Suspicions of Injustice: The Sense-Making Function of Belief in Conspiracy Theories

  • Jan-Willem van Prooijen


In contemporary society, people are frequently faced with threats to the social order (e.g., terrorist attacks). These threats often give rise to belief in conspiracy theories, which assume such events to be injustices that were secretly and deliberately planned by legitimate authorities or institutions. In the present chapter I propose that conspiracy beliefs are functional for basic sense-making desires when faced with events that threaten the social order. Recent findings indicate that contextual and personal factors that are likely to elicit sense-making activities (e.g., lacking control, feelings of uncertainty, high need for structure) increase the association between the perceived morality of institutions and conspiracy beliefs. Furthermore, additional findings reveal that an underlying mechanism why sense-making activities may lead to conspiracy beliefs is that people tend to attribute big causes to big events. To illuminate practical implications I connect these insights to knowledge on procedural justice, and reason that adhering to procedural justice principles may help to decrease conspiracy beliefs.


Social Order Procedural Justice Bush Administration Conspiracy Theory Conspiracy Belief 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Batson, C. D., Eklund, J. H., Chermok, V. L., Hoyt, J. L., & Ortiz, B. G. (2007). An additional antecedent of empathic concern: Valuing the welfare of the person in need. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 65–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers’ explanations of a layoff and survivors’ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brockner, J., Konovsky, M., Cooper-Schneider, R., Folger, R., Martin, C., & Bies, R. J. (1994). Interactive effects of procedural justice and outcome negativity on victims and survivors of job loss. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 397–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fiedler, K., Freytag, P., Unkelbach, C. (2010). Great oaks from giant acorns grow: How causal impact judgments depend on the strength of a cause. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41 162–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Folger, R., & Martin, C. (1986). Relative deprivation and referent cognitions: Distributive and procedural justice effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 531–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. (2006). The meaning maintenance model: On the coherence of social motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 88–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the government: Testing a compensatory control mechanism for the support of external systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 18–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kay, A. C., Whitson, J. A., Gaucher, D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2009). Compensatory control: Achieving order through the mind, our institutions, and the heavens. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 264–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kramer, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (1998). Getting by with a little help from our enemies: Collective paranoia and its role in intergroup relations. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behaviour (pp. 233–255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum associates.Google Scholar
  12. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCauley, C., & Jacques, S. (1979). The popularity of conspiracy theories of presidential assassination: A Bayesian analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Neuberg, S. L., & Newsom, J. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simple structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84, 231–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Park, L. C., & Folkman, S. (1997). Meaning in the context of stress and coping. Review of General Psychology, 2, 115–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pipes, D. (1997). Conspiracy: How the paranoid style flourishes and where it comes from. New York: Simon & Schusters.Google Scholar
  18. Robins, R. S., & Post, J. M. (1997). Political paranoia: The psychopolitics of hatred. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Sullivan, D., Landau, M. J., & Rothschild, Z. K. (2010). An existential function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 434–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of human uncertainty on reactions to perceived fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931–941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2001). The psychology of own versus other’s treatment: Self-oriented and other-oriented effects on perceptions of procedural justice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1324–1333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1–60). San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
  25. Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Jostmann, N. B. (2010). Belief in conspiracy theories: How uncertainty and perceived morality shape political paranoia. Unpublished manuscript, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  27. Van Prooijen, J.-W., Karremans, J. C., & Van Beest, I. (2006). Procedural justice and the hedonic principle: How approach versus avoidance motivation influences the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 686–697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Van Prooijen, J.-W., Van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2002). Procedural justice and status: Status salience as antecedent of procedural fairness effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1353–1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Van Prooijen, J.-W., & Van Dijk, E. (2011). The big cause effect: Perspective taking and consequence size shape belief in conspiracy theories. Unpublished manuscript, VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  30. Van Vugt, M., Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. (2008). Leadership, followership, and evolution. American Psychologist, 63, 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Whitson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). Lacking control increases illusory pattern perception. Science, 322, 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social PsychologyVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations