This study investigates the predictive influence of conspiracy beliefs on two central forms of counterproductive workplace behavior: organizational deviance and resistance to change. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected from a sample of 250 employees working in a manufacturing firm. Participants completed standardized Likert-scale questionnaires assessing conspiracy beliefs, organizational deviance, and resistance to change. The central objective was to determine whether employees who strongly endorse conspiracy beliefs are more likely to engage in deviant workplace behaviors and demonstrate heightened resistance to organizational transformation.
Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results revealed significant positive correlations between conspiracy beliefs and both organizational deviance (r = .47, p < .01) and resistance to change (r = .52, p < .001). Regression analyses confirmed that conspiracy beliefs were strong predictors of organizational deviance (β = .43, p < .001) and resistance to change (β = .48, p < .001). The SEM results supported the hypothesized model, indicating good model fit (χ²/df = 2.15, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .056).
These findings underscore the psychological impact of conspiratorial thinking on workplace behavior. They suggest that organizations should address underlying mistrust and communication breakdowns to reduce deviant behavior and promote readiness for change.
Table of Contents
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Hypotheses
3. Purpose of the Study
4. Literature Review
5. Methodological Framework
5.1 Research Design
5.2 Population and Sample
5.3 Data Collection Instruments
5.4 Reliability and Validity
5.5 Data Collection Procedures
5.6 Data Analysis Techniques
6. Findings
6.1 Distribution of the Sample by Demographic Variables
6.2 Descriptive Statistics
6.3 Correlation Analysis
6.4 Regression Analysis
6.5 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
6.1 Summary of the Structural Equation Model (SEM)
6.1.1 Model Structure and Hypothesized Paths
6.1.2 Path Coefficients and Statistical Significance
6.1.3 Model Fit and Adequacy
6.1.4 Explained Variance (Predictive Power)
6.1.5 Theoretical Interpretation
6.1.6 Conclusion of the SEM Analysis
7. Discussion and Conclusion
7.1 Conclusion
8. Recommendations
9. References
Conspiracy Beliefs as Predictors of Organizational Deviance and Resistance to Change:
A Case Study of a Work Group
Understanding the Behavioral Consequences of Conspiracy Theories in Workplace Dynamics
Salah Laggoune Researcher specializing in organizational behavior and the social psychology of organizations, ergonomics with a focus on economic behavior and consumer decision-making. Constantine 2 University; department of psychology and education sciences, Algeria
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0000-5725-3445
Abstract
This study investigates the predictive influence of conspiracy beliefs on two central forms of counterproductive workplace behavior: organizational deviance and resistance to change. Using a quantitative research design, data were collected from a sample of 250 employees working in a manufacturing firm. Participants completed standardized Likert-scale questionnaires assessing conspiracy beliefs, organizational deviance, and resistance to change. The central objective was to determine whether employees who strongly endorse conspiracy beliefs are more likely to engage in deviant workplace behaviors and demonstrate heightened resistance to organizational transformation.
Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, Pearson’s correlation, multiple regression, and structural equation modeling (SEM). The results revealed significant positive correlations between conspiracy beliefs and both organizational deviance (r = .47, p < .01) and resistance to change (r = .52, p < .001). Regression analyses confirmed that conspiracy beliefs were strong predictors of organizational deviance (β = .43, p < .001) and resistance to change (β = .48, p < .001). The SEM results supported the hypothesized model, indicating good model fit (χ²/df = 2.15, CFI = .94, RMSEA = .056).
These findings underscore the psychological impact of conspiratorial thinking on workplace behavior. They suggest that organizations should address underlying mistrust and communication breakdowns to reduce deviant behavior and promote readiness for change.
Keywords: conspiracy beliefs, organizational deviance, resistance to change, structural equation modeling, mistrust
1. Introduction
Organizations operate as dynamic systems that rely on trust, collaboration, and adaptability to sustain performance and competitiveness (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Within such environments, employees’ cognitive frameworks particularly their beliefs about fairness, authority, and transparency—play a crucial role in shaping their behavioral responses (Aquino et al., 1999). Among these frameworks, conspiracy beliefs have emerged as an important psychological construct that influences both interpersonal and organizational functioning (Douglas et al., 2019, p. 4).
Conspiracy beliefs refer to the tendency to interpret significant events as the result of secretive actions by powerful groups (Douglas et al., 2019). In organizational settings, employees who hold such beliefs may interpret managerial decisions as manipulative or intentionally concealed, which can weaken cooperation and diminish trust (van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014, p. 150).
Recent developments in organizational psychology have increasingly examined how belief systems influence counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs) (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Organizational deviance defined as deliberate actions that violate organizational norms and harm either the organization or its members—often emerges in contexts where employees perceive injustice, exclusion, or a lack of transparency (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, p. 349). Similarly, resistance to change refers to employees’ opposition or reluctance toward alterations in organizational structures, policies, or technologies (Oreg, 2006). Both forms of behavior are closely linked to employees’ perceptions of trust and fairness within their organizations (Rousseau, 1995).
The increasing spread of misinformation and conspiracy narratives in society has raised concerns about their influence in workplaces (Douglas et al., 2021). Employees exposed to conspiratorial content may develop stronger suspicions toward management, particularly during periods of restructuring, technological innovation, or other organizational transformations (Douglas et al., 2021, p. 12). As a result, these beliefs can reduce motivation, increase disengagement, and promote behaviors such as absenteeism, sabotage, or withdrawal (Pohorsky, 2020). Nevertheless, empirical research on this topic remains scarce, especially in non-Western organizational contexts (Jolley & Paterson, 2020).
The present study seeks to address this gap by examining how conspiracy beliefs predict organizational deviance and resistance to change among 250 employees working in a manufacturing organization. Drawing on theories of organizational trust and psychological contract breach, this research posits that conspiracy beliefs represent a form of cognitive mistrust that distorts employees’ perceptions of managerial intentions (Rousseau, 1995, p. 20). Employees who hold stronger conspiracy beliefs may feel deceived by authority figures, leading to behavioral resistance and deviance (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014).
This investigation contributes to the literature in three key ways. First, it empirically tests a novel predictive model linking conspiratorial thinking to workplace outcomes (Douglas et al., 2019). Second, it extends this line of research to a non-Western industrial context, thereby enriching cross-cultural understanding (Pohorsky, 2020). Third, it offers practical insights for organizational leaders and psychologists seeking to reduce deviant behaviors and improve change management through transparent communication and trust-building practices (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999, p. 301).
This investigation contributes to the literature in three key ways. First, it empirically tests a novel predictive model linking conspiratorial thinking to workplace outcomes. Second, it extends this line of research to a non-Western industrial context, thereby enriching cross-cultural understanding. Third, it offers practical insights for organizational leaders and psychologists seeking to reduce deviant behaviors and improve change management through transparent communication and trust-building practices.
