ArticleThe British journal of social psychology2026
Sharing conspiracy theories and staying in power: How leaders' false theories influence leadership perception.
Article in The British journal of social psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Research shows that spreading conspiracy theories impacts leaders' reputations; yet, it remains unclear how leaders are viewed when their theories are debunked. Across four studies (N = 1437), we explored whether conveying a conspiracy theory, regardless of its accuracy, influences followers' impressions of leader dominance, competence and warmth. Participants evaluated leaders who either incorrectly perceived (false-positive) or incorrectly misperceived (false-negative) a conspiracy about the cause of a simulated crisis. During intergroup conflict, false-positive leaders were seen as less warm, similarly competent, yet more dominant than false-negative leaders. The dominance gap grew when the consequences of overlooking a conspiracy were more severe. Conversely, in the absence of conflict, false-positive leaders were perceived as less warm and competent than false-negative leaders. These findings support an error management approach to conspiracy theories: Leaders who spread conspiracy theories, even if later debunked, are still perceived as strong leaders, particularly in conflict settings.
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.