The Impact of Conspiracy Thinking on Well-Being 50%

By Willis Klein BSc.68%

8/1/2026, 9:16:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 1,137 faulty-reasoning hits from 688 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.8% and a BS Rank of 50% (13,826 of 27,550 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.20% of the article peer group.

Do you have a friend or loved one who believes in conspiracy theories? 
According to a 2017 study published in the Journal of Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, the chances that you do are quite high. 
The study's authors report that over a quarter of the 5645 American adults surveyed endorsed some form of conspiracy theory. 
Some researchers estimate that as much as one-third of people may endorse some form of conspiracy theory. 
Some conspiracy theories may seem harmless enough at first glance. 
Something is endearing about the kitschy Bigfoot-sighting maps available at gas stations in the Pacific Northwest and images of little green men in flying saucers flying over the Nevada desert. 
Unfortunately, conspiracy theories are not all kitschy fun; they often lead to racist and antisemitic explanations for a wide variety of social problems. 
In a 2026 article published in Applied Cognitive Psychology, psychologist Andrew Denovan and his co-authors explain that a core aspect of conspiracy theories is that they “attribute major events or circumstances to the coordinated, purposeful, and covert actions of powerful actors,” challenging mainstream institutional narratives. 
While the vast majority of these challenges to mainstream narratives are totally false, conspiracy theorists have been proven correct on occasion. 
One example of an event that is now widely accepted as real but was once dismissed as conspiracy is the MKUltra experiments, a Cold War-era program of research that aimed to create super soldiers and mind control techniques. 
The victims of the MKUltra experiments were subjected to psychological torture. 
Similarly, Watergate, the political scandal involving illegal wiretapping of the Democratic National Convention, is now widely accepted as fact, but was once thought of as a conspiracy. 
Conspiracy theorists are often portrayed as isolated loners, with little going for them—like Jesse Plemons’ recent portrayal of Teddy Gatz in the film Bugonia. 
But if as much as a third of people endorse conspiracy theories, your average conspiracy theorist is unlikely to be much like the isolated misanthrope that might come to mind when we imagine them. 
**What impact does endorsing conspiracy theories have on believers? 
** 
Denovan and his team wanted to investigate the relationship between believing in conspiracy theories and self-evaluation, meaning, and life satisfaction. 
They reasoned that conspiracy theorists believe malicious and powerful forces surround them, and they likely have a threat-focused cognitive processing style. 
Threat-focused cognitive processing is associated with reduced self-esteem, meaning, and life satisfaction; the study's authors hypothesized that individuals who endorse conspiracy theories would also be lower on these variables. 
They sampled 615 participants in the United Kingdom, ages 19 to 82, every two months for eight months. 
They found that higher levels of conspiratorial ideation were associated with more pessimism and less self-esteem. 
Pessimism and low self-esteem were associated with less presence of meaning in life; however, conspiratorial ideation was associated with more presence of meaning in life and search for meaning in life. 
The presence of meaning in life was associated with more life satisfaction, whereas lower self-esteem and search for meaning in life were associated with less life satisfaction. 
While the relationship between conspiracy theory and life satisfaction is complicated, overall, the endorsement of conspiracy theory was linked to lower levels of life satisfaction. 
However, the study's authors caution that their study's design cannot show causality. 
Why might someone believe in a conspiracy theory? 
It seems that while conspiracy theories are associated with lower overall life satisfaction, they could also increase a sense of meaning in life in some cases. 
Believing in conspiracy theories may also help provide a sense of community. 
Furthermore, conspiracy theories have occasionally been proven correct. 
The conspiracist may also interpret the negative consequences of their theories as being further evidence for their convictions. 
In the mind of the conspiracy theorists, lower life satisfaction may be a natural consequence of having taken the “red pill” or refused their dose of “Soma.” 
Denovan and his co-authors have a few suggestions for combating conspiracy thinking. 
They suggest that interventions aimed at improving self-esteem and fostering meaning in life may help break the patterns of thinking that lead to such theories. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 5.1%Psychology Today: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.5%Psychology Today: 0.4%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 10.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 5.8%Psychology Today: 2.3%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 4.9%Willis Klein BSc.: 3.0%Psychology Today: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 3.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.3%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.1%Psychology Today: 2.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.3%Psychology Today: 3.5%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 5.3%Psychology Today: 3.7%Negativity Bias14.1%This article: 2.6%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.6%Psychology Today: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias2.6%This article: 3.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.9%Psychology Today: 0.6%In-Group Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.2%Psychology Today: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.1%Psychology Today: 0.8%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.9%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.0%Psychology Today: 0.8%Recency Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.5%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.7%Psychology Today: 0.2%Straw Man3.5%This article: 16.6%Willis Klein BSc.: 5.0%Psychology Today: 4.6%Appeal to Authority16.6%This article: 4.9%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.2%Psychology Today: 2.3%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.6%Willis Klein BSc.: 2.4%Psychology Today: 0.3%Circular Reasoning2.6%This article: 22.2%Willis Klein BSc.: 9.4%Psychology Today: 7.6%Hasty Generalization22.2%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.2%Willis Klein BSc.: 2.5%Psychology Today: 1.9%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 3.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.8%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 9.7%Willis Klein BSc.: 3.3%Psychology Today: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.7%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 2.7%Psychology Today: 2.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.5%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.1%Psychology Today: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.5%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.8%Psychology Today: 0.2%Middle Ground3.1%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.5%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.6%Psychology Today: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.5%This article: 6.5%Willis Klein BSc.: 1.6%Psychology Today: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 6.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 4.2%Psychology Today: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice6.0%This article: 4.9%Willis Klein BSc.: 2.1%Psychology Today: 4.8%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Willis Klein BSc.: 0.0%Psychology Today: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

688 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers35%attributed speech444writer words
Selected voice

Andrew Denovan

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words18% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Denovan: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Denovan: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Andrew Denovan: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Andrew Denovan: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.