相信的理由:与阴谋信念相关的动机的系统回顾和元分析综合。

IF 17.3 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY
Mikey Biddlestone, Ricky Green, Karen M Douglas, Flávio Azevedo, Robbie M Sutton, Aleksandra Cichocka
{"title":"相信的理由:与阴谋信念相关的动机的系统回顾和元分析综合。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

相信阴谋论会给个人和社会带来有害的后果。为了理解和减轻这些影响,研究人员试图解释阴谋论的心理吸引力。这篇文章提出了广泛的系统回顾和文献的荟萃分析的阴谋信念。我们分析了279项独立研究(n参与者= 137,406)的971个效应量,以检验心理动机和阴谋信念之间的关系。结果表明,这些关系在所有三种被分析的动机类别中都是显著的:认知动机(k = 114, r = .14)、存在动机(k = 121, r = .16)和与个人、关系和集体自我相关的社会动机(k = 100, r = .16)。对于所有的动机,我们观察到相当大的异质性。适度分析表明,当使用实验(相对于相关)设计时,关系较弱,尽管仍然显著,并且根据所使用的阴谋测量而有所不同。我们在统计上比较了绝对元分析效应大小的大小,并讨论了研究的局限性和未来的研究途径,包括减少对阴谋论的易感性的干预措施。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reasons to believe: A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs.

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).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信