More Like this

1. On the relationship between conspiracy theory beliefs, misinformation, and vaccine hesitancy

   https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276082  

   Enders, Adam M. ; Uscinski, Joseph ; Klofstad, Casey ; Stoler, Justin ( October 2022 , PLOS ONE)

   Jonason, Peter Karl (Ed.)

   At the time of writing, nearly one hundred published studies demonstrate that beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation are negatively associated with COVID-19 preventive behaviors. These correlational findings are often interpreted as evidence that beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation are exogenous factors that shape human behavior, such as forgoing vaccination. This interpretation has motivated researchers to develop methods for “prebunking,” “debunking,” or otherwise limiting the spread of conspiracy theories and misinformation online. However, the robust literatures on conspiracy theory beliefs, health behaviors, and media effects lead us to question whether beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation should be treated as exogenous to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. Employing U.S. survey data (n = 2,065) from July 2021, we show that beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and misinformation are not only related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal, but also strongly associated with the same psychological, social, and political motivations theorized to drive COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and refusal. These findings suggest that beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation might not always be an exogenous cause, but rather a manifestation of the same factors that lead to vaccine hesitancy and refusal. We conclude by encouraging researchers to carefully consider modeling choicesmore »and imploring practitioners to refocus on the worldviews, personality traits, and political orientations that underlie both health-related behaviors and beliefs in conspiracy theories and misinformation.« less
2. Are Republicans and Conservatives More Likely to Believe Conspiracy Theories?

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-022-09812-3  

   Enders, Adam ; Farhart, Christina ; Miller, Joanne ; Uscinski, Joseph ; Saunders, Kyle ; Drochon, Hugo ( July 2022 , Political Behavior)

   A sizable literature tracing back to Richard Hofstadter’s The Paranoid Style (1964) argues that Republicans and conservatives are more likely to believe conspiracy theories than Democrats and liberals. However, the evidence for this proposition is mixed. Since conspiracy theory beliefs are associated with dangerous orientations and behaviors, it is imperative that social scientists better understand the connection between conspiracy theories and political orientations. Employing 20 surveys of Americans from 2012 to 2021 (total n = 37,776), as well as surveys of 20 additional countries spanning six continents (total n = 26,416), we undertake an expansive investigation of the asymmetry thesis. First, we examine the relationship between beliefs in 52 conspiracy theories and both partisanship and ideology in the U.S.; this analysis is buttressed by an examination of beliefs in 11 conspiracy theories across 20 more countries. In our second test, we hold constant the content of the conspiracy theories investigated—manipulating only the partisanship of the theorized villains—to decipher whether those on the left or right are more likely to accuse political out-groups of conspiring. Finally, we inspect correlations between political orientations and the general predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories over the span of a decade. In no instance do we observe systematic evidencemore »of a political asymmetry. Instead, the strength and direction of the relationship between political orientations and conspiricism is dependent on the characteristics of the specific conspiracy beliefs employed by researchers and the socio-political context in which those ideas are considered.« less
3. Examining the Left‐Right Divide Through the Lens of a Global Crisis: Ideological Differences and Their Implications for Responses to the COVID‐19 Pandemic

   https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12740  

   Ruisch, Benjamin Coe ; Moore, Courtney ; Granados Samayoa, Javier ; Boggs, Shelby ; Ladanyi, Jesse ; Fazio, Russell ( May 2021 , Political Psychology)

   The COVID‐19 disease pandemic is one of the most pressing global health issues of our time. Nevertheless, responses to the pandemic exhibit a stark ideological divide, with political conservatives (versus liberals/progressives) expressing less concern about the virus and less behavioral compliance with efforts to combat it. Drawing from decades of research on the psychological underpinnings of ideology, in four studies (totalN = 4441) we examine the factors that contribute to the ideological gap in pandemic response—across domains including personality (e.g., empathic concern), attitudes (e.g., trust in science), information (e.g., COVID‐19 knowledge), vulnerability (e.g., preexisting medical conditions), demographics (e.g., education, income) and environment (e.g., local COVID‐19 infection rates). This work provides insight into the most proximal drivers of this ideological divide and also helps fill a long‐standing theoretical and empirical gap regarding how these various ideological differences shape responses to complex real‐world sociopolitical events. Among our key findings are the central role of attitude‐ and belief‐related factors (e.g., trust in science and trust in Trump)—and the relatively weaker influence of several domain‐general personality factors (empathic concern, disgust sensitivity, conspiratorial ideation). We conclude by considering possible explanations for these findings and their broader implications for our understanding of political ideology.

