Conspiracy theories appear to erode public faith in meritocracy

When people buy into conspiracy theories, their faith in the fairness of society begins to erode. New research published in Political Psychology shows that exposure to conspiratorial narratives directly reduces the belief that resources are distributed based on merit, equality, or need. The findings suggest that suspicions of hidden plots foster a deep distrust of institutions, coloring how individuals view the basic rules of social and economic life.

Meritocracy is the idea that society rewards talent and hard work. Many political leaders and cultural narratives lean heavily on this concept to motivate citizens and justify existing economic structures. Alongside equality and need, meritocracy forms the foundation of what psychologists call distributive justice. This term refers to the perceived fairness of how a community divides its wealth, opportunities, and resources.

Public perception of these justice principles dictates how well a society functions. When people believe the system is fair, they are more likely to cooperate and follow the rules. Alternatively, widespread perceptions of injustice can foster resentment and social instability.

Researchers have extensively studied how income disparities and social mobility affect these views. Little research has examined how conspiratorial thinking influences ideas about fairness. Conspiracy theories typically allege that malevolent, secretive groups are orchestrating events for their own benefit. Because these narratives frame elites as exploitative and corrupt, they naturally conflict with the notion of a fair society.

A team of researchers led by Qi Zhao, a psychologist at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, set out to test this dynamic. They wanted to know if believing in a conspiracy theory makes people less likely to view the world as fair. The team designed a combination of survey analyses and experiments to see if conspiratorial beliefs alter how people perceive the distribution of resources.

In their first study, the researchers analyzed data from the World Value Survey, a large international dataset. The sample included 90,837 participants across 68 different societies. The researchers looked at survey items measuring beliefs in election fraud conspiracies, such as the idea that rich people buy elections or that television news manipulates voters.

They compared these responses to a question asking whether hard work usually brings a better life. The results showed a consistent negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs and faith in meritocracy. People who endorsed election fraud narratives were less likely to believe that effort leads to success.

This pattern held true regardless of whether a country had a highly democratic government or an authoritarian one. The researchers also accounted for national differences in economic inequality, gross domestic product, and expert ratings of corruption. The link between conspiracy beliefs and diminished faith in meritocracy remained intact across these varied environments.

Because the survey could only show a correlation, the researchers conducted an experiment to test for a causal effect. They recruited 403 participants in the United States for an online study. Half of the participants 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 but with evidence refuting the allegations.

Afterward, participants rated their agreement with statements about how resources were handled in the fictional community. Those exposed to the supporting evidence reported lower belief in meritocracy. They also expressed less belief in the principles of equality, which assumes everyone gets an equal share, and need, which dictates that resources go to those who require them most.

The experiment demonstrated that adopting a conspiracy belief directly lowered perceptions of distributive justice. The researchers also tested potential psychological mechanisms behind this shift. They found that distrust in government acted as a primary bridge, explaining how exposure to the conspiracy theory led to lower ratings of fairness.

The researchers then replicated this experiment with 788 participants in China to see if the effect crossed cultural boundaries. Chinese culture traditionally places a stronger emphasis on equality and need compared to the merit-focused culture of the United States. The scenario in this experiment involved a local government colluding with the media to suppress negative news and control the public.

Just as in the American sample, participants who read evidence validating the conspiracy theory reported lower faith in all three justice principles. They were less likely to believe that the fictional society rewarded hard work, distributed resources equally, or helped those in need. Institutional distrust once again served as the psychological mechanism driving these negative perceptions.

To test whether these dynamics exist outside of civic government, the team conducted a final experiment focused on a corporate workplace. They recruited another 403 American participants and asked them to imagine working for an electronics company. The participants read a rumor that the company’s administration was deliberately hiding the presence of dangerous chemicals to avoid bad publicity.

Similar to the previous experiments, participants received information either confirming or debunking the corporate cover-up. Those in the confirmation group displayed a pronounced drop in their belief that the company operated fairly. They doubted that the administration rewarded good work, treated employees equally, or accommodated worker needs.

The researchers concluded that conspiracy theories degrade trust in administrative bodies, which in turn poisons the perception of fairness in an organizational setting. The effect was especially pronounced for the principles of equality and need. Meritocracy perceptions were also reduced, though they remained slightly more resilient, likely because performance-based rewards are deeply ingrained in corporate structures.

A few caveats apply to how these results translate to the real world. The experiments relied on fictional scenarios to manipulate beliefs, which might not perfectly mirror the deeply entrenched narratives people encounter online or in their communities. Real-world conspiracy theories often tie into long-standing political identities, making them harder to accept or reject based on a single piece of evidence.

The studies focused entirely on conspiracy theories involving powerful institutions like governments and corporate boards. It is unknown if conspiracies targeting marginalized groups or ordinary citizens would have the same effect on perceptions of societal fairness. Future research might explore whether narratives about less powerful groups also erode trust in the broader economic system.

Additionally, while the experiments showed that conspiracy beliefs cause a drop in perceived fairness, the reverse might also happen outside the laboratory. Experiencing genuine unfairness might make people more susceptible to conspiratorial thinking. Examining this cycle could help psychologists understand how institutional distrust deepens over time.

The study, “Not a real meritocracy? How conspiracy beliefs reduce perceived distributive justice,” was authored by Qi Zhao, Jan-Willem van Prooijen, and Giuliana Spadaro.