A Fascinating Journal Article by Psychology Professor Jan-Willem van Prooijen

I recently read this journal article by psychology professor Jan-Willem van Prooijen and found some fascinating information about conspiracy theories.

van Prooijen claims that motivational perspectives (epistemic, existential, and social motives) fall short of clarifying the psychological benefits of conspiracy beliefs. He states that while these theoretical models may imply that conspiracy theories satisfy basic psychological needs, people do not actually benefit from conspiracy beliefs in this manner.

According to van Prooijen, conspiracy theories are unsuccessful in satisfying these basic needs for existential, epistemic, and social needs because much of the evidence provided is inconclusive, and people do not benefit from conspiracy beliefs in this manner. For instance, the epistemic assumption that people endorse conspiracism because of the need to acquire answers is not entirely correct as conspiracy beliefs do not reduce—sometimes increase—anxiety, uncertainty, and threats.

Conspiracy theories can provide short-term psychological benefits relating to instant or immediate gratification. Conspiracy theories can stimulate a sense of meaning and purpose that is psychologically rewarding where people can construct an alternative reality where they are the main characters. More specifically, conspiracy theories allow people to defend their egos by perceiving themselves as important, rationalizing beliefs as correct, and entertaining themselves by solving a mystery. 

To a certain extent, I disagree with van Prooijen as I believe that motivational perspectives—epistemic, existential, and social motives—more strongly explain the psychological benefits of conspiracy beliefs to those individuals who struggle with certain personality traits or are affected by environmental factors. However, simultaneously I believe that van Prooijen’s argument further helps to explain the benefits of believing in conspiracy theories.