Show simple item record

Reviewing the Stigma: A Critical Analysis of Conspiracy Belief in Social Science Research

dc.contributor.authorBarzen, Annika
dc.date.accessioned2026-05-27T07:18:14Z
dc.date.available2026-05-27T07:18:14Z
dc.date.issued2026-05-26
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/58382
dc.description.abstractThe analysis shows that empirical social science studies examining psychological and social characteristics of conspiracy belief are characterized by a persistent deficit orientation, with a strong tendency to pathologize or stigmatize individuals. The core of this research is an empirical content analysis of 25 social sciences studies published between 2020 and 2025.The analysis identifies a set of recurring patterns in the academic representation of conspiracy believers, including associations with cognitive, social, and psychological deficits, emotional instability, and maladaptive personality traits. The dynamics of marginalization become particularly evident through the examination of discursive practices of delegitimization, which are further sustained by the selective interpretation of research findings.While some studies acknowledge structural or societal factors that may foster conspiracy beliefs, the narrative remains predominantly individualizing and negative. The findings highlight an ambivalence in the scholarly discourse: although conspiracy beliefs are recognized as complex, multidimensional, and sometimes rooted in legitimate grievances, they are frequently reduced to markers of irrationality or deviance. This suggests the need for greater reflexivity within the scientific community, particularly regarding language, methodological choices, and the balance between critique and stigmatization.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesQualitative Sociology Review;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectConspiracy Theoriesen
dc.subjectConspiracy Beliefen
dc.subjectContent Analysisen
dc.subjectQualitative Researchen
dc.subjectStigmatizationen
dc.subjectPathologizationen
dc.subjectMarginalizationen
dc.subjectSociology of Knowledgeen
dc.titleReviewing the Stigma: A Critical Analysis of Conspiracy Belief in Social Science Researchen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number48-79
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationChemnitz University of Technology, Germanyen
dc.identifier.eissn1733-8077
dc.referencesAdam-Troian, Jais et al. 2021. “Investigating the Links Between Cultural Values and Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Key Roles of Collectivism and Masculinity.” Political Psychology 42(4):597-618. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12716.en
dc.referencesAlbath, Elaine A. et al. 2024. “Does Lower Psychological Need Satisfaction Foster Conspiracy Belief? Longitudinal Effects Over 3 Years in New Zealand.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 2025 Dec:1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241292841.en
dc.referencesBallová Mikušková, Eva. 2021. “The Analytic Cognitive Style and Conspiracy Mentality as Predictors of Conspiracy Beliefs.” Studia Psychologica 63(2):190-203. doi: https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2021.02.819.en
dc.referencesBarnes, Barry and David Bloor. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” Pp. 21-47 in Rationality and Relativism, edited by M. Hollis and S. Lukes. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.en
dc.referencesBarzen, Annika. 2024. “A Comparative Analysis of Similarities and Differences Between Conspiracy Theories and Sociological Theories.” International Journal of Sociology and Humanities 6(2):29-38. doi: https://doi.org/10.33545/26648679.2024.v6.i2a.88.en
dc.referencesBarzen, Annika. 2025. “Constructing Unverifiable Reality: A Qualitative Study of the Prison Planet Conspiracy Hypothesis on YouTube.” Frontiers in Sociology 10-2025:1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2025.1583960.en
dc.referencesBecker, Howard S. 1967. “Whose Side Are We On?” Social Problems 14(3):239-247. doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/799147.en
dc.referencesBertin, Paul. 2024. “The Victimizing Effects of Conspiracy Beliefs.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 232(1):26-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000542.en
dc.referencesBiddlestone, Mickey et al. 2025. “Reasons to Believe: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analytic Synthesis of the Motives Associated with Conspiracy Beliefs.” Psychological Bulletin 151(1):48-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000463.en
dc.referencesBloor, David. 1984. “The Strengths of the Strong Programme.” Pp. 75-94 in Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, edited by J. R. Brown. Dordrecht: Springer.en
dc.referencesBoese, Vanessa A. et al. 2021. “How Democracies Prevail: Democratic Resilience as a Two-Stage Process.” Democratization 28(5):885-907. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2021.1891413.en
dc.referencesBogatyreva, Natalia. 2024. “Enemies Inside and Out. How Russians Believe Conspiracy Theories.” Zeitschrift für Psychologie 232(1):38-43. doi: https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000543.en
dc.referencesBruder, Martin et al. 2013. “Measuring Individual Differences in Generic Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Across Cultures: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire.” Frontiers in Psychology 4(225):1-37. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225.en
dc.referencesČejková, Lucie and Alena Macková. 2025. “The Role of the Media in Conspiracy Thinking: Trust in Journalists Is Key for the Politically Distrustful.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics: 1-16. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2025.2465317.en
