Perceived lack of control is widely believed to motivate, at least partly, belief in conspiracy theories. We question the theoretical foundations of this belief and meta‐analyze existing published and unpublished studies to assess the overall effect of lack of control on conspiracy beliefs. The overall effect was small and not statistically significant (d = −0.05), and was not moderated by comparison group (baseline vs. control affirmation), type of manipulation used to threaten control, inclusion of a manipulation check, or sample type. However, the predicted effect of control was more likely to be observed when beliefs were measured in terms of specific conspiracy theories, rather than as general or abstract claims. Overall, the present studies to date offer limited support for the hypothesis that conspiracy beliefs arise as a compensatory control.

This study aimed to look at possible ways to reduce beliefs in conspiracy theories and increase the intention to have a fictitious child vaccinated. One hundred and sixty participants answered an online questionnaire. Three groups were used. The control group did not read any text prior to answering whereas the two experimental groups read either only debunking information or information about the motives of the conspiracists and the fallacy in their reasoning in addition to the debunking paragraph. The second experimental manipulation was effective in reducing medical conspiracy theories beliefs, but not belief in conspiracy theories in general. Neither intervention was effective in increasing the likelihood to have a fictitious child vaccinated. Those not intending to vaccinate a fictitious child endorsed conspiracy theories to a greater degree. A positive correlation between beliefs in conspiracy theories and the experiential/intuitive information processing system was found.

Abstract. Beliefs in conspiracy theories, generally considered to be a unidimensional construct, are associated with negative outcomes. The existing measures of conspiracy theory beliefs have number of shortcomings. We present the development of a novel measure of the tendency to believe in conspiracy theories and report the discovery of a second factor that reflects rational skepticism. In Study 1 ( N = 500) we use item response theory to devise the final items. In Study 2 ( N = 202) we demonstrate the predictive validity of the two factors for different types of conspiracies. In Study 3 ( N = 308) we demonstrate convergent/divergent validity. In Study 4 ( N = 800) we demonstrate construct validity in three countries. Implications for the concept of conspiracy theory and conspiracy theory beliefs are discussed.

It is widely believed that conspiracy theory beliefs are the product of perceived lack of control. However, to date there is mixed evidence, at best, to support this claim. We consider the reasons why conspiracy theory beliefs do not appear to be based in any straightforward way on control beliefs, interrogating existing findings and presenting new data that call the relationship into question. Across six studies conducted online using MTurk samples, we observed no effect of control manipulations on conspiracy theory beliefs, while replicating previously reported correlational evidence of their association. The results suggest that conspiracy beliefs are not suitable for compensating for threats to control. We discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between experimental and correlational effects and examine the limitations of the studies.

ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence language model introduced in November 2022, is potentially applicable in many contexts, including higher education. Although academics are already using it to draft papers or develop search queries for systematic reviews, its use as a tool aiding the learning process has not been examined. To address this research gap, I conducted an autoethnographic study examining my experience using ChatGPT as a more knowledgeable other that scaffolded my learning about a particular topic—the technical aspects of how ChatGPT works. Overall, ChatGPT provided me with enough content to form a general idea of its technical aspects, and I experienced its feedback as motivating and relevant. However, the answers were somewhat superficial, the text it generated was not always consistent or logical and sometimes contradictory. The instantaneous replies to my questions contributed to an experience of a 'flow'. Being 'in the zone' also meant I overestimated my knowledge and understanding, as I could not detect the contradictory responses it provided 'on the spot'. I conclude that caution is advised when ChatGPT is used as a learning aid, as we learn more about its capabilities and limitations and how humans tend to perceive and interact with these technologies.