Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England.

conspiracy beliefs mistrust paranoia public health vaccination hesitancy

Journal

Psychological medicine
ISSN: 1469-8978
Titre abrégé: Psychol Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 1254142

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
01 2022
Historique:
pubmed: 22 5 2020
medline: 19 2 2022
entrez: 22 5 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

An invisible threat has visibly altered the world. Governments and key institutions have had to implement decisive responses to the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Imposed change will increase the likelihood that alternative explanations take hold. In a proportion of the general population there may be strong scepticism, fear of being misled, and false conspiracy theories. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of conspiracy thinking about the pandemic and test associations with reduced adherence to government guidelines. A non-probability online survey with 2501 adults in England, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, income, and region. Approximately 50% of this population showed little evidence of conspiracy thinking, 25% showed a degree of endorsement, 15% showed a consistent pattern of endorsement, and 10% had very high levels of endorsement. Higher levels of coronavirus conspiracy thinking were associated with less adherence to all government guidelines and less willingness to take diagnostic or antibody tests or to be vaccinated. Such ideas were also associated with paranoia, general vaccination conspiracy beliefs, climate change conspiracy belief, a conspiracy mentality, and distrust in institutions and professions. Holding coronavirus conspiracy beliefs was also associated with being more likely to share opinions. In England there is appreciable endorsement of conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus. Such ideas do not appear confined to the fringes. The conspiracy beliefs connect to other forms of mistrust and are associated with less compliance with government guidelines and greater unwillingness to take up future tests and treatment.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
An invisible threat has visibly altered the world. Governments and key institutions have had to implement decisive responses to the danger posed by the coronavirus pandemic. Imposed change will increase the likelihood that alternative explanations take hold. In a proportion of the general population there may be strong scepticism, fear of being misled, and false conspiracy theories. Our objectives were to estimate the prevalence of conspiracy thinking about the pandemic and test associations with reduced adherence to government guidelines.
METHODS
A non-probability online survey with 2501 adults in England, quota sampled to match the population for age, gender, income, and region.
RESULTS
Approximately 50% of this population showed little evidence of conspiracy thinking, 25% showed a degree of endorsement, 15% showed a consistent pattern of endorsement, and 10% had very high levels of endorsement. Higher levels of coronavirus conspiracy thinking were associated with less adherence to all government guidelines and less willingness to take diagnostic or antibody tests or to be vaccinated. Such ideas were also associated with paranoia, general vaccination conspiracy beliefs, climate change conspiracy belief, a conspiracy mentality, and distrust in institutions and professions. Holding coronavirus conspiracy beliefs was also associated with being more likely to share opinions.
CONCLUSIONS
In England there is appreciable endorsement of conspiracy beliefs about coronavirus. Such ideas do not appear confined to the fringes. The conspiracy beliefs connect to other forms of mistrust and are associated with less compliance with government guidelines and greater unwillingness to take up future tests and treatment.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32436485
doi: 10.1017/S0033291720001890
pii: S0033291720001890
pmc: PMC7264452
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

251-263

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-C7-0117-20001
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-2014-05-003
Pays : United Kingdom

Auteurs

Daniel Freeman (D)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Felicity Waite (F)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Laina Rosebrock (L)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Ariane Petit (A)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Chiara Causier (C)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Anna East (A)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Lucy Jenner (L)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Ashley-Louise Teale (AL)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Lydia Carr (L)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Sophie Mulhall (S)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Emily Bold (E)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Sinéad Lambe (S)

Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH