ArticlePloS one2020
Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Contemporary trends in psychological research on conspiracy beliefs. A systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale: a Rasch modelling approach.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Article
- Paranormal belief and conspiracy theory endorsement: variations in adaptive function and positive wellbeing.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
- Variations in positive well-being as a function of the interaction between paranormal belief and schizotypy.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Misinformation, Trust, and Use of Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.JAMA health forum · 2023Article
- Evidence of Altered Fear Extinction Learning in Individuals with High Vaccine Hesitancy During Covid-19 Pandemic.Clinical neuropsychiatry · 2023Article
- Dark Triad and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: the role of conspiracy beliefs and risk perception.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers.Personality and individual differences · 2023Article
- The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale-5: further psychometric evaluation using a United Kingdom-based sample.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Everything causes cancer? Beliefs and attitudes towards cancer prevention among anti-vaxxers, flat earthers, and reptilian conspiracists: online cross sectional survey.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Article
- The psychological and political correlates of conspiracy theory beliefs.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Impact of conspiracist ideation and psychotic-like experiences in patients with schizophrenia during the COVID-19 crisis.Journal of psychiatric research · 2022Article
- Psychotic-like experiences in the lonely predict conspiratorial beliefs and are associated with the diet during COVID-19.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale (GCBS) is the most widely used measure of general belief in conspiracy theories. The scale comprises five related but distinct factors (Government Malfeasance, Extraterrestrial Cover-up, Malevolent Global Conspiracies, Personal Wellbeing, and Control of Information). Despite this, investigators have typically treated the GCBS as unidimensional by referencing only overall total. Although, the GCBS possesses established psychometric properties, critics question its factorial structure, suggest alternative models, and recommend routine examination of GCBS dimensions as part of analysis. Through two studies, the present paper assessed GCBS factorial structure, internal reliability, convergent validity, and invariance. This involved comparing the original five-factor solution with alternative one, two, and three-factor models. To ensure that the best fitting model was robust, the authors conducted analysis in two independent samples (Study one, N = 794, UK university-based sample; and Study two, N = 418, UK respondents collected via a market research company). Results in both studies indicated superior fit for the correlated five-factor solution. This solution demonstrated invariance across gender, and samples (Study one and two). Furthermore, the total scale and five subfactors evinced good alpha and omega total reliability. Convergent validity testing exhibited associations of an expected strength between conspiracist beliefs, reality testing, and cognitive insight. Large intercorrelations existed among GCBS subfactors, suggesting that the measure reflects a narrow set of interrelated conspiracist assumptions. These findings support the use of overall scale scores as an index of belief in conspiracy theories.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.