从群体间的角度解释阴谋论和系统辩护信仰的悖论

IF 4 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Jia‐Yan Mao, Zhaoxie Zeng, Shen-Long Yang, Yongyu Guo, Jan‐Willem van Prooijen
{"title":"从群体间的角度解释阴谋论和系统辩护信仰的悖论","authors":"Jia‐Yan Mao, Zhaoxie Zeng, Shen-Long Yang, Yongyu Guo, Jan‐Willem van Prooijen","doi":"10.1111/pops.12924","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"By distinguishing between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories, this research seeks to explain a paradox in conspiracy theory research, namely, that conspiracy beliefs are associated with both derogation and justification of the social system. Study 1 (N = 1,481) was a survey in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, and the results revealed a negative correlation between belief in ingroup conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 195), exposure to outgroup conspiracy theories positively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a finding that was serially mediated by external attributions and collective narcissism. In Study 3 (N = 256), exposure to ingroup conspiracy theories negatively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a result that was serially mediated by internal attributions and anomie. In Study 4 (N = 616), exposure to a conspiracy theory about the US government increased system‐justifying beliefs among Chinese participants and decreased them among US participants. The distinction between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories hence implies two different processes through which conspiracy theories affect system‐justifying beliefs.","PeriodicalId":48332,"journal":{"name":"Political Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Explaining the paradox of conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs from an intergroup perspective\",\"authors\":\"Jia‐Yan Mao, Zhaoxie Zeng, Shen-Long Yang, Yongyu Guo, Jan‐Willem van Prooijen\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pops.12924\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"By distinguishing between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories, this research seeks to explain a paradox in conspiracy theory research, namely, that conspiracy beliefs are associated with both derogation and justification of the social system. Study 1 (N = 1,481) was a survey in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, and the results revealed a negative correlation between belief in ingroup conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 195), exposure to outgroup conspiracy theories positively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a finding that was serially mediated by external attributions and collective narcissism. In Study 3 (N = 256), exposure to ingroup conspiracy theories negatively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a result that was serially mediated by internal attributions and anomie. In Study 4 (N = 616), exposure to a conspiracy theory about the US government increased system‐justifying beliefs among Chinese participants and decreased them among US participants. The distinction between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories hence implies two different processes through which conspiracy theories affect system‐justifying beliefs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48332,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Political Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Political Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12924\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12924","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过对内群体与外群体阴谋论的区分,本研究试图解释阴谋论研究中的一个悖论,即阴谋信仰与社会制度的贬损和辩护都有关。研究1 (N = 1481)是在中国COVID - 19大流行背景下进行的一项调查,结果显示群体内阴谋论的信念与系统辩护信念之间存在负相关。在研究2 (N = 195)中,暴露于外群体阴谋论对系统合理化信念有正向预测作用,这一发现是由外部归因和集体自恋连续介导的。在研究3 (N = 256)中,暴露于群体内阴谋论对系统合理化信念有负向预测,这一结果由内部归因和社会反常连续介导。在研究4 (N = 616)中,接触有关美国政府的阴谋论增加了中国参与者的系统正当性信念,减少了美国参与者的系统正当性信念。因此,内团体阴谋论与外团体阴谋论之间的区别意味着阴谋论影响系统正当性信念的两个不同过程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Explaining the paradox of conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs from an intergroup perspective
By distinguishing between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories, this research seeks to explain a paradox in conspiracy theory research, namely, that conspiracy beliefs are associated with both derogation and justification of the social system. Study 1 (N = 1,481) was a survey in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic in China, and the results revealed a negative correlation between belief in ingroup conspiracy theories and system‐justifying beliefs. In Study 2 (N = 195), exposure to outgroup conspiracy theories positively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a finding that was serially mediated by external attributions and collective narcissism. In Study 3 (N = 256), exposure to ingroup conspiracy theories negatively predicted system‐justifying beliefs, a result that was serially mediated by internal attributions and anomie. In Study 4 (N = 616), exposure to a conspiracy theory about the US government increased system‐justifying beliefs among Chinese participants and decreased them among US participants. The distinction between ingroup versus outgroup conspiracy theories hence implies two different processes through which conspiracy theories affect system‐justifying beliefs.
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
CiteScore
8.00
自引率
6.50%
发文量
70
期刊介绍: Understanding the psychological aspects of national and international political developments is increasingly important in this age of international tension and sweeping political change. Political Psychology, the journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, is dedicated to the analysis of the interrelationships between psychological and political processes. International contributors draw on a diverse range of sources, including clinical and cognitive psychology, economics, history, international relations, philosophy, political science, political theory, sociology, personality and social psychology.
×
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