IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0230365.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Graham Drinkwater
  • Neil Dagnall
  • Andrew Denovan
  • Nick Neave

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Graham Drinkwater & Neil Dagnall & Andrew Denovan & Nick Neave, 2020. "Psychometric assessment of the Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230365
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230365
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230365
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0230365&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0230365?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. J. Eric Oliver & Thomas J. Wood, 2014. "Conspiracy Theories and the Paranoid Style(s) of Mass Opinion," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(4), pages 952-966, October.
    2. Viren Swami & David Barron & Laura Weis & Martin Voracek & Stefan Stieger & Adrian Furnham, 2017. "An examination of the factorial and convergent validity of four measures of conspiracist ideation, with recommendations for researchers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-27, February.
    3. Mohammad Atari & Reza Afhami & Viren Swami, 2019. "Psychometric assessments of Persian translations of three measures of conspiracist beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Fernando C. Gaspar, 2021. "Conspiracy Theories And Marketing: Lessons For Startups?," Economy & Business Journal, International Scientific Publications, Bulgaria, vol. 15(1), pages 313-322.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mohammad Atari & Reza Afhami & Viren Swami, 2019. "Psychometric assessments of Persian translations of three measures of conspiracist beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-18, April.
    2. Roland Imhoff & Felix Zimmer & Olivier Klein & João H. C. António & Maria Babinska & Adrian Bangerter & Michal Bilewicz & Nebojša Blanuša & Kosta Bovan & Rumena Bužarovska & Aleksandra Cichocka & Sylv, 2022. "Conspiracy mentality and political orientation across 26 countries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 392-403, March.
    3. Matteo Perini & Hein T. van Schie, 2024. "Rethinking the “Conspiracy Crisis”: Use and Misuse of “Conspiracy Theory” Labels After Covid‐19," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    4. Janet T. Y. Leung & Daniel T. L. Shek & Chak-Man Tang, 2023. "Development and Validation of the Chinese Family Resilience Scale in Families in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Serhan Cevik, 2024. "How Mumbo-Jumbo conquered the world: empirical analysis of conspiracy theories," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1-13, August.
    6. Jack P Hughes & Alexandros Efstratiou & Sara R Komer & Lilli A Baxter & Milica Vasiljevic & Ana C Leite, 2022. "The impact of risk perceptions and belief in conspiracy theories on COVID-19 pandemic-related behaviours," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Alexander Yendell & David Herbert, 2022. "Religion, Conspiracy Thinking, and the Rejection of Democracy: Evidence From the UK," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 229-242.
    8. Edson C. Tandoc Jr. & Ryan J. Thomas & Lauren Bishop, 2021. "What Is (Fake) News? Analyzing News Values (and More) in Fake Stories," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(1), pages 110-119.
    9. Jessica Dawson, 2019. "Shall not be infringed: how the NRA used religious language to transform the meaning of the Second Amendment," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. repec:zbw:bofitp:2015_014 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Libman, Alexander & Vollan, Björn, 2015. "Anti-Western conspiracy thinking and expectations of collusion: Evidence from Russia and China," BOFIT Discussion Papers 14/2015, Bank of Finland, Institute for Economies in Transition.
    12. Bernd Schlipphak & Mujtaba Isani & Mitja D. Back, 2022. "Conspiracy Theory Beliefs and Political Trust: The Moderating Role of Political Communication," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 10(4), pages 157-167.
    13. Neophytos Georgiou & Paul Delfabbro & Ryan Balzan, 2021. "Conspiracy-Beliefs and Receptivity to Disconfirmatory Information: A Study Using the BADE Task," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440211, March.
    14. Shadi Shahsavari & Pavan Holur & Tianyi Wang & Timothy R. Tangherlini & Vwani Roychowdhury, 2020. "Conspiracy in the time of corona: automatic detection of emerging COVID-19 conspiracy theories in social media and the news," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 279-317, November.
    15. Alexander Libman & Björn Vollan, 2019. "Anti-Western Conspiracy Thinking in China and Russia: Empirical Evidence and its Link to Expectations of Collusion," Homo Oeconomicus: Journal of Behavioral and Institutional Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 135-163, December.
    16. Carly Wood & David Barron & Nina Smyth, 2019. "The Current and Retrospective Intentional Nature Exposure Scales: Development and Factorial Validity," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(22), pages 1-18, November.
    17. J. Eric Oliver & Wendy M. Rahn, 2016. "Rise of the Trumpenvolk," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 667(1), pages 189-206, September.
    18. Adam Brzezinski & Valentin Kecht & David Dijcke & Austin L. Wright, 2021. "Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1519-1527, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0230365. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.