., 2022).
A key point of convergence across the literature is that conspiracy beliefs typically
contain identifiable dimensions. These include pattern perception, where individuals
detect meaningful connections between unrelated events; agency, which involves
attributing intentional actions to powerful actors; coalition, referring to the belief that
, For additional support +27 81 278 3372
groups collaborate secretly; threat, indicating that the alleged conspiracy is harmful;
and secrecy, which makes such beliefs resistant to falsification (van Prooijen & van
Vugt, 2018). These dimensions differentiate conspiracy beliefs from ordinary
explanations by combining intentionality with hidden coordination and perceived
harm.
Differences also arise in how researchers interpret the function of these dimensions.
Some scholars emphasise epistemic motives, suggesting that conspiracy beliefs
serve to reduce uncertainty by providing explanations for complex events (Douglas
et al., 2017). Others highlight existential motives, proposing that such beliefs restore
a sense of control when individuals feel powerless (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020). A
further perspective focuses on social motives, arguing that conspiracy beliefs can
reinforce group identity and intergroup distinctions (Biddlestone et al., 2021).
A workable definition that synthesises these perspectives is that conspiracy theory
beliefs are structured belief systems in which individuals interpret events as the
outcome of secret, intentional, and harmful actions by coordinated groups, driven by
underlying cognitive, motivational, and social processes. This definition captures
both the common elements identified across studies and the multidimensional nature
of the construct, while acknowledging that conspiracy beliefs can vary in content,
intensity, and function depending on individual and contextual factors.
1.2 Psychological Factors Influencing Conspiracy Theory Beliefs
1.2.1 Anxiety and Perceived Lack of Control
Anxiety has consistently been identified as a key emotional factor influencing
conspiracy theory beliefs. Individuals experiencing heightened anxiety often seek
explanations that provide meaning and structure to uncertain situations. Empirical
evidence indicates that anxiety increases susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs because
such beliefs offer simplified causal narratives that reduce psychological discomfort
(Krüppel et al., 2023). Similarly, perceived lack of control has been linked to
increased conspiracy thinking, as individuals compensate for feelings of
powerlessness by endorsing explanations that restore a sense of order and
predictability (Stojanov & Halberstadt, 2020). These findings demonstrate that