In modern organizations, effective performance depends not only on technical competence but also on psychological factors such as trust, openness, and fairness (Blau, 1964). When employees hold conspiracy beliefs—the conviction that management conceals the truth or operates with hidden agendas—these perceptions can erode both interpersonal and organizational trust (van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014). This erosion often manifests in two harmful outcomes: (1) increased organizational deviance, as employees disengage or retaliate, and (2) heightened resistance to change, as they oppose reforms they believe conceal ulterior motives (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Although public awareness of conspiracy thinking has grown worldwide, its organizational consequences remain underexplored (Jolley & Paterson, 2020). The core research problem of this study is therefore: To what extent do conspiracy beliefs among employees predict organizational deviance and resistance to change within a work group? Exploring this question is essential for understanding how cognitive biases and mistrust influence workplace behavior, obstruct adaptation, and ultimately reduce organizational effectiveness (Douglas et al., 2021).
2. Hypotheses
Based on the theoretical foundations and previous empirical evidence, the following hypotheses were formulated to guide this study:
· H1: Conspiracy beliefs are positively correlated with organizational deviance (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
· H2: Conspiracy beliefs are positively correlated with resistance to change (Oreg, 2006).
· H3: Conspiracy beliefs significantly predict organizational deviance (Douglas et al., 2019).
· H4: Conspiracy beliefs significantly predict resistance to change (Pohorsky, 2020).
· H5: A structural model incorporating conspiracy beliefs, organizational deviance, and resistance to change will demonstrate acceptable model fit indices (Kline, 2016, p. 12).
These hypotheses collectively propose that conspiracy beliefs serve as cognitive antecedents to counterproductive and resistant behaviors within organizational settings (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014). Employees who perceive managerial actions as manipulative or concealed are expected to show higher levels of deviant behavior and stronger resistance to change initiatives (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999).
3. Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study is to empirically examine the predictive influence of conspiracy beliefs on organizational deviance and resistance to change among employees in a manufacturing company (Douglas et al., 2021). Specifically, the study seeks to determine whether higher levels of conspiratorial thinking among employees are associated with greater engagement in deviant workplace behaviors and stronger opposition to organizational transformation efforts (Bennett & Robinson, 2000).
Additionally, the research aims to validate a structural equation model (SEM) that explains how conspiracy beliefs influence behavioral outcomes through mechanisms of mistrust and perceived manipulation (Kline, 2016). By fulfilling this objective, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the cognitive and attitudinal processes underlying counterproductive work behavior (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014, p. 40).
The findings are intended to offer practical insights for organizational leaders and psychologists seeking to design effective interventions that foster transparency, open communication, and trust during organizational change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Enhancing these factors can help mitigate deviant tendencies and improve employees’ readiness for change, ultimately promoting healthier and more adaptive organizational environments (Rousseau, 1995).
4. Literature Reviews
The relationship between cognitive beliefs and workplace behavior has attracted growing attention within organizational psychology (Douglas et al., 2019). Conspiracy beliefs, defined as a generalized mistrust toward institutions and the assumption that powerful actors secretly manipulate events (Douglas et al., 2019), have traditionally been explored in political and social contexts. However, when these beliefs are transferred into the workplace, they can meaningfully influence organizational dynamics (van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014). Employees who suspect that management conceals essential information or acts deceitfully may interpret legitimate decisions as evidence of manipulation, which can erode organizational commitment and increase deviant behavior (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014, p. 35).
4-1-Conspiracy Beliefs in General and Organizational Contexts: A Review of Psychological Antecedents, Consequences, and Interventions
Conspiracy beliefs defined as attributions of significant events to secret, malevolent plots by powerful actors have captured the attention of scholars across psychology, political science, and management studies. While traditionally viewed as fringe phenomena, these beliefs have become mainstream forces shaping public discourse, political behavior, and workplace dynamics. This review examines two interconnected streams of literature: general conspiracy beliefs (examined at the societal and individual levels) and organizational conspiracy beliefs (examined within workplace settings). By integrating findings from both domains, we aim to provide a comprehensive understanding of the causes, consequences, and potential remedies for conspiratorial thinking.
1-General Conspiracy Beliefs: Psychological Motives and Societal Impact
1.1 The Three Motive Classes
A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis by Biddlestone et al. (2025), which analyzed 971 effect sizes from 279 studies, synthesized the psychological motives underlying conspiracy beliefs into three broad classes:
• Epistemic Motives: The desire for understanding, certainty, and coherent explanations. When official accounts are perceived as unsatisfying or incomplete, individuals turn to alternative narratives that provide a sense of clarity (Biddlestone et al., 2025).
• Existential Motives: The need for security and control. Conspiracy narratives are particularly appealing during times of anxiety, threat, and perceived loss of personal agency (Biddlestone et al., 2025).
• Social Motives: The need to belong and maintain a positive social identity. Sharing conspiracy beliefs can foster group cohesion and reinforce a shared worldview (Biddlestone et al., 2025).
The meta-analysis found significant relationships between all three motive classes and conspiracy beliefs, although effect sizes varied considerably. Notably, the relationships were generally weaker in experimental designs compared to correlational studies, indicating a need for more causal research (Biddlestone et al., 2025).
1.2 Societal and Political Dimensions
Beyond individual psychology, conspiracy beliefs have profound societal implications. Federico (2022) argued that rapid social change elicits uncertainty, insecurity, and a sense of loss of control—conditions that are closely linked to increased conspiratorial thinking. While this can sometimes bolster faith in existing systems as a defensive reaction, it can also fuel radical resistance against a status quo perceived as corrupt. The political consequences are far-reaching: conspiracy beliefs have been associated with political violence, polarization, erosion of trust in scientific and health authorities, and democratic backsliding (Federico, 2022). The COVID-19 pandemic exemplified these dynamics, with conspiracy theories undermining public health measures and vaccine uptake worldwide.
1.3 Interventions to Reduce Conspiracy Beliefs
Given the harmful consequences, developing effective interventions has become a research priority. A recent meta-analysis by Stasielowicz (2025), synthesizing 273 effect sizes from 56 samples, found that interventions have a small but significant average effect (g = 0.16) on reducing conspiracy beliefs. The analysis identified that interventions adopting specific evidence-based recommendations—particularly fact-checking conspiracy claims and tailoring intervention content to specific beliefs—can achieve larger effects (exceeding g = 0.3). However, the study also noted that 82% of the available studies were at high risk of bias, and there is a scarcity of research on long-term intervention effects. Stasielowicz (2025) called for more robust, longitudinal research to determine the durability of intervention outcomes.
