IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0319896.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is there anything good about conspiracy beliefs? Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories is associated with benefits to well-being

Author

Listed:
  • Javier A Granados Samayoa
  • Courtney A Moore
  • Benjamin C Ruisch
  • Jesse T Ladanyi
  • Russell H Fazio

Abstract

Recent theorizing suggests that people gravitate toward conspiracy theories during difficult times because such beliefs promise to alleviate threats to psychological motives. Surprisingly, however, previous research has largely failed to find beneficial intrapersonal effects of endorsing an event conspiracy theory for outcomes like well-being. The current research provides correlational evidence for a link between well-being and an event conspiracy belief by teasing apart this relation from (1) the influence of experiencing turmoil that nudges people toward believing the event conspiracy theory in the first place and (2) conspiracist ideation—the general tendency to engage in conspiratorial thinking. Across two studies we find that, when statistically accounting for the degree of economic turmoil recently experienced and conspiracist ideation, greater belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories concurrently predicts less stress and longitudinally predicts greater contentment. However, the relation between COVID-19 conspiracy belief and contentment diminishes in size over time. These findings suggest that despite their numerous negative consequences, event conspiracy beliefs are associated with at least temporary intrapersonal benefits.

Suggested Citation

  • Javier A Granados Samayoa & Courtney A Moore & Benjamin C Ruisch & Jesse T Ladanyi & Russell H Fazio, 2025. "Is there anything good about conspiracy beliefs? Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories is associated with benefits to well-being," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(3), pages 1-26, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0319896
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0319896
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0319896
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0319896&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0319896?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Viren Swami & David Barron & Laura Weis & Martin Voracek & Stefan Stieger & Adrian Furnham, 2017. "An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janet T. Y. Leung & Daniel T. L. Shek & Chak-Man Tang, 2023. "Development and Validation of the Chinese Family Resilience Scale in Families in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    2. Jack P Hughes & Alexandros Efstratiou & Sara R Komer & Lilli A Baxter & Milica Vasiljevic & Ana C Leite, 2022. "The impact of risk perceptions and belief in conspiracy theories on COVID-19 pandemic-related behaviours," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Mohammad Atari & Reza Afhami & Viren Swami, 2019. "Psychometric assessments of Persian translations of three measures of conspiracist beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Neophytos Georgiou & Paul Delfabbro & Ryan Balzan, 2021. "Conspiracy-Beliefs and Receptivity to Disconfirmatory Information: A Study Using the BADE Task," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    5. Kenneth Graham Drinkwater & Neil Dagnall & Andrew Denovan & Nick Neave, 2020. "Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    6. Carly Wood & David Barron & Nina Smyth, 2019. "The Current and Retrospective Intentional Nature Exposure Scales: Development and Factorial Validity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0319896. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.