Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38123615›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Differentiating paranoia and conspiracy mentality using a network approach.

Saskia Denecke, Björn Schlier, Jessica L Kingston, Lyn Ellett, Suzanne H So, Brandon A Gaudiano, Eric M J Morris, Tania M Lincoln

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Saskia DeneckeUniversität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Germany. Saskia.denecke@studium.uni-hamburg.de.ORCID 0000-0001-7840-7909
Björn SchlierUniversität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Germany.
Jessica L KingstonRoyal Holloway, University of London, London, UK.
Lyn EllettUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Suzanne H SoThe Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China.
Brandon A GaudianoBrown University and Butler Hospital, Providence, USA.
Eric M J MorrisLa Trobe University and Northern Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Tania M LincolnUniversität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 5, 20146, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although mostly considered distinct, conspiracy mentality and paranoia share conceptual similarities (e.g., persecutory content, resistance to disconfirming evidence). Using self-report data from a large and multinational online sample (N = 2510; from the UK, the US, Hong Kong, Germany, and Australia), we examined whether paranoia and conspiracy mentality represent distinct latent constructs in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Utilising network analysis, we then explored common and unique correlates of paranoia and conspiracy mentality while accounting for their shared variance. Across sites, paranoia and conspiracy mentality presented distinct, yet weakly correlated (r = 0.26), constructs. Both were associated with past traumatic experiences, holding negative beliefs about the self and other people, sleep problems, and a tendency to worry. However, paranoia was related to increased negative affect (i.e., anxiety) and decreased social support, whereas the opposite pattern was observed for conspiracy mentality (i.e., decreased anxiety and depression, increased social support). Paranoia and conspiracy mentality are related but not the same constructs. Their similar and distinct correlates point to common and unique risk factors and underlying mechanisms.

Indexed as

AnxietyParanoid DisordersAnxiety DisordersHumansInterpersonal RelationsSelf Report

Identifiers

PMID38123615
PMCPMC10733314

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.