Conspiratorial thinking

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Conspiratorial thinking

[Some political and social events are debated (for example 09/11 attacks, the death of Lady Diana, the assassination of John F. Kennedy). It is suggested that the “official version” of these events could be an attempt to hide the truth to the public. This “official version” could mask the fact that these events have been planned and secretly prepared by a covert alliance of powerful individuals or organizations (for example secret services or government). What do you think?]

Item Item text
Consp1 I think that the official version of the events given by the authorities very often hides the truth
Consp2 I think the 2016 US Presidential elections will be rigged.
Consp3 Media coverage of the US Presidential Elections has been controlled by vested interests behind one side of the debate.

Possible values in responses are: Definitely true (1) - Probably true - Neither true nor false (5) - Probably false - Definitely false (9).

Source: van der Linden, S., Panagopoulos, C., Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2021). The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychology, 42(1), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12681

1.2 Samples

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Conspiratorial thinking Items
vars n mean sd median min max range se
Consp1 1 1500 3.79 2.19 3.00 1 9 8 0.06
Consp2 2 1500 5.01 2.67 5.00 1 9 8 0.07
Consp3 3 1500 4.26 2.02 5.00 1 9 8 0.05
Mean 4 1500 4.35 1.93 4.33 1 9 8 0.05

2.2 Proportions

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Conspiratorial thinking Items

2.3 Distributions

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Conspiratorial thinking Items

2.4 Correlations

Figure 3: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Conspiratorial thinking
Figure 4: Bivariate Spearmans’ correlations for Conspiratorial thinking
Figure 5: Correlation Matrix of Conspiratorial thinking items, Spearman’s rank correlations

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 6: Conspiratorial thinkingas grouped by SES


Figure 7: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Social Class


Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.


Table 2: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by SES
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.25 1.04
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.18 0.93
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.12 0.93
Upper Middle Class 395 0.27 1.07
Rich 90 0.45 1.02


3.2 Gender

Figure 8: Conspiratorial thinkingas grouped by Gender


Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Gender


Table 3: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Gender
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.05 0.96
Male 740 0.05 1.04

3.3 Age

Figure 10: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Age


Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Age


Table 4: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Age
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.24 0.90
25-34 years 264 -0.02 0.94
35-44 years 263 -0.02 1.02
45-54 years 292 0.02 1.03
55-64 years 234 0.20 1.04
65+ 254 0.02 1.00

3.4 Education

Table 5: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Education


Figure 12: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Education


Table 6: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.19 0.85
High School 475 -0.20 0.90
Some College 471 -0.11 1.01
Bachelor 310 0.27 1.01
Graduate 193 0.38 1.04


3.5 Income Levels

Figure 13: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Income Levels


Figure 14: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Income Levels


Table 7: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Income Levels
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.26 0.89
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.15 0.99
Less than $15,000 178 -0.13 0.96
$50,000-$74,999 292 -0.02 0.98
$35,000-$49,999 227 0.01 0.99
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.16 0.91
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.22 1.15
$150,000 + 95 0.34 1.10

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 15: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 16: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Ethnicity


Table 8: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Ethnicity
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.02 1.02
Black/African American 115 -0.11 0.89
Latino 88 0.02 0.84
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.04 0.97
Native American 13 -0.62 1.11
Other 18 -0.24 0.77

3.7 Occupation

Figure 17: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Occupation


Figure 18: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Occupation


Table 9: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Occupation
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.06 1.02
Retired 268 0.07 1.00
Unemployed 146 -0.05 0.99
Parent 104 -0.19 0.95
Disabled 98 -0.23 1.01
Student 85 -0.06 0.90
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.28 0.83

3.8 Area

Figure 19: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Area


Figure 20: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Area


Table 10: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Area
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 0.06 1.02
Rural 545 -0.10 0.96


3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 21: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Religious Affiliation


Figure 22: Raincloud Plots showing Conspiratorial thinking grouped by Religious Affiliation


Table 11: Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Religion
Conspiratorial thinking as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 -0.06 0.96
Jewish 52 0.56 1.08
Muslim 9 -0.16 1.06
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.26 1.11
No religion 195 -0.12 0.95



