Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40830550›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Conspiracy beliefs predict perceptions of procedural justice.

Svenja B Frenzel, Lotte Pummerer, Sonja Utz, Kai Sassenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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

4 authors.

Svenja B FrenzelLeibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany. sf@leibniz-psychology.org.
Lotte PummererUniversity of Bremen, Bremen, Germany.
Sonja UtzLeibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien, Tuebingen, Germany.
Kai SassenbergLeibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, people believing in political COVID-19 conspiracies likely perceived that the government executed power unfairly (i.e., low procedural justice), which might have contributed to the questioning of the government's legitimacy. This study examines the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and perceived procedural justice regarding COVID-19 policies during the peak and decay of the pandemic (May/June 2022-September 2023). Additionally, we considered the moderating role of economic and health threat. We tested our hypotheses using data from a five-wave study (N = 4939, quota-based). Latent growth curve analysis revealed a negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs (at Time 1) and the starting value of procedural justice (i.e., intercept). Furthermore, conspiracy beliefs were also negatively related to the change of procedural justice over time (i.e., slope): the lower people's conspiracy beliefs at Time 1, the steeper their increase in procedural justice over time. Health threat weakened the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and the intercept of procedural justice, implying that people with stronger conspiracy beliefs reported lower resentment against COVID-19 policies the more they perceived health threat. Results show the effects of conspiracy beliefs on procedural justice throughout and potentially also beyond the pandemic, while also pointing to important moderators.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social JusticeAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPerceptionPoliticsSARS-CoV-2Conspiracy beliefsCOVID-19 pandemicLatent growth curve analysisProcedural justice

Identifiers

PMID40830550
PMCPMC12365007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.