2. Organizational Conspiracy Beliefs: Antecedents, Mechanisms, and Consequences
2.1 Foundational Definitions and Consequences
Organizational conspiracy beliefs are a specific subset of conspiracy theories occurring within the workplace. They are defined as employees' attributions of problematic changes and events to secret, malevolent plots by powerful actors within their organizations (Douglas & Leite, 2017). Workplaces are considered a "fertile ground" for conspiracy beliefs due to inherent power disparities, hierarchical structures, and a potential lack of transparency (Douglas & Leite, 2017).
The foundational study by Douglas and Leite (2017) established this concept and demonstrated its negative consequences. Using multiple samples, they found that organizational conspiracy beliefs were significantly associated with increased turnover intention—employees who believed in organizational conspiracies were more likely to consider leaving their jobs. The authors argued that managers should not dismiss such conspiratorial thinking as harmless rumor or gossip, as it can have significant adverse effects on workplace attitudes and behaviors (Douglas & Leite, 2017).
2.2 Antecedents: Communication, Leadership, and Ethics
Subsequent research has expanded on understanding the antecedents of organizational conspiracy beliefs. Tam, Lee, and Kim (2025) tested a model of workplace conspiracy attribution (WCA) using survey data from 600 South Korean employees. Their findings revealed that:
• Two-way communication (open, dialogic communication between management and employees) is a negative predictor of WCA.
• Perceived ethical orientation of the organization is also negatively associated with WCA.
• Perceived ethical orientation mediates the relationship between two-way communication and WCA.
• WCA is positively associated with both turnover intention and whistleblowing potential (Tam, Lee, & Kim, 2025).
These results suggest that fostering transparent communication and ethical organizational cultures can mitigate conspiratorial thinking in the workplace.
Leadership also plays a critical role. Fousiani, Xu, and van Prooijen (2025) explored how employees' perceptions of leader power influence organizational conspiracy beliefs and subsequent behaviors. They found that when employees perceive their leader's power as an "opportunity" (PaO) that is, a means for personal gain—this perception is positively related to organizational conspiracy beliefs. In turn, these beliefs predict employee malevolent creativity (harmful, creative behavior aimed at damaging the organization). Conversely, perceiving leader power as a "responsibility" (PaR) was negatively related to malevolent creativity through reduced conspiracy beliefs (Fousiani, Xu, & van Prooijen, 2025). This study highlights the importance of leader power construal in shaping employee cognitions and behaviors.
2.3 Psychological Mechanisms: Disappointment and Dissonance
The psychology of organizational conspiracy is also linked to broader individual experiences and emotional states. Furnham and Horne (2022) investigated demographic factors, entitlement, and workplace disappointment as predictors of belief in cover-ups and conspiracies. They found that factors such as sex, education, ethnicity, and political beliefs, along with feelings of workplace disappointment defined as perceived organizational hypocrisy and lack of personal respect—significantly predicted conspiracy beliefs in the workplace (Furnham & Horne, 2022).
Additionally, Huang and Whitson (2020) established a novel psychological mechanism: mind-body dissonance. This refers to the psychological state of having to display emotions incongruent with one's true feelings, a common experience in service-oriented roles. Their research demonstrated that mind-body dissonance leads employees to be more open to conspiracy theories and less trusting of their organizations, thereby compromising rational decision-making (Huang & Whitson, 2020). This finding underscores how emotional labor and organizational demands can inadvertently foster conspiratorial thinking.
3. Integrative Themes and Future Directions
The literature on conspiracy beliefs both general and organizational—reveals several integrative themes. First, both streams emphasize the role of uncertainty and perceived lack of control as key drivers. Whether at the societal level (rapid social change) or organizational level (poor communication, unethical leadership), conditions of uncertainty amplify conspiratorial thinking (Federico, 2022; Tam, Lee, & Kim, 2025). Second, interventions at both levels share common strategies: fact-checking, transparency, and tailored communication (Stasielowicz, 2025; Tam, Lee, & Kim, 2025). Third, the consequences are uniformly negative, ranging from political violence and democratic erosion to turnover intention and malevolent creativity (Federico, 2022; Douglas & Leite, 2017; Fousiani, Xu, & van Prooijen, 2025).
However, significant gaps remain. Biddlestone et al. (2025) noted the need for more experimental and longitudinal research to establish causality. Stasielowicz (2025) highlighted the scarcity of studies on long-term intervention effects. At the organizational level, most studies rely on cross-sectional survey designs, limiting causal inference (Tam, Lee, & Kim, 2025; Fousiani, Xu, & van Prooijen, 2025). Future research should adopt multi-level, integrative approaches that bridge individual, organizational, and societal levels of analysis (Peker & Dufour, 2025).
Conspiracy beliefs, whether held about governments or organizations, are driven by fundamental psychological needs for understanding, security, and belonging. They flourish in conditions of uncertainty, poor communication, and perceived injustice, and they carry significant negative consequences for individuals, organizations, and societies. Interventions show promise but require further refinement and longitudinal evaluation. For organizations, fostering transparent communication, ethical leadership, and employee well-being can mitigate the emergence of conspiratorial thinking and its harmful outcomes.
Conspiracy beliefs have emerged as a significant area of interdisciplinary research, with scholars examining their psychological underpinnings, societal consequences, and potential interventions. This review synthesizes the current literature on general conspiracy beliefs and their specific manifestation within organizational settings. General conspiracy beliefs are driven by epistemic, existential, and social motives (Biddlestone et al., 2025), with rapid social change and political polarization amplifying their spread (Federico, 2022). Interventions show modest effectiveness, particularly when employing fact-checking and tailored content (Stasielowicz, 2025). Within organizations, conspiracy beliefs are associated with negative outcomes such as turnover intention and malevolent creativity, with antecedents including poor communication, perceived unethical leadership, and workplace disappointment (Douglas & Leite, 2017; Tam, Lee, & Kim, 2025; Fousiani, Xu, & van Prooijen, 2025; Furnham & Horne, 2022). Psychological mechanisms such as mind-body dissonance further exacerbate these beliefs, compromising rational decision-making (Huang & Whitson, 2020). The review highlights the need for integrative approaches that bridge individual, organizational, and societal levels of analysis.
4-2-Organizational Deviance and Resistance to Change in Work Groups: A Literature Review
Organizations face persistent challenges in managing employee behaviors that deviate from established norms and in navigating resistance during periods of change. Both organizational deviance and resistance to change represent critical areas of inquiry within organizational behavior research, as they directly impact organizational effectiveness, employee well-being, and the successful implementation of transformation initiatives (Abas, 2024; Bagrationi, 2023). The study of these phenomena has evolved substantially over the past two decades, with researchers examining their causes, manifestations, and consequences across diverse organizational contexts (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025).
