Sammenlign metoder
Gennemgå dine valgte metoder side om side; rækker, der afviger, er fremhævet.
| Spørgeskema om konspirationstænkning× | Skala for behov for kognition i politik× | |
|---|---|---|
| Fagområde | Politisk psykologi | Politisk psykologi |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Oprindelsesår≠ | 2013 | 1982 |
| Ophavsperson≠ | Roland Imhoff & Marko Bruder | John T. Cacioppo & Richard E. Petty |
| Type | Self-report | Self-report |
| Oprindelig kilde≠ | Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic beliefs in conspiracy: Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225. DOI ↗ | Cacioppo, J. T., & Petty, R. E. (1982). The need for cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 116-131. DOI ↗ |
| Aliasser≠ | CMQ, Conspiracy Ideation Scale, Generic Conspiracy Belief | NFC-P, Political Need for Cognition |
| Relaterede | 3 | 3 |
| Resumé≠ | The Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire measures individual differences in generic conspiracy thinking—the tendency to attribute significant events to hidden, coordinated group actions by powerful actors rather than to incompetence, chance, or transparent public causes. Developed by Bruder et al. (2013), the five-item CMQ assesses a stable dispositional trait that predicts belief in diverse conspiracy theories (JFK assassination, 9/11 truthers, anti-vaccine narratives, QAnon) and distrust of institutions. It captures conspiracy mentality as a generalised political attitude distinct from specific beliefs. | The Need for Cognition in Politics Scale measures individual differences in the tendency to engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive processing related to political information and decision-making. Originally conceptualized by Cacioppo and Petty (1982), the trait reflects whether individuals seek, process, and rely on substantive information when forming political attitudes. High NFC individuals prefer detailed policy discussions; low NFC individuals may rely on heuristics, endorsements, or emotional appeals. |
| ScholarGateDatasæt ↗ |
|
|