“Trust me, do not trust anyone”: how epistemic mistrust and credulity are associated with conspiracy mentality

Abstract

Previous research shows that the propensity to endorse conspiracy theories is associated with disrupted forms of epistemic trust, i.e., the appropriate openness towards interpersonally communicated information. There are associations, first, with an increased mistrust in several actors and institutions responsible for the communication of information in society, and second, with a pronounced credulity in unreliable sources and implausible phenomena (e.g., superstition, astrology). This study aims to investigate whether these phenomena are associated with specific personality-related disruptions of epistemic trust. Based on selfreported data of 417 individuals (mean = 33.28; standard deviation = 11.11) from a UK population sampled online, the potential relationships between disruptions in epistemic trust and the endorsement of a conspiracy mentality are explored. The epistemic stances characterized by mistrust and credulity (independent variables) are measured with the epistemic trust, mistrust, and credulity questionnaire (ETMCQ), and conspiracy mentality (dependent variable) is measured with the conspiracy mentality questionnaire. In a multiple linear regression model, mistrust is associated with the endorsement of a conspiracy mentality, even when accounting for other contributing factors (e.g., individual narcissism, attachment avoidance and anxiety, authoritarianism, loneliness). In a bootstrapped mediation model controlling for other relevant predictors, the association between credulity and conspiracy mentality is fully mediated by mistrust. In future research, the impact of disrupted epistemic trust on conspiracy beliefs should be investigated in terms of the specific epistemic stances of mistrust and credulity. In this respect, the ETMCQ represents a highly promising instrument to assess individual differences in factors underpinning aspects of conspiracy endorsement.

Iranian adaptation of the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire (ETMCQ): Validity, reliability, discriminant ability, and sex invariance

“…Regarding the criterion‐related validity of the ETMCQ, the magnitude of correlations was generally similar to that of previous studies (Benzi, Carone, et al., 2023 ; Brauner et al., 2023 ; Campbell et al., 2021 ; Hauschild et al., 2023 ; Liotti, Milesi, et al., 2023 ; Parolin et al., 2023 ): EM and EC were strongly associated with mentalizing capacity, attachment insecurities, emotion dysregulation, and personality pathology. However, contrary to Liotti, Milesi et al.…”

“…Nonetheless, the resulting structure showed an acceptable fit in subsequent CFA. Second, despite inconclusive evidence regarding the criterion‐related validity of ET, most studies indicate nonsignificant or negligible associations between ET and relevant constructs (Benzi, Carone, et al., 2023 ; Benzi, Fontana, et al., 2023 ; Campbell et al., 2021 ; Kampling et al., 2022 , 2024 ; Liotti, Milesi, et al., 2023 ; Tanzilli et al., 2022 ), with a minority substantiating its validity (Liotti, Fiorini Bincoletto, et al., 2023 ; Riedl et al., 2024 ; Riedl, Rothmund, et al., 2023 ), and a handful of investigations presenting mixed findings (Brauner et al., 2023 ; De Coninck et al., 2023 ; Hauschild et al., 2023 ; Parolin et al., 2023 ). Third, although good test–retest reliability was found for all three subscales, the majority of the findings demonstrated questionable internal consistency for EM (see Table 1 ).…”