Deviant behavior in the workplace is defined as a willful breach of norms and regulations that endangers the organization's and its members' well-being (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025). Examples include theft, fraud, sabotage, spreading rumors, frequent absenteeism, and vandalism—behaviors that can pose significant financial and social threats to firms (Abas, 2024). Resistance to change, meanwhile, represents a typical organizational change management issue characterized by employee reluctance or opposition to organizational transformation efforts (Bagrationi, 2023).
This review aims to synthesize the current literature on organizational deviance and resistance to change in work groups, identifying key theoretical foundations, empirical findings, and practical implications for managing these challenging organizational behaviors.
4-2-1- Conceptual Foundations and Definitions
1-Organizational Deviance
The widely recognized definition of workplace deviance is "discretionary behavior that violates organizational rules and poses a danger to the organization's employees or both" (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025). Individual behavior is considered deviant when it violates an organization's customs, policies, or internal regulations in a manner that threatens the organization's or its members' well-being (Abas, 2024).
Scholars have employed various terms to conceptualize deviance at the workplace, including "antisocial," "insidious," "counterproductive," "dysfunctional behavior," "organizational misbehavior," and "workplace incivility" (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025). These variations in terminology reflect differences in conceptual emphasis and breadth, but collectively point to behaviors that violate organizational norms and harm organizational functioning.
A widely cited typology distinguishes between two types of workplace deviance:
• Interpersonal deviance: Actions directed at individuals, such as stealing from colleagues or being hostile toward others (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025)
• Organizational deviance: Behaviors aimed at the organization, including theft, disobedience, and lateness (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025)
4-2-2- Resistance to Change
Resistance to change has been conceptualized as a multidimensional construct influenced by individual, group, and organizational factors (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). At the individual level, sources of resistance include perceived risk from uncertainty, job insecurity, and distrust of leadership. Group-level factors include peer pressure and the maintenance of established standards. Institutional factors such as ineffective communication, inadequate resources, and organizational culture also contribute to resistance (Agboola & Salawu, 2010).
A bibliometric study by Bagrationi (2023) identified four main research streams related to resistance to change and readiness for change: the "individual-psychological" stream, the "group" stream, the "institutional and strategic" stream, and the "agency" stream. The study found that resistance to change and readiness for change have different prerequisites, with overcoming resistance being reactive and requiring active leader involvement, whereas creating readiness is proactive and focuses primarily on informing employees (Bagrationi, 2023).
Resistance to change represents another behavioral expression of mistrust, defined as a cognitive and emotional opposition to organizational transformations (Oreg, 2006, p. 74). Resistance may stem from fear of loss, misunderstanding of objectives, or suspicion of management’s motives (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999). Employees who perceive organizational changes as concealing hidden agendas—such as layoffs or unfair resource redistribution—are more likely to oppose or undermine these efforts (Pohorsky, 2020). Conspiracy beliefs can therefore amplify negative attributions and hinder the successful implementation of change (Jolley & Paterson, 2020).
Several theoretical frameworks help explain this phenomenon. Psychological Contract Theory (Rousseau, 1995) posits that employees maintain implicit expectations of honesty and fairness in their relationship with the employer. When conspiracy beliefs are high, these expectations are perceived as violated, resulting in reactions such as withdrawal, defiance, or deviance (Rousseau, 1995, p. 45). Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964) similarly emphasizes reciprocity in workplace relationships; when employees assume manipulative intentions from management, they may reduce positive reciprocity and engage in counterproductive actions instead.
Empirical evidence supports the mediating role of trust in these dynamics. For example, van Prooijen and van Lange (2014) found that conspiracy beliefs are negatively associated with interpersonal trust and cooperation. Likewise, Jolley and Paterson (2020) demonstrated that exposure to conspiratorial narratives reduces individuals’ willingness to engage constructively with institutions. Translated into workplace contexts, these findings suggest that employees prone to conspiracy thinking may perceive reforms as threats, react defensively, and rationalize deviant behavior (Douglas et al., 2021).
4-2-2- Antecedents and Determinants
1- Antecedents of Organizational Deviance
Bibliometric analyses of the organizational deviance literature have identified three major thematic clusters: organizational deviance due to psychological contract breach, organizational deviance in the context of organizational cynicism, and organizational deviance in the context of psychological capital (Abas, 2024). These themes highlight the role of employee perceptions and psychological states in shaping deviant behavior.
The causes of organizational deviance are varied, encompassing unethical behavior, immoral thoughts, and disregard for authority (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025). Authoritative leadership has been found to have a direct impact on deviant employee behavior, suggesting that leadership style is a significant determinant (Agboola & Salawu, 2010). Employees who feel treated unfairly often exhibit negative reactions that extend beyond deviant behavior to include emotional responses, with a positive association found between perceived mistreatment and both supervisory and non-directed deviance (Abas, 2024).
Rukta, Aggarwal, and Sharma (2025) identified thematic clusters in workplace deviance research, including Organizational Behavior and Environmental Stressors, Employee Misconduct, Business Ethics and Moral Dilemmas, and Counterproductive Work Behaviour (CWB). These clusters demonstrate the interdisciplinary nature of workplace deviance research and the multiple pathways through which deviance emerges.
Organizational deviance refers to voluntary actions that violate organizational norms and threaten the well-being of the organization or its members (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). These behaviors may target the organization itself—such as theft, sabotage, or chronic lateness—or other individuals, such as gossiping or harassment (Bennett & Robinson, 2000, p. 350). Prior studies have shown that perceived injustice and low levels of trust are strong predictors of deviant conduct (Aquino et al., 1999).
From this perspective, conspiracy beliefs may serve as cognitive justifications for deviant actions, allowing employees to rationalize misconduct based on perceived deception or corruption by authority figures (Douglas et al., 2021). Employees who believe that leaders are dishonest may view deviant acts as legitimate responses to a perceived breach of trust, thus framing their behavior as a form of retaliation rather than wrongdoing (Rousseau, 1995).
2- Antecedents of Resistance to Change
Research on resistance to change has identified three broad categories of factors:
Individual-level factors: These include perceived risk from uncertainty, job insecurity, distrust of leadership, perceived loss of status, fear, habits and routines, stress, and limited ability to deal with uncertainty (Dent & Goldberg, 1999). Dent and Goldberg (1999) identified lack of trust, personality conflicts, and job status/security as key individual antecedents. Deep-rooted values, strong beliefs, and low motivation have also been associated with resistance (Agboola & Salawu, 2010).