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 23: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation



Figure 24: Political Orientation



Table 12: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Conspiratorial thinking
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.19 – 5.42 <0.001 4.93 4.80 – 5.06 <0.001 5.48 5.35 – 5.61 <0.001 5.24 5.12 – 5.36 <0.001
Conspiratorial thinking -0.69 -0.81 – -0.57 <0.001 -0.84 -0.97 – -0.70 <0.001 -0.54 -0.67 – -0.41 <0.001 -0.69 -0.81 – -0.57 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.080 / 0.079 0.092 / 0.091 0.043 / 0.042 0.081 / 0.081



Table 13: Models of Ideo_SP_JJ and SRPI_CM, and Conspiratorial thinking Age + Inc + Religiosity + Edu
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 3.64 3.19 – 4.08 <0.001 3.25 2.77 – 3.73 <0.001 3.34 2.84 – 3.85 <0.001 3.41 2.98 – 3.84 <0.001
Consp -0.31 -0.37 – -0.25 <0.001 -0.34 -0.40 – -0.28 <0.001 -0.28 -0.34 – -0.21 <0.001 -0.31 -0.36 – -0.25 <0.001
Age 0.26 0.19 – 0.33 <0.001 0.27 0.19 – 0.34 <0.001 0.27 0.19 – 0.35 <0.001 0.26 0.20 – 0.33 <0.001
Income 0.11 0.05 – 0.17 <0.001 0.02 -0.04 – 0.09 0.441 0.16 0.09 – 0.22 <0.001 0.10 0.04 – 0.15 0.001
Religiosity 0.34 0.30 – 0.38 <0.001 0.46 0.42 – 0.50 <0.001 0.27 0.23 – 0.32 <0.001 0.36 0.32 – 0.40 <0.001
Education -0.05 -0.16 – 0.06 0.383 -0.08 -0.20 – 0.04 0.182 0.10 -0.03 – 0.23 0.135 -0.01 -0.12 – 0.10 0.835
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.298 / 0.296 0.353 / 0.351 0.204 / 0.202 0.320 / 0.318

4.2 Religiosity



Figure 25: Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation

Figure 26: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix



4.4 Candidate Preferences



Figure 27: Candidate Preferences



Table 14: Candidate Preferences (centered)
Candidate Preferences and Conspiratorial thinking [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 -0.46 0.84
Hillary Clinton 371 0.48 0.91
Bernie Sanders 362 0.05 1.05
Ted Cruz 122 -0.07 0.94
Jeb Bush 83 0.38 0.83
Gary Johnson 68 0.08 1.06
Rand Paul 44 -0.46 0.95



Table 15: Candidate Preferences (raw means)
Candidate Preferences and Conspiratorial thinking [raw means]
Candidate Preferences N Mean SD Range
Donald Trump 444 -0.46 0.84 1-9
Hillary Clinton 371 0.48 0.91 1-9
Bernie Sanders 362 0.05 1.05 1-9
Ted Cruz 122 -0.07 0.94 1-9
Jeb Bush 83 0.38 0.83 1-9
Gary Johnson 68 0.08 1.06 1-9
Rand Paul 44 -0.46 0.95 1-9



4.5 Party Preferences


Figure 28: Party Preferences



Table 16: Party Preferences (centered)
Party Preferences and Conspiratorial thinking [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Tea Party 68 -0.52 0.88
Constitution Party 14 -0.47 0.98
Republican Party 508 -0.22 0.90
None 120 -0.18 0.93
Libertarian Party 100 -0.17 0.97
Green Party 40 -0.13 1.04
Don't know 90 -0.08 0.87
Democratic Party 560 0.36 1.03



Table 17: Party Preferences (raw means)
Party Preferences and Conspiratorial thinking [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD Range
Tea Party 68 -0.52 0.88 1-9
Constitution Party 14 -0.47 0.98 1-9
Republican Party 508 -0.22 0.90 1-9
None 120 -0.18 0.93 1-9
Libertarian Party 100 -0.17 0.97 1-9
Green Party 40 -0.13 1.04 1-9
Don't know 90 -0.08 0.87 1-9
Democratic Party 560 0.36 1.03 1-9



