People who heavily endorse conspiracy theories often take on the role of online “social vigilantes,” seeking to correct the perceived ignorance of others. New research suggests that this tendency to act as self-appointed enforcers of truth online is largely driven by feelings of superiority and a desire for self-enhancement. The findings were published in Personality and Individual Differences.
Conspiracy theories often provide people with a dual sense of identity. Believers tend to view themselves as part of a privileged minority that has uncovered hidden truths, while also casting themselves as heroic underdogs fighting against powerful forces. Earlier research established that believing in conspiracy theories is closely tied to narcissism and feelings of intellectual superiority.
For instance, a review covered by PsyPost in 2024 found that one of the strongest personality traits linked to conspiracy beliefs is a tendency to act antagonistic and superior to others. Along similar lines, a 2022 review indicated that narcissistic desires to feel special and dominant make conspiracy narratives especially appealing, as they allow believers to feel uniquely insightful.
This prior research set the stage for a new question. Does this sense of superiority motivate conspiracy theorists to actively police and attack others on the internet? The research, led by Achilleas Piliousis, a PhD candidate in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, investigated how and why people transform their private conspiracy beliefs into aggressive online behavior.
“The idea for this research originated from an observation that had intrigued me for several years, particularly in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic,” Piliousis said. “I noticed that some people who endorsed conspiracy beliefs—for example, about vaccines or climate change—did not simply express their views. They would also attack, disparage, or publicly shame those who disagreed with them, while portraying themselves as people who had ‘seen the truth’ and dismissing others as ‘sheep’ or ‘asleep’.”
“This led me to wonder whether conspiracy thinking might sometimes be associated with such online behaviors through social vigilantism, that is, the belief that one possesses superior knowledge or insight while simultaneously feeling a responsibility to expose, correct, or even police those perceived as ignorant or misinformed,” Piliousis explained.
To explore this idea, the researchers conducted three separate studies. The first study included 139 Greek adults and measured their general conspiracy thinking along with their belief in specific conspiracy theories about climate change and cancer. The participants also completed surveys measuring their levels of social vigilantism, dogmatism, intellectual humility, and narcissism. Piliousis and his colleagues found a moderate positive association between all the conspiracy variables and social vigilantism. Even when accounting for general arrogance, stubbornness, and close-mindedness, holding conspiracy beliefs remained a strong predictor of wanting to aggressively correct others.
The second study tested whether these vigilante tendencies actually translate into confrontational online habits. The research team surveyed 116 Greek participants, asking them about their beliefs in climate change conspiracy theories and their daily online behaviors. This included their willingness to argue online, their intent to participate in online shaming, and how they would comment on hypothetical Facebook posts about climate change.
One post featured factual information, while the other featured misinformation. The results indicated that climate change conspiracy beliefs indirectly predicted both a willingness to argue online and a desire to participate in online shaming, suggesting that the drive to act as a norm enforcer pushes believers toward aggressive digital habits.
“One key takeaway is that conspiracy thinking seems to be more than simply believing in particular conspiracy theories,” Piliousis noted. “When it becomes a broader lens through which people interpret the social world, it may shape how individuals perceive themselves and others.”
To see if these patterns held up in a different cultural context, the researchers conducted a third study with 188 participants from the United States. In this round, the team focused on general conspiracy thinking and asked participants about their actual frequency of getting into conflicts on social media over the past twelve months. They also wanted to see if specific types of narcissism were driving this behavior. As a result, they measured two distinct aspects of grandiose narcissism: narcissistic admiration, which is the desire to be seen as a great personality, and narcissistic rivalry, which involves an antagonistic desire to see others fail.
The findings from the American sample mirrored the earlier results. Conspiracy thinking indirectly predicted online argumentation, shaming intentions, and actual social media conflict, again acting through the channel of social vigilantism. Interestingly, when the researchers factored in narcissistic admiration, the statistical link between conspiracy thinking and social vigilantism weakened substantially.
“One finding that I found particularly interesting was the role of the agentic facet of narcissism, particularly narcissistic admiration,” Piliousis said. “Our findings suggest that self-enhancement motives may play an important role in these relationships.” Rather than acting as selfless heroes trying to save an unwitting public from danger, conspiracy theorists might engage in online enforcement largely to serve their own egos.
As Piliousis explained, “the adoption of a social vigilante role among conspiracy theorists may partly reflect self-focused motives, such as self-enhancement, self-affirmation, and the pursuit of status.”
The authors noted a few limitations in their work. “The nature of our data does not allow us to establish causal relationships,” Piliousis said. “Our findings indicate associations between the variables, but they cannot tell us what causes what. For this reason, longitudinal studies are needed to examine the direction of these relationships and provide stronger evidence for our theoretical proposal.”
The studies also relied heavily on self-reported intentions rather than directly observing how participants behaved on social media platforms. People might claim they would engage in online shaming, but they may not always follow through in a real-world setting. Future research could look at real comment sections and public conflicts to see how these dynamics play out in everyday life.
It is also an open question how the confrontational style of these social vigilantes affects passive observers on the internet. A highly aggressive approach to spreading conspiracy theories might make the ideas seem more visible and widespread, or it might backfire and push people away by coming across as overly hostile.
The study, “Conspiracy thinking and online surveillance: The rise of the “social vigilante”,” was authored by Achilleas Piliousis and Antonis Gardikiotis.