dc.referencesDecker, Oliver et al. 2020. “Das autoritäre Syndrom: Dimensionen und Verbreitung der Demokratie‐Feindlichkeit [The Authoritarian Syndrome: Dimensions and Spread of Hostility Toward Democracy].” Pp. 177-210 in Autoritäre Dynamiken: Alte Ressentiments – neue Radikalität: Leipziger Autoritarismus Studie 2020 [Authoritarian Dynamics: Old Resentments—New Radicalism: Leipzig Authoritarianism Study 2020], edited by O. Decker and E. Brähler. Giessen: Psychosozial-Verlag.en
dc.referencesDentith, Mattew. 2012. In Defense of Conspiracy Theories. PhD thesis. University of Auckland, Auckland.en
dc.referencesDouglas, Karen M. and Robbie M. Sutton. 2023. “What Are Conspiracy Theories? A Definitional Approach to Their Correlates, Consequences, and Communication.” Annual Review of Psychology 74:271-298. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329.en
dc.referencesDouglas, Karen M., Robbie M. Sutton, and Aleksandra Cichocka. 2017. “The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories.” Current Directions in Psychological Sciences 26(6):538-542. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261.en
dc.referencesDyrendal, Asbjørn, Leif E. O. Kennair, and Mons Bendixen. 2021. “Predictors of Belief in Conspiracy Theory: The Role of Individual Differences in Schizotypal Traits, Paranormal Beliefs, Social Dominance Orientation, Right Wing Authoritarianism and Conspiracy Mentality.” Personality and Individual Differences 173(110645):1-7. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110645.en
dc.referencesEnders, Adam M. et al. 2021. “Do Conspiracy Beliefs Form a Belief System? Examining the Structure and Organization of Conspiracy Beliefs.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 9(1):255-271. doi: https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.5649.en
dc.referencesEnders, Adam M. et al. 2023a. “On Modeling the Correlates of Conspiracy Thinking.” Scientific Reports 13(8325):1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-34391-6.en
dc.referencesEnders, Adam M. et al. 2023b. “How Anti-Social Personality Traits and Anti-Establishment Views Promote Beliefs in Election Fraud, QAnon, and COVID-19 Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation.” American Politics Research 51(2):247-259. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x221139434.en
dc.referencesEnders, Adam M. et al. 2024. “The Sociodemographic Correlates of Conspiracism.” Scientific Reports 14(1484):1-17. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-64098-1.en
dc.referencesFaulkner, Robert R. and Eric R. Cheney. 2013. “The Multiplexity of Political Conspiracy: Illegal Networks and the Collapse of Watergate.” Global Crime 14(2-3):197-215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/17440572.2013.790313.en
dc.referencesFenster, Mark. 2008. Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.en
dc.referencesFrenken, Marius and Roland Imhoff. 2022. “Don’t Trust Anybody: Conspiracy Mentality and the Detection of Facial Trustworthiness Cues.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 37(2):1-10. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3955.en
dc.referencesFrenken, Marius, Annika Reusch, and Roland Imhoff. 2024. “Just Because It’s a Conspiracy Theory Doesn’t Mean They’re Not Out to Get You: Differentiating the Correlates of Judgments of Plausible Versus Implausible Conspiracy Theories.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 16(6):1-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241240506.en
dc.referencesGalliford, Natasha and Adrian Furnham. 2017. “Individual Difference Factors and Beliefs in Medical and Political Conspiracy Theories.” Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 58(5):422-442. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/sjop.12382.en
dc.referencesGeorgiou, Neo, Paul Delfabbro, and Ryan P. Balzan. 2022. “Latent Profile Analysis of Schizotypy, Autistic Traits and Conspiracy Theory Beliefs: Associations with Cognitive Flexibility and Scientific Reasoning Performance.” Journal of Experimental Psychopathology 13(3):1-13. doi: https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/20438087221125046.en
dc.referencesGlaser, Barney G. and Anslem L. Strauss. 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. London: Aldine Publishing Company.en
dc.referencesGoffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.en
dc.referencesHall, Matthew S., Bradley Franks, and Martin W. Bauer. 2025. “Dialogicality and Conspiracy Theory: The Coexistence of Conspiracist and Non-Conspiracist Beliefs.” European Journal of Social Psychology 55(2):311-326. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.3120.en
dc.referencesHausschild, Sophie et al. 2023. “The Relationship Between Epistemic Stance, Mentalizing, Paranoid Distress and Conspiracy Mentality: An Empirical Investigation.” Research in Psychotherapy 26(3):1-9. doi: https://doi.org/10.4081/ripppo.2023.706.en
dc.referencesHofstadter, Richard. 1965. The Paranoid Style in American Politics, and Other Essays. New York: Knopf.en
dc.referencesImhoff, Roland, Tisa Bertlich, and Marius Frenken. 2022. “Tearing Apart the ‘Evil’ Twins: A General Conspiracy Mentality Is Not the Same as Specific Conspiracy Beliefs.” Current Opinion in Psychology 46(1):1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101349.en
dc.referencesKuckartz, Udo. 2014. Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative Content Analysis: Methods, Practice, Computer Support] (3rd ed.). Weinheim: Beltz Juventa.en
dc.referencesLantian, Anthony et al. 2021. “Maybe a Free Thinker but Not a Critical One: High Conspiracy Belief Is Associated With Low Critical Thinking Ability.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 35(1):674-684. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3790.en
dc.referencesLeveaux, Sarah et al. 2022. “Defining and Explaining Conspiracy Theories: Comparing the Lay Representations of Conspiracy Believers and Non-Believers.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 10(1):335-352. doi: https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.6201.en
