skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Intellectual humility and misinformation receptivity: A meta-analytic review
Given the pervasiveness and dangers of misinformation, there has been a surge of research dedicated to uncovering predictors of and interventions for misinformation receptivity. One promising individual differences variable is intellectual humility (IH), which reflects a willingness to acknowledge the limitations of one’s views. Research has found that IH is correlated with less belief in misinformation, greater intentions to engage in evidence-based behaviors (e.g., receive vaccinations), and more actual engagement in evidence-based behaviors (e.g., take COVID-19 precautions). We sought to synthesize this growing area of research in a multi-level meta-analytic review (k = 27, S = 54, ES = 469, N = 33,814) to provide an accurate estimate of the relations between IH and misinformation receptivity and clarify potential sources of heterogeneity. We found that IH was related to less misinformation receptivity for beliefs (r = -.15, 95% CI [-.19, -.12]) and greater intentions to move away from misinformation (r = .13, 95% CI [.06, .19]) and behaviors that move people away from misinformation (r = .30, 95% CI [.24, .36]). Effect sizes were generally small, and moderator analyses revealed that effects were stronger for comprehensive (as opposed to narrow) measures of IH. These findings suggest that IH is one path for understanding resilience against misinformation, and we leverage our results to highlight pressing areas for future research focused on boundary conditions, risk factors, and causal implications.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2313708
PAR ID:
10650198
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Publisher / Repository:
Advances.in
Date Published:
Journal Name:
advances.in/psychology
Volume:
2
Issue:
1
ISSN:
2976-937X
Page Range / eLocation ID:
e940422
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, JAMA Health Forum)
    ImportanceThe COVID-19 pandemic has been notable for the widespread dissemination of misinformation regarding the virus and appropriate treatment. ObjectiveTo quantify the prevalence of non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 in the US and the association between such treatment and endorsement of misinformation as well as lack of trust in physicians and scientists. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis single-wave, population-based, nonprobability internet survey study was conducted between December 22, 2022, and January 16, 2023, in US residents 18 years or older who reported prior COVID-19 infection. Main Outcome and MeasureSelf-reported use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, endorsing false statements related to COVID-19 vaccination, self-reported trust in various institutions, conspiratorial thinking measured by the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale, and news sources. ResultsA total of 13 438 individuals (mean [SD] age, 42.7 [16.1] years; 9150 [68.1%] female and 4288 [31.9%] male) who reported prior COVID-19 infection were included in this study. In this cohort, 799 (5.9%) reported prior use of hydroxychloroquine (527 [3.9%]) or ivermectin (440 [3.3%]). In regression models including sociodemographic features as well as political affiliation, those who endorsed at least 1 item of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation were more likely to receive non–evidence-based medication (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 2.86; 95% CI, 2.28-3.58). Those reporting trust in physicians and hospitals (adjusted OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.56-0.98) and in scientists (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.51-0.79) were less likely to receive non–evidence-based medication. Respondents reporting trust in social media (adjusted OR, 2.39; 95% CI, 2.00-2.87) and in Donald Trump (adjusted OR, 2.97; 95% CI, 2.34-3.78) were more likely to have taken non–evidence-based medication. Individuals with greater scores on the American Conspiracy Thinking Scale were more likely to have received non–evidence-based medications (unadjusted OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.06-1.11; adjusted OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.07-1.13). Conclusions and RelevanceIn this survey study of US adults, endorsement of misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic, lack of trust in physicians or scientists, conspiracy-mindedness, and the nature of news sources were associated with receiving non–evidence-based treatment for COVID-19. These results suggest that the potential harms of misinformation may extend to the use of ineffective and potentially toxic treatments in addition to avoidance of health-promoting behaviors. 
    more » « less
  2. ; ; (, Epidemiology and Infection)
    null (Ed.)
    Abstract Deaths are frequently under-estimated during emergencies, times when accurate mortality estimates are crucial for emergency response. This study estimates excess all-cause, pneumonia and influenza mortality during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic using the 11 September 2020 release of weekly mortality data from the United States (U.S.) Mortality Surveillance System (MSS) from 27 September 2015 to 9 May 2020, using semiparametric and conventional time-series models in 13 states with high reported COVID-19 deaths and apparently complete mortality data: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Washington. We estimated greater excess mortality than official COVID-19 mortality in the U.S. (excess mortality 95% confidence interval (CI) 100 013–127 501 vs. 78 834 COVID-19 deaths) and 9 states: California (excess mortality 95% CI 3338–6344) vs. 2849 COVID-19 deaths); Connecticut (excess mortality 95% CI 3095–3952) vs. 2932 COVID-19 deaths); Illinois (95% CI 4646–6111) vs. 3525 COVID-19 deaths); Louisiana (excess mortality 95% CI 2341–3183 vs. 2267 COVID-19 deaths); Massachusetts (95% CI 5562–7201 vs. 5050 COVID-19 deaths); New Jersey (95% CI 13 170–16 058 vs. 10 465 COVID-19 deaths); New York (95% CI 32 538–39 960 vs. 26 584 COVID-19 deaths); and Pennsylvania (95% CI 5125–6560 vs. 3793 COVID-19 deaths). Conventional model results were consistent with semiparametric results but less precise. Significant excess pneumonia deaths were also found for all locations and we estimated hundreds of excess influenza deaths in New York. We find that official COVID-19 mortality substantially understates actual mortality, excess deaths cannot be explained entirely by official COVID-19 death counts. Mortality reporting lags appeared to worsen during the pandemic, when timeliness in surveillance systems was most crucial for improving pandemic response. 