Group-level factors: Relationships within the group, team dynamics, emotional loyalties, and modification of existing behaviors based on group norms all contribute to resistance (Bagrationi, 2023). The individual's position or role within the group, as well as relationships with the change agent or manager, influence resistance responses (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).
Organizational/institutional factors: Ineffective communication, inadequate resources, organizational culture, implementation climate, and department politics contribute to resistance (Agboola & Salawu, 2010). Organizational culture, in particular, has been identified as a significant factor that can either facilitate or impede change implementation (Bagrationi, 2023).
4-2-3-The Relationship Between Deviance and Resistance to Change
The literature suggests a significant relationship between resistance to change and deviant behavior in organizational settings. Change initiatives affect four basic aspects of organizations—strategy, technology, structure, and employees—presenting individuals with new situations, problems, challenges, ambiguity, and uncertainty while threatening the status quo (Agboola & Salawu, 2010). Change influences the authoritative allocation of human and material resources and encourages competition, which can heat up the political climate in organizations (Agboola & Salawu, 2010). Under such conditions, resistance to change might be expressed through deviant behaviors intended to truncate the process or prevent implementation (Mujib, Wardhani, & Kurniawan, 2023).
Research by Mujib, Wardhani, and Kurniawan (2023) specifically examined the effect of resistance to change on counterproductive work behavior, finding that resistance to change predicts counterproductive workplace behaviors. This connection suggests that when employees resist organizational change, they may express their opposition through deviant acts that harm the organization.
4-2-4- Constructive Deviance and Productive Resistance
While the literature has traditionally focused on the negative aspects of deviance, emerging research has explored the potential positive side. Constructive deviance is defined as a voluntary action that breaks corporate rules but is done with good intentions to help the company or its stakeholders (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025). Employees who engage in nonconforming behaviors, such as innovation champions or corporate entrepreneurs, may help companies innovate and gain competitiveness (Abas, 2024).
Researchers distinguish between two main types of constructive deviant behavior:
• Interpersonal constructive deviance: Aimed at specific individuals, such as defiance against a supervisor to increase organizational efficiency (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025)
• Organizational constructive deviance: Aimed at the organization, potentially questioning or violating company policies, processes, and procedures (Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025)
Similarly, resistance to change should not be viewed exclusively as a negative factor but rather as an opportunity for discussion and development (Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2012). By addressing employee concerns and requirements, organizations can learn how to manage change more effectively and embed change successfully (Bagrationi, 2023). Courpasson, Dany, and Clegg (2012) have examined "resisters at work" and the generation of productive resistance in the workplace, highlighting how resistance can sometimes serve organizational functions.
4-2-5- Strategies for Managing Deviance and Resistance
The literature offers several strategies for managing deviant behavior and resistance to change. Agboola and Salawu (2010) identified proper education, effective communication, facilitation, motivation, negotiation, manipulation, co-optation, and coercion as possible methods for managing resistance to change. The use of any of these methods or combination thereof depends on the type of organization, nature of resistance, and stage of intervention (Agboola & Salawu, 2010).
Fostering readiness for change is distinguished from overcoming resistance, with readiness being proactive and primarily focused on informing employees, while overcoming resistance is reactive and requires active leader involvement (Bagrationi, 2023). Effective leadership behaviors—including demonstrating transformational behavior, supporting employees, and resolving conflicts—are essential for overcoming resistance (Dent & Goldberg, 1999).
Rukta, Aggarwal, and Sharma (2025) emphasized the urgent need for organizations to address deviant behaviors to safeguard organizational integrity, employee well-being, and productivity. Their comprehensive literature review identifies research gaps and offers recommendations for future studies to help scholars, practitioners, and policymakers manage deviant behaviors effectively within organizations.
4-2-6- Future Research Directions
Bibliometric analyses of both organizational deviance and resistance to change literatures have identified emerging research themes and future directions. In the organizational deviance literature, three major themes have emerged: organizational deviance due to psychological contract breach, organizational deviance in the context of organizational cynicism, and organizational deviance in the context of psychological capital (Abas, 2024). These themes point to the need for further research on the psychological mechanisms underlying deviant behavior.
For resistance to change, Bagrationi (2023) identified the need for research that distinguishes between reactive approaches to overcoming resistance and proactive approaches to creating readiness for change. The study also highlighted the need to bridge the gap between individual-psychological, group, institutional-strategic, and agency-focused perspectives on resistance.
Future research should also examine the intersection of deviance and resistance more explicitly. Given that resistance to change can manifest through deviant behaviors (Mujib, Wardhani, & Kurniawan, 2023), and that constructive forms of both phenomena exist (Courpasson, Dany, & Clegg, 2012; Rukta, Aggarwal, & Sharma, 2025), there is a need for integrative frameworks that distinguish between destructive and constructive manifestations of these behaviors.
Organizational deviance and resistance to change represent significant challenges for contemporary organizations, with implications for productivity, employee well-being, and organizational effectiveness. The literature reveals that both phenomena are influenced by individual, group, and organizational factors, and that they are often interconnected—with resistance to change sometimes expressed through deviant behaviors. However, both deviance and resistance can also have constructive dimensions when channeled appropriately, suggesting that organizations should adopt nuanced approaches that address concerns while harnessing productive energy. Effective management requires understanding the antecedents of these behaviors, recognizing their manifestations, and implementing appropriate strategies tailored to the specific organizational context and the nature of the behavior.
This literature review synthesizes research on two interconnected organizational phenomena: organizational deviance and resistance to change within work groups. Organizational deviance—defined as voluntary behavior that violates organizational norms and threatens organizational well-being—has been extensively studied alongside resistance to change, which represents a common reaction to organizational transformation efforts. The review identifies the conceptual foundations of both constructs, examines their antecedents and manifestations at individual, group, and organizational levels, explores the theoretical relationship between deviance and resistance, and discusses strategies for managing these phenomena. The literature reveals that while both deviance and resistance are often viewed negatively, they can sometimes serve constructive functions when channeled appropriately. Emerging research themes include the role of psychological contract breach, organizational cynicism, and psychological capital in shaping deviant and resistant behaviors. Future research directions emphasize the need for longitudinal studies and integrative frameworks that bridge individual, group, and organizational levels of analysis.
In summary, prior research indicates that conspiracy beliefs distort employees’ cognitive appraisals of managerial behavior, fostering both organizational deviance and resistance to change (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014). Despite this theoretical support, few empirical studies have tested this model within real organizational environments, particularly in non-Western settings (Pohorsky, 2020). The present study aims to fill this gap by examining these relationships quantitatively among industrial employees, offering new insights into how mistrust-driven cognition translates into counterproductive workplace behavior (Douglas et al., 2019).
