No abstract

Scholarly efforts to understand conspiracy theories have grown significantly in recent years, and there is now a broad and interdisciplinary literature. In reviewing this body of work, we ask three specific questions. First, what factors are associated with conspiracy beliefs? Our review of the literature shows that conspiracy beliefs result from a range of psychological, political, and social factors. Next, how are conspiracy theories communicated? Here, we explain how conspiracy theories are shared among individuals and spread through traditional and social media platforms. Next, what are the societal risks and rewards associated with conspiracy theories? By focusing on politics and science, we argue that conspiracy theories do more harm than good. We conclude by suggesting several promising avenues for future research.

What psychological factors drive the popularity of conspiracy theories, which explain important events as secret plots by powerful and malevolent groups? What are the psychological consequences of adopting these theories? We review the current research and find that it answers the first of these questions more thoroughly than the second. Belief in conspiracy theories appears to be driven by motives that can be characterized as epistemic (understanding one’s environment), existential (being safe and in control of one’s environment), and social (maintaining a positive image of the self and the social group). However, little research has investigated the consequences of conspiracy belief, and to date, this research does not indicate that conspiracy belief fulfills people’s motivations. Instead, for many people, conspiracy belief may be more appealing than satisfying. Further research is needed to determine for whom, and under what conditions, conspiracy theories may satisfy key psychological motives.

This article introduces the concept of collective narcissism-an emotional investment in an unrealistic belief about the in group's greatness-aiming to explain how feelings about an ingroup shape a tendency to aggress against outgroups. The results of 5 studies indicate that collective, but not individual, narcissism predicts intergroup aggressiveness. Collective narcissism is related to high private and low public collective self-esteem and low implicit group esteem. It predicts perceived threat from outgroups, unwillingness to forgive outgroups, preference for military aggression over and above social dominance orientation, right-wing authoritarianism, and blind patriotism. The relationship between collective narcissism and aggressiveness is mediated by perceived threat from outgroups and perceived insult to the ingroup. In sum, the results indicate that collective narcissism is a form of high but ambivalent group esteem related to sensitivity to threats to the ingroup's image and retaliatory aggression.

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behavior with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.

Objective The present studies test the hypothesis that the overlap between collective narcissism and positive in‐group identification conceals the opposite relationships these variables have with out‐group derogation. Method Five surveys were conducted in different cultural and national contexts, using different samples and different intergroup contexts (Study 1, Polish student sample, N = 85; Study 2, British student sample, N = 81; Study 3, Polish representative sample, N = 979; Study 3, Polish student sample, N = 267 and Study 5, British student sample, N = 241). Results The results of suppression analyses systematically indicate that when the positive relationship between collective narcissism and in‐group positivity is controlled for, the non‐narcissistic in‐group positivity predicts less out‐group negativity, whereas collective narcissism predicts more out‐group derogation. Conclusions The results advance our understanding of constructive and destructive forms of in‐group positivity and their different consequences for intergroup attitudes.

No abstract

This research examines the role of different forms of positive regard for the in-group in predicting beliefs in intergroup conspiracies. Collective narcissism reflects a belief in ingroup greatness contingent on others' recognition. We hypothesized that collective narcissism should be especially likely to foster out-group conspiracy beliefs. Positive yet non-narcissistic in-group positivity should predict a weaker tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. In Study 1 the endorsement of conspiratorial explanations of out-group actions was positively predicted by collective narcissism but negatively by non-narcissistic in-group positivity. Study 2 showed that the opposite effects of collective narcissism and nonnarcissistic in-group positivity on conspiracy beliefs were mediated via differential perceptions of threat. Study 3 manipulated whether conspiracy theories implicated in-group or out-group members. Collective narcissism predicted belief in out-group conspiracies but not in-group conspiracies, while non-narcissistic in-group positivity predicted lower conspiracy beliefs, regardless of them being ascribed to the in-group or the out-group.