Summary: A large meta-analytic review explores the psychological profile of people who endorse conspiracy theories, finding that their beliefs are linked to specific motivations and personality characteristics rather than to widespread mental illness.
Analyzing data from 170 studies with more than 158,000 participants, researchers found that conspiratorial thinking is most strongly associated with perceiving threats in the environment, relying on intuition and atypical beliefs or experiences, and holding antagonistic, superiority-oriented attitudes toward others. The study emphasizes that conspiracy beliefs often serve to satisfy unmet psychological needs and to make sense of distressing events.
Rather than portraying conspiracy theorists as uniformly “mentally unwell,” the research suggests many adopt conspiratorial explanations to address feelings of insecurity, social threat, or the desire to view their group as superior or unique.
Key findings
- The review synthesized 170 studies (257 samples) with 158,473 participants across countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, and Poland.
- Conspiratorial beliefs correlate most strongly with perceived danger and threat, intuitive thinking and unusual beliefs, and antagonism or feelings of superiority.
- Motives tied to social identity—such as a desire for uniqueness or to protect an in‑group—exert stronger influence on specific conspiracy beliefs than a generic need for closure or control.
Source: APA
What drives belief in conspiracy theories?
Lead author Shauna Bowes, a doctoral student in clinical psychology at Emory University, explains that conspiratorial thinking is complex and rooted in multiple psychological processes. “Conspiracy theorists are not all simple‑minded or mentally ill, as popular portrayals often suggest,” Bowes said. “Many people turn to conspiracy theories to meet unmet motivational needs and to explain distressing or confusing experiences.”
The researchers examined studies that measured either motivational factors (why people endorse conspiracies) or personological traits (stable personality features associated with conspiratorial thinking), and then brought these literatures together to form a more integrated view.
Across the pooled data, two primary motivational themes emerged: a need to understand and feel safe in one’s environment, and social motives that boost the perceived status of one’s group. For example, when people perceive social threats, they are more likely to accept event‑specific conspiracy claims (such as theories about particular historical events) than abstract, general theories that suggest broad, ongoing plots by institutions.
Contrary to some expectations, the need for closure or a general desire for control did not show the strongest associations with conspiratorial belief. Instead, social identity motives and the desire for uniqueness frequently predicted who accepted general world‑view conspiracies versus specific event‑based claims.
Personality patterns linked to conspiratorial thinking
The meta‑analysis identified several personality features more common among those who endorse conspiracy theories: antagonism toward others, high levels of paranoia, emotional volatility, impulsivity, suspicion, withdrawal, manipulativeness, egocentrism, and eccentricity. People who rely heavily on intuition or report unusual beliefs and perceptual experiences also showed stronger conspiratorial tendencies.
By contrast, associations between conspiratorial thinking and the Big Five personality dimensions (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, conscientiousness, and neuroticism) were generally weak. The researchers note that this does not mean general personality is irrelevant, but that more specific traits and motivations better capture conspiratorial predispositions.
Bowes and colleagues recommend that future research treat conspiratorial thinking as a multifaceted phenomenon. Understanding how specific motives (e.g., social identity, uniqueness) interact with personological characteristics will be important for building a unified psychological account of why people accept conspiracy narratives.
About this psychology and mental health research news
Author: Katherine Novak
Source: APA
Contact: Katherine Novak – APA
Image: Image credited to Neuroscience News
Original Research: Open access.
“The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates” by Shauna Bowes et al., Psychological Bulletin.
Abstract
The Conspiratorial Mind: A Meta-Analytic Review of Motivational and Personological Correlates
A large and growing literature examines the motivational and personological correlates of conspiratorial ideation, but these streams have often been studied separately. This multilevel meta-analytic review synthesizes results from 170 studies (257 samples), covering 52 variables, 1,429 effect sizes, and 158,473 participants.
The strongest correlates of conspiratorial ideation involved (a) perceiving danger and threat, (b) reliance on intuition and the presence of odd beliefs and experiences, and (c) antagonistic attitudes and a sense of superiority. Considerable heterogeneity exists within these broader relations, and the authors identify boundary conditions—such as the type of conspiracy—that shape these associations.
Because psychological correlates are often categorized as motivational or personality‑based, the review highlights the need to integrate these domains to better explain conspiratorial thinking. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research aimed at developing a unified psychological framework for conspiratorial ideation.