A UK- and global-focused study published in Political Psychology concludes that exposure to conspiracy theories directly undermines belief in distributive justice—the idea that rewards and resources should be allocated fairly according to merit, equality and need. Led by Qi Zhao of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the research combines big‑data analysis with controlled experiments across the United States, China and a corporate workplace setting to test how conspiratorial thinking shapes views of social fairness.
In the initial phase, the team examined data from the World Value Survey, drawing on 90,837 participants across 68 societies. They compared responses to election‑related conspiracy beliefs—such as claims that the rich buy elections or that television news manipulates voters—with views about whether hard work typically yields a better life. The analysis revealed a steady negative association between endorsing conspiracy theories and faith in meritocracy.
The association held across both highly democratic and more authoritarian regimes and persisted after adjusting for levels of economic inequality, gross domestic product and perceived corruption. In short, the link between conspiratorial thinking and diminished trust in fair distribution of rewards appeared robust across varied national contexts.
To establish causality, the researchers carried out a US online experiment with 403 participants. Half of the cohort read a news report about a fictional local government misusing public funds, accompanied by evidence supporting the conspiracy theory; the other half read the same report with evidence refuting the allegations.
Following the reading material, participants judged how resources were handled in the fictional community. Those exposed to the conspiracy‑supporting evidence reported lower belief in meritocracy, as well as in the principles of equality and need. The study identified distrust in government as the principal psychological mechanism linking exposure to weaker fairness judgments.
A replication in China with 788 participants examined a scenario in which a local government colluded with the media to suppress negative news. As in the American sample, respondents who encountered evidence validating the conspiracy theory reported reduced faith in all three justice principles, with institutional distrust again acting as the key driver of the shift.
A final experiment moved away from government and into a corporate context. In the United States, 403 participants imagined they worked for an electronics company and read a rumour that the administration was hiding dangerous chemicals to avoid bad publicity. Those in the conspiracy‑supporting condition again showed a pronounced decline in belief that the company operated fairly, doubting that good work was rewarded, that employees were treated equally, or that worker needs were adequately met. Meritocracy declined too, though to a slightly lesser extent, possibly reflecting its deep entrenchment in corporate reward systems.
The researchers summed up their findings by arguing that conspiracy theories erode trust in administrative bodies, which in turn colours perceptions of fairness within organisations. The effects were strongest for perceptions of equality and need, with meritocracy also impacted but to a somewhat lesser degree.
Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge caveats. The experiments relied on fictional scenarios designed to manipulate beliefs, which may not perfectly capture the complexity of real‑world online narratives or long‑standing political identities. The study also focused on conspiracies involving powerful institutions such as governments and corporate boards; it remains unclear whether similar effects would arise from conspiracies targeting marginalised groups or ordinary citizens. Future work could explore these dimensions and whether experiences of real unfairness might themselves increase susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking.
The study, “Not a real meritocracy? How conspiracy beliefs reduce perceived distributive justice,” is credited to Qi Zhao, Jan-Willem van Prooijen and Giuliana Spadaro.