    more » « less
  3. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, JAMA Network Open)
    ImportanceThe frequent occurrence of cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition has been described, but the nature of these symptoms and their demographic and functional factors are not well characterized in generalizable populations. ObjectiveTo investigate the prevalence of self-reported cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition, in comparison with individuals with prior acute SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not develop post–COVID-19 condition, and their association with other individual features, including depressive symptoms and functional status. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsTwo waves of a 50-state nonprobability population-based internet survey conducted between December 22, 2022, and May 5, 2023. Participants included survey respondents aged 18 years and older. ExposurePost–COVID-19 condition, defined as self-report of symptoms attributed to COVID-19 beyond 2 months after the initial month of illness. Main Outcomes and MeasuresSeven items from the Neuro-QoL cognition battery assessing the frequency of cognitive symptoms in the past week and patient Health Questionnaire-9. ResultsThe 14 767 individuals reporting test-confirmed COVID-19 illness at least 2 months before the survey had a mean (SD) age of 44.6 (16.3) years; 568 (3.8%) were Asian, 1484 (10.0%) were Black, 1408 (9.5%) were Hispanic, and 10 811 (73.2%) were White. A total of 10 037 respondents (68.0%) were women and 4730 (32.0%) were men. Of the 1683 individuals reporting post–COVID-19 condition, 955 (56.7%) reported at least 1 cognitive symptom experienced daily, compared with 3552 of 13 084 (27.1%) of those who did not report post–COVID-19 condition. More daily cognitive symptoms were associated with a greater likelihood of reporting at least moderate interference with functioning (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]; adjusted [AOR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), lesser likelihood of full-time employment (unadjusted OR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99]; AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]) and greater severity of depressive symptoms (unadjusted coefficient, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]; adjusted coefficient 1.27 [95% CI, 1.17-1.38). After including depressive symptoms in regression models, associations were also found between cognitive symptoms and at least moderate interference with everyday functioning (AOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.21-1.33]) and between cognitive symptoms and lower odds of full-time employment (AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]). Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this survey study of US adults suggest that cognitive symptoms are common among individuals with post–COVID-19 condition and associated with greater self-reported functional impairment, lesser likelihood of full-time employment, and greater depressive symptom severity. Screening for and addressing cognitive symptoms is an important component of the public health response to post–COVID-19 condition. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, Social science medicine)
    null (Ed.)
    Rationale To understand novel diseases, patients may draw comparisons to other diseases. Objective We examined whether mentally associating specific diseases with COVID-19 was related to self-reported protective behaviors early in the pandemic. Methods In March 2020, a national sample of 6534 U.S. adults listed diseases that came to mind when thinking of COVID-19. They self-reported protective behaviors, demographics, and COVID-19 risk perceptions. Results Participants associated COVID-19 with common infectious diseases like seasonal influenza (59%), common cold (11%), and pneumonia (10%), or emergent infectious diseases like pandemic influenza (28%), SARS/MERS (27%), and Ebola (14%). Seasonal influenza was most commonly mentioned, in all demographic groups. Participants mentioning seasonal influenza or common cold reported fewer protective behaviors. Those mentioning pneumonia or emergent infectious diseases reported more protective behaviors. Mentioning pneumonia, SARS/MERS, and Ebola was associated with the most protective behaviors, after accounting for other generated diseases, demographics, and risk perceptions (e.g., for avoiding crowds, OR = 1.52, 95% CI = 1.26, 1.83; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 1.13, 1.46; OR = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.11, 1.52, respectively). Conclusions Early in the pandemic, most participants mentally associated COVID-19 with seasonal flu, which may have undermined willingness to protect themselves. To motivate behavior change, COVID-19 risk communications may need to mention diseases that resonate with people while retaining accuracy. 
    more » « less
  5. ; ; ; ; ; ; ; (, PLOS ONE)
    Guidi, Barbara (Ed.)
    The COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread attention to an “infodemic” of potential health misinformation. This claim has not been assessed based on evidence. We evaluated if health misinformation became more common during the pandemic. We gathered about 325 million posts sharing URLs from Twitter and Facebook during the beginning of the pandemic (March 8-May 1, 2020) compared to the same period in 2019. We relied on source credibility as an accepted proxy for misinformation across this database. Human annotators also coded a subsample of 3000 posts with URLs for misinformation. Posts about COVID-19 were 0.37 times as likely to link to “not credible” sources and 1.13 times more likely to link to “more credible” sources than prior to the pandemic. Posts linking to “not credible” sources were 3.67 times more likely to include misinformation compared to posts from “more credible” sources. Thus, during the earliest stages of the pandemic, when claims of an infodemic emerged, social media contained proportionally less misinformation than expected based on the prior year. Our results suggest that widespread health misinformation is not unique to COVID-19. Rather, it is a systemic feature of online health communication that can adversely impact public health behaviors and must therefore be addressed. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email