5. Methodological Framework
5.1 Research Design
This study adopted a quantitative correlational research design to investigate the predictive relationships among conspiracy beliefs, organizational deviance, and resistance to change (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This approach was selected because it allows for the statistical testing of hypotheses and the examination of relationships among continuous psychological variables (Creswell & Creswell, 2018, p. 55). A cross-sectional survey design was used to collect data from a large employee sample at a single point in time, enabling the application of multivariate statistical analyses (Kline, 2016).
5.2 Population and Sample
The study population consisted of employees working in a manufacturing company employing approximately 600 workers across administrative, technical, and operational divisions (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). A total of 250 employees were selected through stratified random sampling, ensuring proportional representation across job categories and gender (Kline, 2016). The final sample included 160 men (64%) and 90 women (36%), with an average age of 34.7 years (SD = 6.8). This sample size was deemed sufficient for SEM analysis, following the rule of at least 10 participants per estimated parameter (Kline, 2016, p. 18).
5.3 Data Collection Instruments
Three validated Likert-type instruments were employed to collect data:
1. Conspiracy Beliefs Scale (CBS) – adapted from Bruder et al. (2013), comprising 10 items (e.g., “Management often hides the real reasons behind their decisions”). Responses ranged from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree).
2. Organizational Deviance Scale (ODS) – adapted from Bennett and Robinson (2000), containing 12 items measuring deviant behaviors directed at the organization or coworkers (e.g., “I take longer breaks than allowed,” “I speak negatively about the company”).
3. Resistance to Change Scale (RCS) based on Oreg (2006), consisting of 10 items that assess emotional, cognitive, and behavioral resistance (e.g., “I feel anxious when new organizational changes are introduced”).
All items were translated into Arabic and then back-translated into English to ensure linguistic and conceptual equivalence. The final questionnaire included demographic questions (age, gender, marital status, work experience) and 32 substantive items in total.
5.4 Reliability and Validity
Internal consistency reliability was tested using Cronbach’s alpha, and construct validity was assessed through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) . Table 1 presents the results:
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
All reliability coefficients exceeded the recommended threshold of α ≥ .70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 265). . EFA confirmed three distinct constructs with factor loadings above .60, supporting construct validity. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) index was .89, and Bartlett’s test of sphericity was significant (χ ² = 1354.21, p < .001), confirming sampling adequacy.
5.5 Data Collection Procedures
Data were gathered during regular working hours following managerial authorization and informed consent from all participants. The researcher distributed printed questionnaires across departments, ensuring anonymity and confidentiality. Completed surveys were returned in sealed envelopes to prevent identification bias.
All responses were coded and analyzed using SPSS 28 and AMOS 25 software. Missing data accounted for less than 3% and were handled using mean substitution.
5.6 Data Analysis Techniques
The analysis proceeded through several stages:
1. Descriptive Statistics to summarize demographic characteristics and compute mean scores.
2. Pearson Correlation Analysis to examine bivariate relationships among variables.
3. Multiple Regression Analysis to test the predictive effects of conspiracy beliefs on deviance and resistance to change.
4. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the hypothesized structural relationships.
5. Subgroup Analyses – to examine variations by age, marital status, and work experience.
All analyses were conducted at a significance level of p < .05, and effect sizes were interpreted following Cohen’s (1988) guidelines.
6. Findings
6.1 Distribution of the Sample by Demographic Variables
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The majority of respondents were aged between 30 and 40 years and had 5–10 years of work experience. Younger employees reported slightly higher levels of conspiracy beliefs (M = 3.62) compared with older employees (M = 3.35). Married employees displayed lower deviance scores (M = 3.02) than single ones (M = 3.31), suggesting that family and social responsibilities may moderate deviant behavior.
6.2 Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics were computed for all main variables to assess central tendencies and distribution characteristics.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
The results indicate a moderate level of conspiracy belief (M = 3.48) among employees. Organizational deviance was moderately frequent (M = 3.15), reflecting occasional norm violations. Resistance to change showed the highest mean score (M = 3.62), suggesting a generally hesitant attitude toward transformation. Skewness and kurtosis values were within ±1, indicating a normal distribution suitable for parametric analysis.
6.3 Correlation Analysis
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Note: p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.
Conspiracy beliefs were positively correlated with both organizational deviance (r = .47, p < .01) and resistance to change (r = .52, p < .001). Employees with stronger conspiracy tendencies were more likely to engage in deviant acts and resist organizational transformation. The positive correlation between deviance and resistance (r = .44, p < .01) indicates that these behaviors frequently co-occur. These results support Hypotheses H1 and H2.
6.4 Regression Analysis
Two multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the predictive strength of conspiracy beliefs on the two outcome variables.
Table 4. Regression of Organizational Deviance on Conspiracy Beliefs
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Model summary: R² = .21, F(1, 248) = 46.93, p < .001.
Conspiracy beliefs significantly predicted organizational deviance (β = .43, p < .001), explaining 21% of the variance. This finding confirms Hypothesis H3, suggesting that employees’ suspicion toward management is directly associated with deviant workplace behavior.
Table 5. Regression of Resistance to Change on Conspiracy Beliefs
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Model summary: R² = .27, F(1, 248) = 80.51, p < .001.
Conspiracy beliefs were also a strong predictor of resistance to change (β = .48, p < .001), accounting for 27% of the variance. Employees who perceived managerial decisions as deceptive were more likely to reject or resist organizational reforms. These results confirm Hypothesis H4 .
6.5 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
The SEM analysis was conducted to test the overall hypothesized model linking conspiracy beliefs with both organizational deviance and resistance to change.
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
All structural paths were significant and aligned with theoretical expectations, confirming the robustness of conspiracy beliefs as predictors of both deviance and resistance. The model demonstrated good fit indices (Hu & Bentler, 1999, p. 15), thereby supporting Hypothesis H5.
The squared multiple correlations indicated that conspiracy beliefs explained 23% of the variance in organizational deviance and 27% in resistance to change. These results substantiate the theoretical assumption that mistrust-based cognitive frameworks underpin maladaptive organizational behavior.
6.1 Summary of the Structural Equation Model (SEM)
Illustrations are not included in the reading sample
Figure 1. Structural Equation Model of the Relationship between Conspiracy Beliefs, Organizational Deviance, and Resistance to Change
Source: Author’s own work : salah, . laggoune . (2026)
The structural equation model (SEM) presented in this study (see Figure 1) provides both a visual and statistical representation of the hypothesized relationships among the three key constructs: Conspiracy Beliefs (CB) , Organizational Deviance (OD ), and Resistance to Change (RC) . The analysis was designed to test whether employees’ conspiracy beliefs function as significant psychological predictors of these two forms of counterproductive organizational behavior.
