Why Content Moderation Fuels Conspiracy Mentality in Some Contexts but Not Others: Theorizing Adaptive Resignation in Divergent Media Ecosystems

Content moderation is central to maintaining healthy digital environments, yet its psychological consequences remain under-theorized. This article interrogates a core paradox: when implemented opaquely, moderation can inadvertently fuel the conspiratorial mindset it seeks to eliminate. Using cross-national survey data from the United States (N=1,188) and China (N=1,192), we demonstrate that perceptions of censorship triggered by opaque moderation heighten feelings of uncertainty, uncontrollability, and stimulate need for cognition—together, these factors collectively amplify conspiracy mentality. Crucially, these effects are culturally contingent. While the full model holds in the U.S., the mediating roles of information uncertainty and need for cognition are significantly attenuated in China. This supports our theorization of adaptive resignation—chronic exposure to stringent information control habituates individuals to epistemic ambiguity, thereby reducing the appeal of conspiracy theories. These findings reveal the precarious balance of platform governance and underscore the need for culturally grounded theories of information processing.