PCI Registered Reports

Announcements

Please note that we will be CLOSED to ALL SUBMISSIONS from 1 December 2024 through 12 January 2025 to give our recommenders and reviewers a holiday break.

We are recruiting recommenders (editors) from all research fields!

Your feedback matters! If you have authored or reviewed a Registered Report at Peer Community in Registered Reports, then please take 5 minutes to leave anonymous feedback about your experience, and view community ratings.

Back

580

Title *

The Effect of Brooding about Societal Problems on Conspiracy Beliefs: A Registered Reportuse asterix (*) to get italics

Authors *

Luisa Liekefett, Simone Sebben, Julia C. BeckerPlease use the format "First name initials family name" as in "Marie S. Curie, Niels H. D. Bohr, Albert Einstein, John R. R. Tolkien, Donna T. Strickland"

Year *

2023

Picture

Abstract *

<p>This Stage 2 Registered Report concerns the relationship between rumination, a repetitive style of negative thinking, and conspiracy beliefs (Stage 1 protocol: https://osf.io/y82bs, date of in-principle-acceptance: 23/05/2023). Based on four pilot studies, we tested in a fifth, registered study whether brooding, a particularly dysfunctional form of rumination, contributes to conspiracy beliefs using a repeated-measures within-person experiment (N = 1,638). Mean difference scores (conspiracy beliefs at T2 minus conspiracy beliefs at T1) were significantly greater in the brooding condition than in the control condition. However, we could neither confirm that this effect was larger than the specified smallest effect size of interest of d = 0.20, nor conclude that it was too small to be of interest (i.e., smaller than d = 0.20). We explored how reflection, an analytic form of rumination, impacted conspiracy beliefs. We further discuss implications for theories about the formation of conspiracy beliefs, and efforts aimed at preventing or reducing unfounded conspiracy beliefs. Hopefully, this article sparks a discussion among conspiracy belief researchers about how smallest effect sizes of interest could be determined in a principled way based on real-world outcomes.</p>

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these data (if you have any problems with the deposit of your data, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'All or part of the results presented in this preprint are based on data'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI or URL) giving public access to these scripts (if you have any problems with the deposit of your scripts, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Scripts were used to obtain or analyze the results'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Indicate the full web address (DOI, SWHID or URL) giving public access to these codes (if you have any problems with the deposit of your codes, please contact contact@rr.peercommunityin.org). *

You should fill this box only if you chose 'Codes have been used in this study'. URL must start with http:// or https://

Keywords (optional)

Conspiracy beliefs, rumination, brooding, reflection

Methods that require specific expertise (optional)

NonePlease indicate the methods that may require specialised expertise during the peer review process (use a comma to separate various required expertises).

Thematic fields *

Humanities, Social sciences

Suggested reviewers - Suggest up to 10 reviewers (provide names and Email addresses). (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

No need for them to be recommenders of PCI Registered Reports. Please do not suggest reviewers for whom there might be a conflict of interest. Reviewers are not allowed to review preprints written by close colleagues (with whom they have published in the last four years, with whom they have received joint funding in the last four years, or with whom they are currently writing a manuscript, or submitting a grant proposal), or by family members, friends, or anyone for whom bias might affect the nature of the review - see the code of conduct

Opposed reviewers - Suggest up to 5 people not to invite as reviewers. (Optional)

e.g. John Doe john@doe.com

Submission date

2023-10-19 17:46:59

Recommender

Chris Chambers

Reviewers

or Register
Submit a report

Announcements

MANAGING BOARD

MEMBER OF

INDEXED BY