6.1.1 Model Structure and Hypothesized Paths
The model includes one exogenous variable —Conspiracy Beliefs—and two endogenous variables: Organizational Deviance and Resistance to Change. Two direct structural paths were specified:
· Path 1: Conspiracy Beliefs → Organizational Deviance
· Path 2: Conspiracy Beliefs → Resistance to Change
Both paths were hypothesized to be positive, based on the assumption that employees who view managerial actions as manipulative or secretive are more likely to exhibit deviant behavior and resist organizational transformation.
6.1.2 Path Coefficients and Statistical Significance
The standardized regression weights obtained from the SEM revealed the following relationships:
· The path from Conspiracy Beliefs to Organizational Deviance: β = .41 (p < .001), indicating a moderate positive effect.
· The path from Conspiracy Beliefs to Resistance to Change: β = .50 (p < .001), indicating a stronger predictive effect.
These coefficients confirm that as employees’ endorsement of conspiratorial thinking increases, their likelihood of violating organizational norms and opposing change also rises. Thus, mistrustful cognitive frameworks directly translate into maladaptive workplace behaviors.
6.1.3 Model Fit and Adequacy
The overall model demonstrated acceptable to excellent fit indices, in line with the criteria proposed by Bentler (1999):
· χ²/df = 2.15 (values < 3 indicate good fit)
· CFI = .94 and TLI = .92 (values ≥ .90 denote acceptable fit)
· RMSEA = .056 and SRMR = .047 (values ≤ .08 reflect adequate approximation)
These results confirm that the theoretical model adequately represents the observed data and provides an empirically supported structure for understanding the influence of conspiracy beliefs in organizational contexts.
6.1.4 Explained Variance (Predictive Power)
The squared multiple correlations (R²) derived from the SEM indicate that:
· Conspiracy Beliefs explain 23 % of the variance in Organizational Deviance, and
· 27 % of the variance in Resistance to Change.
This means that nearly one-third of employees’ resistant behaviors and about one-fourth of their deviant tendencies can be attributed to conspiratorial perceptions within the organizational environment.
6.1.5 Theoretical Interpretation
From a theoretical standpoint, these SEM findings reinforce both Psychological Contract Theory (Rousseau, 1995, p. 45) and Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964, p. 91). Conspiracy beliefs reflect a form of cognitive mistrust that distorts the perceived relationship and reciprocal obligations between employees and their organization (van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014, p. 152). When employees believe that management operates through hidden agendas, they perceive a significant breach in the psychological contract, which elicits emotional and behavioral responses such as deviance and resistance (Rousseau, 1995, p. 58).
The stronger predictive path toward resistance to change ($\beta = .50$) indicates that mistrust primarily manifests as defensive opposition to transformation rather than overt deviant acts (Oreg, 2006, p. 74). In this sense, conspiracy beliefs act as a cognitive defense mechanism, prompting employees to protect themselves from perceived manipulation (Douglas et al., 2019, p. 18). Consequently, these findings suggest that the internal logic of the conspiracy believer is one of self-preservation against a perceived corrupt system (Imhoff & Bruder, 2014, p. 40).
6.1.6 Conclusion of the SEM Analysis
The SEM results confirm that conspiracy beliefs serve as a central cognitive antecedent of counterproductive workplace behavior. The empirical evidence demonstrates that employees characterized by conspiratorial thinking are more likely to disengage, resist, or retaliate when they interpret managerial actions as deceptive. The model integrates both psychological and behavioral components, providing a validated explanatory framework for understanding how distrust and conspiracy-driven cognition hinder organizational adaptability and cooperation.
7. Discussion and Conclusion
The results of this study provide clear empirical support for the proposition that conspiracy beliefs significantly predict both organizational deviance and resistance to change (Douglas et al., 2021, p. 14). The findings confirm that cognitive mistrust can lead employees to interpret managerial behavior in negative terms, producing disengagement and defensive reactions (van Prooijen & van Lange, 2014, p. 155). This pattern aligns closely with Psychological Contract Theory (Rousseau, 1995, p. 48), which suggests that perceptions of deception or hidden motives evoke feelings of betrayal and subsequent behavioral retaliation.
The strong positive association between conspiracy beliefs and resistance to change indicates that distrustful employees are not merely passive skeptics but active opponents of transformation initiatives (Oreg, 2006, p. 80). This observation is consistent with Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964, p. 95), which posits that employees reciprocate perceived organizational dishonesty with reduced cooperation and loyalty.
From a practical perspective, the results highlight the importance of transparent communication and participative leadership during organizational change (Armenakis & Bedeian, 1999, p. 305). When management provides clear, evidence-based explanations for decisions and engages employees in planning and implementation, the risk of conspiracy-driven resistance can be significantly reduced (Pohorsky, 2020, p. 22). Moreover, interventions that build organizational trust—such as open feedback mechanisms, ethical leadership, and consistent information sharing—can help curb deviant behaviors (Aquino et al., 1999, p. 122).
These findings extend previous research (Douglas et al., 2021; Jolley & Paterson, 2020) by demonstrating that conspiracy beliefs have tangible behavioral consequences within organizations. In the present work group, conspiracy beliefs explained up to 27% of the variance in resistance to change, illustrating their considerable psychological and organizational impact (Douglas et al., 2021, p. 18).
7.1 Conclusion
This study examined the predictive role of conspiracy beliefs in shaping organizational deviance and resistance to change within a manufacturing company. The findings confirmed that employees with higher levels of conspiratorial thinking are more likely to engage in deviant acts and resist organizational initiatives. Correlation and regression analyses revealed significant positive relationships, while SEM analysis validated the overall theoretical model with strong fit indices.
Minor demographic differences also emerged: younger and single employees displayed slightly higher susceptibility to conspiracy-driven behaviors. Overall, these results underscore that cognitive mistrust is a critical psychological factor influencing workplace conduct .
The study contributes to organizational psychology by showing that employees’ perceptions and cognitive frameworks—not solely structural or procedural elements can strongly determine counterproductive and resistant behaviors. By integrating Psychological Contract Theory and Social Exchange Theory , the research offers a coherent explanation of how conspiracy beliefs translate into observable workplace outcomes.
In conclusion, fostering trust, transparency, and participative decision-making should be viewed as central strategies for reducing deviant behavior and enhancing organizational adaptability in the face of change.
8. Recommendations
Based on the study’s findings and theoretical implications, several recommendations are proposed to help organizations mitigate the negative effects of conspiracy beliefs on employee behavior and attitudes:
1. Promote Transparent Communication:
Organizations should ensure that the rationale behind managerial decisions is communicated clearly and consistently. Transparency helps reduce ambiguity and minimizes the likelihood of conspiracy-based interpretations.
