ArticleNature communications2024
Leveraging artificial intelligence to identify the psychological factors associated with conspiracy theory beliefs online.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intelligent Systems, Vulnerable Minds: A Framework for Radicalization to Violence in the Age of AI.Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc · 2026Review
- The Dual Impact of Believing and Spreading Conspiracy Theories: Independent and Interactive Effects on Social Perceptions and Orientations.Quarterly journal of experimental psychology (2006) · 2026Article
- The link between tobacco smoking and susceptibility to misinformation.Psychopharmacology · 2025Article
- How belief in conspiracy theories could harm sustainability.Nature human behaviour · 2025Review
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to identify the psychological factors associated with conspiracy theory beliefs online.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Given the profound societal impact of conspiracy theories, probing the psychological factors associated with their spread is paramount. Most research lacks large-scale behavioral outcomes, leaving factors related to actual online support for conspiracy theories uncertain. We bridge this gap by combining the psychological self-reports of 2506 Twitter (currently X) users with machine-learning classification of whether the textual data from their 7.7 million social media engagements throughout the pandemic supported six common COVID-19 conspiracy theories. We assess demographic factors, political alignment, factors derived from theory of reasoned action, and individual psychological differences. Here, we show that being older, self-identifying as very left or right on the political spectrum, and believing in false information constitute the most consistent risk factors; denialist tendencies, confidence in one's ability to spot misinformation, and political conservativism are positively associated with support for one conspiracy theory. Combining artificial intelligence analyses of big behavioral data with self-report surveys can effectively identify and validate risk factors for phenomena evident in large-scale online behaviors.
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.