COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs.
COVID-19
Conspiracy theories
Education
Perceived stress
Journal
Personality and individual differences
ISSN: 0191-8869
Titre abrégé: Pers Individ Dif
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8006972
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Nov 2020
01 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
29
04
2020
revised:
08
06
2020
accepted:
12
06
2020
entrez:
23
6
2020
pubmed:
23
6
2020
medline:
23
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Previous studies have down that erroneous Conspiracy Theory (CT) beliefs develop more strongly in people who have underlying conspiratorial reasoning styles and psychopathological traits and particularly when they are faced with stressful external events (Swami et al., 2013; van Prooijen, 2018). In this study, we test this proposition by examining the individual differences associated with the development of COVID-19-related CT beliefs during the pandemic. A total of 660 adults completed a survey that captured COVID-related CT beliefs and broader conspiracy beliefs, education, perceived stress and attitudes towards government responses. The results showed that COVID-19 related CT beliefs were: strongly related to broader CT beliefs, higher in those with lower levels of education; and, positively (although weakly) correlated with more negative attitudes towards government responses. However, no relationship was found between COVID-19 beliefs and self-reported stress. These findings hold implications for why some people are more likely to be resistant to public health interventions relating to COVID-19. The findings encourage more detailed exploration of the causes and sources of CTs and, in particular, the role of social media use and other information sources in the development and perpetuation of health-related CT beliefs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32565592
doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2020.110201
pii: S0191-8869(20)30390-1
pii: 110201
pmc: PMC7296298
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
110201Informations de copyright
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Références
Cognition. 2014 Dec;133(3):572-85
pubmed: 25217762
Schizophr Bull. 2015 Mar;41 Suppl 2:S417-26
pubmed: 25810056
J Psychol. 1975 Sep;91(1):93-114
pubmed: 28136248
Schizophr Res. 2007 Feb;90(1-3):325-33
pubmed: 17092694
Front Psychol. 2017 Mar 06;8:304
pubmed: 28321200
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):817-8
pubmed: 24638266
Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2012;17(5):431-50
pubmed: 22384982
Schizophr Bull. 2013 Jul;39(4):917-22
pubmed: 22337789
J Appl Psychol. 1997 Aug;82(4):614-22
pubmed: 9378686
Eur J Soc Psychol. 2018 Apr;48(3):320-335
pubmed: 29695889
Sci Am. 1962 Oct;207:93-102
pubmed: 13892642
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Oct;58(5):422-428
pubmed: 28782805
Schizophr Bull. 2007 Jul;33(4):1023-8
pubmed: 17347526
Politics Life Sci. 2019 Sep;38(2):193-209
pubmed: 32412208
Mem Stud. 2017 Jul;10(3):323-333
pubmed: 29081831
Front Psychol. 2013 May 21;4:279
pubmed: 23734136
J Health Soc Behav. 1983 Dec;24(4):385-96
pubmed: 6668417
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2017 Dec;26(6):538-542
pubmed: 29276345
Z Psychol. 2015;223(4):205-214
pubmed: 27453805
Br J Psychol. 2011 Aug;102(3):443-63
pubmed: 21751999
J Gen Psychol. 2012 Oct-Dec;139(4):244-59
pubmed: 24837176
Gerontologist. 2013 Dec;53(6):973-84
pubmed: 23362210
Psychiatry Res. 2018 Jan;259:15-20
pubmed: 29024855
Eur J Soc Psychol. 2018 Dec;48(7):897-908
pubmed: 30555188
Appl Cogn Psychol. 2017 Jan-Feb;31(1):50-58
pubmed: 28163371
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 19;113(3):554-9
pubmed: 26729863
Schizophr Res. 2007 Feb;90(1-3):334-7
pubmed: 17215108
PLoS One. 2017 Feb 23;12(2):e0172617
pubmed: 28231266
Schizophr Res. 2014 Feb;152(2-3):446-9
pubmed: 24361304