2. Develop Critical Thinking Skills:
Implement training programs aimed at enhancing employees’ analytical and critical thinking abilities. This can reduce susceptibility to misinformation and conspiratorial narratives that distort perceptions of management intentions.
3. Encourage Participative Decision-Making:
Involving employees in planning and decision-making processes increases their sense of ownership and decreases the perception that leadership operates with hidden agendas.
4. Foster Ethical Leadership:
Leaders should model honesty, fairness, and moral integrity. Ethical leadership builds credibility and serves as a countermeasure to organizational mistrust.
5. Establish Feedback Mechanisms:
Create structured and anonymous feedback channels that allow employees to express concerns safely. When employees feel heard, suspicion and frustration decline.
6. Monitor Organizational Trust Levels:
Conduct periodic assessments of employee trust, communication satisfaction, and perceptions of transparency. These metrics can help detect early warning signs of conspiratorial thinking.
7. Strengthen Employee Engagement Programs:
Design engagement initiatives that reinforce positive behaviors, recognize contributions, and emphasize collaboration. A strong sense of belonging reduces the psychological space in which conspiracy beliefs thrive.
By adopting these strategies, organizations can cultivate a culture of trust and openness that discourages cognitive mistrust and enhances adaptability during times of change.
9. References
1. Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (1999). How employees respond to personal offense: The effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.1.119
2. Armenakis, A. A., & Bedeian, A. G. (1999). Organizational change: A review of theory and research in the 1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500303
3. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(3), 349–360. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.3.349
4. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. Wiley.
5. Bruder, M., Haffke, P., Neave, N., Nouripanah, N., & Imhoff, R. (2013). Measuring individual differences in generic conspiracy beliefs: The Conspiracy Mentality Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 225. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00225
6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
7. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2019). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 20(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100619889810
8. Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2021). Understanding conspiracy theories. Advances in Political Psychology, 40(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568
9. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
10. Imhoff, R., & Bruder, M. (2014). Speaking (un-)truth to power: Conspiracy mentality as a generalised distrust towards powerful groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(4), 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2018
11. Jolley, D., & Paterson, J. L. (2020). Pylons, pipelines, and plots: The role of conspiracy beliefs in opposition to energy infrastructure. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 71, 101484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101484
12. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
13. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
14. Oreg, S. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
15. Pohorsky, J. (2020). Conspiracy theories in the workplace: A study of their impact on employee engagement and resistance to change. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 28(1), 18–35.
16. Rousseau, D. M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Sage Publications.
17. van Prooijen, J. W., & van Lange, P. A. (2014). Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036253
18. Biddlestone, M., et al. (2025). Reasons to believe: A systematic review and meta-analytic synthesis of the motives associated with conspiracy beliefs. Psychological Bulletin, *151*(1), 48-87. DOI: 10.1037/bul0000463
19. Douglas, K. M., & Leite, A. C. (2017). Suspicion in the workplace: Organizational conspiracy theories and work‐related outcomes. British Journal of Psychology, *108*(3), 486-506. DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12212
20. Federico, C. M. (2022). The complex relationship between conspiracy belief and the politics of social change. Current Opinion in Psychology, *46*, 101357. DOI: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2022.101357
21. Fousiani, K., Xu, S., & van Prooijen, J. W. (2025). Leaders' power construal influences malevolent creativity: The mediating role of organizational conspiracy beliefs. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. DOI: 10.1111/joop.70005
22. Furnham, A., & Horne, G. (2022). Cover-ups and Conspiracy Theories: Demographics, Work Disillusionment, Equity Sensitivity, and Beliefs in Cover-ups. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, *38*(1), 19-25. DOI: 10.5093/jwop2022a2
23. Huang, L., & Whitson, J. A. (2020). Organization costs of compensating for mind-body dissonance through conspiracies and superstitions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, *156*, 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.09.006
24. Peker, E., & Dufour, F. G. (2025). Bridging the Cognitive/Collective and Supply/Demand Divides in Conspiracy Theory Research. Social Science Quarterly, *106*, e70005. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.70005
25. Stasielowicz, L. (2025). The Effectiveness of Interventions Addressing Conspiracy Beliefs: A Meta-Analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.70041
26. Tam, L., Lee, H., & Kim, J.-N. (2025). Conspiratorial thinking in the workplace: how it happens and why it matters. Journal of Communication Management, *29*(1), 17-34. DOI: 10.1108/JCOM-12-2023-0139
27. Abas, B. (2024). Mapping of organizational deviance research during the last two decades: A bibliometric approach. IIM Ranchi Journal of Management Studies, *3*(2), 142-162. DOI: 10.1108/IRJMS-08-2023-0069
28. Agboola, A., & Salawu, R. (2010). Managing deviant behavior and resistance to change. International Journal of Business and Management, *6*(1), 235-242. DOI: 10.5539/ijbm.v6n1p235
29. Bagrationi, K. (2023). Between "resistance to" and "readiness for" change: A bibliometric study. Organizational Psychology, *13*(4), 141-166.
30. Courpasson, D., Dany, F., & Clegg, S. (2012). Resisters at work: Generating productive resistance in the workplace. Organization Science, *23*(3), 801-819. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1110.0657
31. Dent, E. B., & Goldberg, S. G. (1999). Challenging "Resistance to Change". The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, *35*(1), 25-41. DOI: 10.1177/0021886399351003
32. Mujib, M., Wardhani, M., & Kurniawan, R. (2023). What leads to counterproductive work behavior? Predicting the effect of resistance to change. Sinergi: Jurnal Ilmiah Ilmu Manajemen, *13*, 58-65. DOI: 10.25139/sng.v13i2.6574
33. Rukta, N., Aggarwal, A., & Sharma, I. (2025). Mapping the landscape of workplace deviance: A comprehensive literature review. In Reviewing the Latest Trends in Management Literature, Volume 4A (pp. 121-145). Emerald Publishing. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-83708-756-320251007
Biographies
Laggoune Salah holds a Master's degree in Work and Organizational Psychology and Human Resource Management from the University of Constantine 2 – Abdelhamid Mehri, Algeria. His research portfolio primarily centers around organizational behavior, social psychology, counterproductive work behaviors (CWB) in institutions, organizational justice, and organizational culture. His scholarly focus also extends to ergonomics, economic behavior, and consumer decision-making, integrating these domains to analyze employee dynamics and cognitive ergonomics within modern institutional contexts.
[...]
Jetzt kaufen
- Arbeit zitieren
- Laggoune Salah (Autor:in), 2026, Conspiracy Beliefs as Predictors of Organizational Deviance and Resistance to Change, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1745433