4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 18: Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 0.08 0.06 – 0.12 <0.001 0.08 0.06 – 0.12 <0.001 0.38 0.28 – 0.51 <0.001 0.38 0.28 – 0.51 <0.001
Conspiratorial thinking 1.78 1.64 – 1.94 <0.001 1.77 1.64 – 1.92 <0.001 1.29 1.21 – 1.37 <0.001 1.29 1.22 – 1.38 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.214 0.210 0.055 0.057



Figure 29: Logistic Regression, Conspiratorial thinking & Voting Preferences

4.7 Party Identity



Figure 30: Party Identity



Figure 31: Party Identity and Voting



Table 19: Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 32: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity



Table 20: Supporters
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 0.73 0.39 – 1.36 0.317 0.67 0.38 – 1.21 0.184
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.00 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 2.06 1.77 – 2.41 <0.001 1.99 1.74 – 2.31 <0.001
Conspiratorial thinking 0.00 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.779 0.755



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s Likebility


Figure 33: Trump’s Likeability



4.11 Clinton’s Likebility


Figure 34: Clinton’s Likeability



4.12 Johnson’s Likeability


Figure 35: Johnson’s Likeability


5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Conspiratorial thinking



5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship


Figure 36: Correlates of Conspiratorial thinking



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism


Figure 37: Correlates - Populism



5.3 Political Psychology


Figure 38: Correlates - Political Psychology



5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice


Figure 39: Correlates - Social Concerns



5.5 Values


Figure 40: Correlates - Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri


Figure 41: Correlates - Constructs



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Conspiratorial thinking


Figure 42: Correlates - Positive & significant associations



Figure 43: Correlates - Negative & significant associations

5.8 Section Summary


Table 21: Table of models 1
  Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.48 5.21 – 5.74 <0.001 6.72 6.38 – 7.06 <0.001 2.11 1.74 – 2.48 <0.001 5.35 4.89 – 5.82 <0.001 4.40 4.00 – 4.81 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.30 -0.37 – -0.23 <0.001
Right-Wing Authoritarianism -0.46 -0.52 – -0.39 <0.001
System Justification 0.44 0.37 – 0.51 <0.001
Economic System Justification -0.21 -0.30 – -0.11 <0.001
Gender-specific System Justification -0.01 -0.08 – 0.06 0.785
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.050 / 0.050 0.121 / 0.120 0.092 / 0.092 0.013 / 0.012 0.000 / -0.001


Table 22: Table of models 2
  Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking Conspiratorial thinking
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.71 5.23 – 6.19 <0.001 7.63 6.17 – 9.09 <0.001 2.11 1.74 – 2.48 <0.001 5.35 4.89 – 5.82 <0.001 4.40 4.00 – 4.81 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance -0.29 -0.45 – -0.13 <0.001
SDO7_AntiEgal -0.16 -0.29 – -0.03 0.017
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal 0.02 -0.02 – 0.05 0.281
RWA_Agression -0.52 -0.85 – -0.18 0.003
RWA_Conventionalism -0.19 -0.57 – 0.20 0.343
RWA_Submission -0.23 -0.66 – 0.20 0.298
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism 0.03 -0.04 – 0.10 0.382
RWA_Agression:RWA_Submission 0.04 -0.04 – 0.12 0.301
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.01 -0.07 – 0.10 0.744
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission -0.01 -0.02 – 0.01 0.452
SJ_Gen 0.44 0.37 – 0.51 <0.001
SJ_Eco -0.21 -0.30 – -0.11 <0.001
SJ_Gender -0.01 -0.08 – 0.06 0.785
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.053 / 0.051 0.133 / 0.129 0.092 / 0.092 0.013 / 0.012 0.000 / -0.001


Figure 44: Interaction with facets of SDO


Table 23: Linear Regression
Observations 1500
Dependent variable facet
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 79.25
R² 0.05
Adj. R² 0.05
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 5.48 0.14 40.46 0.00
SDO -0.30 0.03 -8.90 0.00
Standard errors: OLS