According to a study published in Personality & Individual Differences, belief in a just world is negatively associated with conspiracy theory endorsement, but only among individuals with low ambiguity tolerance.
There is long-standing interest in how people make sense of an ambiguous world. The belief in a just world (BJW), which posits that people generally get what they deserve, provides a sense of order and control in the face of life’s uncertainties. Clare O’Brien and colleagues examined the extent to which endorsing BJW might reduce the likelihood of engaging in conspiracy theories, which are often less adaptive mechanisms for making sense of the world.
Conspiracy theories are attractive because they offer an explanation for ambiguous or distressing events by attributing them to secret, powerful actors. However, these theories can promote negative outcomes, including social alienation and harmful health behaviors. Prior research has shown a negative correlation between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, but the current study expanded on these findings by examining whether ambiguity tolerance or scientific reasoning skills moderate this relationship.
The study involved 163 participants from a mix of personal and professional networks, university courses, and the online platform Prolific, predominantly Australian and between ages 17-85. Participants were required to respond to several scales that measured their BJW, propensity to endorse conspiracy theories, tolerance for ambiguity, and scientific reasoning skills, with political orientation considered as a control variable to account for potential biases.
The Just World Scale, which consists of 11 items on a six-point scale, was used to assess participants’ belief in a fair world where people get what they deserve. The study employed the 15-item Generalised Conspiracy Beliefs Scale, which captures a range of conspiratorial beliefs on a five-point scale. Ambiguity tolerance was measured using the 12-item Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II, assessing participants’ comfort with complex or uncertain situations. Scientific reasoning was evaluated through an 11-item scale that asked participants to assess the validity of statements related to scientific scenarios.
O’Brien and colleagues found a significant relationship between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, which was influenced by levels of ambiguity tolerance but not by scientific reasoning. Specifically, individuals with a strong BJW were generally less likely to endorse conspiracy theories, but this association held only for those with low ambiguity tolerance.
In other words, when participants were uncomfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty, a belief in a just world served as a protective factor against endorsing conspiratorial thinking. Conversely, participants with high ambiguity tolerance displayed no significant association between BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement, suggesting that those more comfortable with uncertainty might not need a strict worldview like BJW to navigate ambiguous situations.
While scientific reasoning skills were not a moderating factor, they independently showed a negative association with both BJW and conspiracy theory endorsement. This implies that individuals with strong scientific reasoning are generally less inclined to adhere to either worldview-driven or conspiratorial beliefs, possibly because their reasoning skills allow them to critically evaluate and reject simplistic or overly generalized explanations.
There was no significant association between one’s political views and their likelihood of endorsing conspiracy theories. This suggests that the effects of BJW and ambiguity tolerance transcend typical political divides.
This study’s sample had relatively low overall conspiracy theory endorsement. The authors suggest that BJW may lose its protective effect in populations where conspiracy theories are more extreme or central to one’s identity, such as in more radicalized groups.
The study, “The association between belief in a just world and endorsing conspiracy theories is moderated by ambiguity tolerance, but not scientific reasoning”, was authored by Clare O’Brien, Neophytos Georgiou, and Jonathan Bartholomaeus.