dc.referencesLiekefett, Luisa, Simone Sebben, and Julia C. Becker. 2024. “The Effect of Brooding About Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Report.” Collabra Psychology 10(1):1-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.92995.en
dc.referencesLink, Bruce G. and Jo C. Phelan. 2001. “Conceptualizing Stigma.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:363-385. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.en
dc.referencesMahl, Daniela, Mike S. Schäfer, and Jing Zeng. 2023. “Conspiracy Theories in Online Environments: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review and an Agenda for Future Research.” New Media & Society 25(7):1781-1801. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221075759.en
dc.referencesMarchlewska, Marta at al. 2021. “From Bad to Worse: Avoidance Coping with Stress Increases Conspiracy Beliefs.” British Journal of Social Psychology 61(9):532-549. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12494.en
dc.referencesMin, Seong J. 2021. “Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories? Network Diversity, Political Discussion, and Conservative Conspiracy Theories in Social Media.” American Politics Research 49(5):1-13. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X211013526.en
dc.referencesMongeon, Philippe and Adèle Paul-Hus. 2016. “The Journal Coverage of Scopus and Web of Science: A Comparative Analysis.” Scientometrics 106(1):213-228. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5.en
dc.referencesMuringa, Tigere and Theodora D. Adjin-Tettey. 2024. “Media Literacy’s Role in Democratic Engagement and Societal Transformation Among University Students.” African Journalism Studies 45(2):115-134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/23743670.2024.2424902.en
dc.referencesNera, Kenzo and Céline Schöpfer. 2023. “What Is So Special About Conspiracy Theories? Conceptually Distinguishing Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories from Conspiracy Beliefs in Psychological Research.” Theory & Psychology 33(3):287-305. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/09593543231155891.en
dc.referencesO’Brien, Clare, Neophytos Georgiou, and Jonathan Bartholomaeus. 2025. “The Association Between Belief in a Just World and Endorsing Conspiracy Theories Is Moderated by Ambiguity Tolerance, But Not Scientific Reasoning.” Personality and Individual Differences 233:1-4. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2024.112885.en
dc.referencesOliver, J. Eric and Thomas J. Wood. 2014. “Conspiracy and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 58(4):952-966. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12084.en
dc.referencesPigden, Charles. 1995. “Popper Revisited, or What Is Wrong With Conspiracy Theories?” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 25(1):3-34. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/004839319502500101.en
dc.referencesPogrebinschi, Thamy and David Samuels. 2014. “The Impact of Participatory Democracy: Evidence from Brazil’s National Public Policy Conferences.” Comparative Politics 46(3):313-332. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5129/001041514810943045.en
dc.referencesPopper, Karl R. 1945. The Open Society and Its Enemies. London: Routledge.en
dc.referencesPytlik, Nico, Daniel Soll, and Stephanie Mehl. 2020. “Thinking Preferences and Conspiracy Belief: Intuitive Thinking and the Jumping to Conclusions-Bias as a Basis for the Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Frontiers in Psychiatry 18(11):1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568942.en
dc.referencesReisigl, Martin and Ruth Wodak. 2009. “The Discourse-Historical Approach.” Pp. 87-121 in Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, edited by R. Wodak and M. Meyer. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington: Sage.en
dc.referencesSambol, Stjepan et al. 2024. “A Latent Profile Approach to the Study of Conspiracy Belief: Identifying the Role of Executive Functioning.” Personality and Individual Differences 220:1-6. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2023.112537.en
dc.referencesSnagovsky, Feodor and Daniel Stockemer. 2024. “Does It Matter How We Measure Conspiracy Beliefs? A Test of Three Measurement Approaches.” Social Science Quarterly 106(1):1-12. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13471.en
dc.referencesStanovich, Keith E. and Maggie Toplak. 2024. “Conspiracy Beliefs in the Context of a Comprehensive Rationality Assessment.” Thinking & Reasoning 31(1):1-23. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2024.2368026.en
dc.referencesSunstein, Cass R. and Adrian Vermeule. 2009. “Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures.” Political Philosophy 17(2):202-227. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2008.00325.x.en
dc.referencesSwami, Viren et al. 2014. “Analytic Thinking Reduces Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Cognition 133(3):572-585. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006.en
dc.referencesToribio-Flórez, Daniel, Ricky Green, and Karen M. Douglas. 2024. “Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Satisfaction in Interpersonal Relationships.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 54(10):1-25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.13061.en
dc.referencesYendell, Alexander and David Herbert. 2022. “Religion, Conspiracy Thinking, and the Rejection of Democracy: Evidence From the UK.” Politics and Governance 10(4):229-242. doi: https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i4.5904.en
dc.contributor.authorEmailannika.barzen@hsw.tu-chemnitz.de
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1733-8077.22.2.03
dc.relation.volume22


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
48-79_Barzen.pdf
Size:
809.6Kb
Format:
PDF
View/Open

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0