   Starkmore »ideological differences exist across a wide range of attitudinal and behavioral indices of pandemic response, with more conservative individuals reliably exhibiting less concern about the virus. These findings illustrate the extent to which the pandemic has become politicized.

   A range of factors contribute to this ideological gap in pandemic response, but some are substantially more important than others.

   Several factors that have received attention in public and academic discourse about the pandemic appear to contribute little, if at all, to the ideological divide. These include news following, scientific literacy, perceived social norms, and knowledge about the virus.

   The most critical factors appear to be trust in scientists and trust in Trump, which further highlights the politicization of COVID‐19 and, importantly, the antagonistic nature of these two beliefs. Efforts to change and, especially, disentangle these two attitudes have the potential to be effective interventions.

   « less
4. The Relationship Between Medical Diagnoses, Risk Perceptions, and Social Distancing Compliance: An Analysis of Data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study

   https://doi.org/10.18061/ojph.v4i2.8352  

   King, Ian Y. ; Manning, Wendy D. ; Longmore, Monica A. ; Giordano, Peggy C. ( January 2022 , Ohio Journal of Public Health)

   Background: The health belief model suggests that individuals' beliefs affect behaviors associated with health. This study examined whether Ohioans' pre-existing medical health diagnoses affected their belief about personal health risk and their compliance with social distancing during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior research examining physical and mental diagnoses and social distancing compliance is nearly nonexistent. We examined whether physical and mental health diagnoses influenced individuals' beliefs that their health is at risk and their adherence with social distancing guidelines. Methods: The study used longitudinal cohort data from the Toledo Adolescent Relationships Study (TARS) (n = 790), which surveyed Ohioans prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Dependent variables included belief that an individual's own health was at risk and social distancing compliance. Independent variables included physical and mental health diagnoses, pandemic-related factors (fear of COVID-19, political beliefs about the pandemic, friends social distance, family social distance, COVID-19 exposure), and sociodemographic variables (age, gender, race/ethnicity, educational level). Results: Individuals who had a pre-existing physical health diagnosis were more likely to believe that their personal health was at risk during the pandemic but were not more likely to comply with social distancing guidelines. In contrast, individuals who had a pre-existingmore »mental health diagnosis were more compliant with social distancing guidelines but were not more likely to believe their personal health was at risk. Individuals who expressed greater fear of COVID-19 believed their health is more at risk than those who expressed lower levels of fear. Conclusion: Health considerations are important to account for in assessments of responses to the pandemic, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing behavior. Additional research is needed to understand the divergence in the findings regarding physical health, beliefs about personal health risk, and social distancing compliance. Further, research is needed to understand how mental health issues impact decision-making related to social distancing compliance.« less
5. Does State Tightness-Looseness Predict Behavior and Attitudes Early in the COVID-19 Pandemic in the USA?

   https://doi.org/10.1177/00220221221077710  

   Gilliam, Ashley ; Schwartz, Danielle B. ; Godoy, Ricardo ; Boduroglu, Aysecan ; Gutchess, Angela ( June 2022 , Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology)

   We investigated how tightness-looseness, reflecting strictness of social norms, of state of residence in the USA predicts behaviors and attitudes related to COVID-19. Because individual-level tightness may better capture current attitudes during the pandemic, whereas state-level archival measures reflect historical factors, we assessed the extent to which tightness-looseness at both levels predicted adherence to public health guidelines and biases toward outgroups related to COVID-19. In Spring 2020, 544 mTurk participants, primarily from the 13 tightest and 13 loosest states, completed survey questions about health behaviors in response to COVID-19, endorsement of future policy changes, feeling of responsibility for lives, and attitudes toward groups marginalized during the pandemic (i.e., Asians, older adults). State-level results indicated some associations with attitudes toward Asians and older adults, but effects were not robust. Results based on individuals’ ratings of the tightness of their state indicated that higher levels of perceived tightness were associated with higher levels of protective self-reported public health behaviors (e.g., mask wearing, handwashing) during COVID-19, more endorsement of future policy changes to contain the pandemic, higher reported feelings of responsibility for one’s life, and stronger negative attitudes toward Asians. The relations between tightness and health outcomes persisted after controlling for political attitudesmore »and demographics. Thus, individual, more than state, tightness-looseness accounted for some degree of public health behaviors (unique contribution of individual tightness: R 2  = .034) and attitudes toward marginalized groups ( R 2  = .020) early during the COVID-19 pandemic. The implications of these findings for interventions to support behavior change or combat anti-Asian bias are discussed.« less