Validation of the Spanish Version of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale

Abstract

Theorists acknowledge that conspiracy beliefs represent an established psychological construct. The study of conspiracy beliefs is important because allied ideation potentially influences everyday attitudes and behaviors across a range of domains (i.e., cognitive, social, cross-cultural, and political psychology). In this article, we analyze the internal structure and construct validity of the Spanish adaptation of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS). Correlational and confirmatory factor analyses using an international sample of 732 Spanish-speakers revealed a five-factor structure equivalent to the original instrument. Convergent validity was demonstrated using educational level, political orientation, need for uniqueness, and four social axioms (social cynicism, religiosity, reward for application, and fate control). In comparison to two English samples (N = 794 and N = 421), the adaptation demonstrated satisfactory, although restricted, levels of invariance. Accordingly, findings support the use of this translated form of the GCBS with Spanish speakers.

Popular epistemically unwarranted beliefs inventory (PEUBI): A psychometric instrument for assessing paranormal, pseudoscientific and conspiracy beliefs

“…Despite the potential value of research into EUB, in Spain there is the obstacle of having very few EUB validated scales: to the best of our knowledge, there is only the Spanish adaptation of the Revised Paranormal Belief Scale (RPBS‐Sp; Díaz‐Vilela & Álvarez‐González, 2004), the Pseudoscientific Belief Scale (PSEUDO‐RS; Fasce et al, 2021), the Pseudoscience Endorsement Scale (PES; Torres et al, 2020), the UFO Experiences Questionnaire (UFO‐Q; Escolà‐Gascón et al, 2021), some subscales of the Spanish adaptation of the Expressions of Spirituality Inventory (ESI‐Sp; Muñoz‐García, 2013), and the Spanish adaptation of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS‐Sp; Fasce et al, 2022). Despite the great advance brought by the existing psychometric instruments, there are some limitations that should be noted.…”

Assessing conspiracist beliefs across societies: Validation of the Serbian adaptation of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS)

“…Additionally, the Serbian adaptation of the GCBS provided gender non‐biased scores and performed well in comparison to the English language version. Overall, results indicated that the GCBS was a suitable measure for cross‐societal and cross‐national comparisons (Fasce et al, 2022; Siwiak et al, 2019). Furthermore, the findings of this study support the notion that most aspects of conspiracy beliefs are more present in societies characterised by a long history of ongoing international conflicts and wars.…”

“…This process has sometimes yielded different factorial solutions. Therefore, while the correlated five‐factor GCBS structure has been successfully reproduced with samples from Poland (Siwiak et al, 2019) and Spain (Fasce et al, 2022), other studies have proposed alternative solutions (e.g., Atari et al, 2019; Swami et al, 2017).…”

“…Failed attempts to reproduce the original GCBS structure suggest that the measure may be contextually sensitive, whereby solutions vary as a function of sample composition, which could affect the measurement invariance. Despite differing outcomes, it is important to note that studies generally agreed that the single factor solution possesses poor fit (e.g., Fasce et al, 2022; Siwiak et al, 2019; Swami et al, 2017).…”

The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale-5: further psychometric evaluation using a United Kingdom-based sample

“…Despite reporting a superior model fit for the correlated five-factor model (vs. one-factor solution), Brotherton and French ( 2014 ) recommended using the total score because it captures a coherent set of allied beliefs that best reflect assumptions about the typicality of conspiratorial activity. While several studies have reproduced the correlated five-factor model (i.e., Siwiak et al, 2020 ; Fasce et al, 2022 ), others have reported alternative solutions and found a poor fit for a single-factor solution (e.g., Swami et al, 2017 ; Atari et al, 2019 ; Majima and Nakamura, 2020 ).…”