Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32565592›Full record

ArticlePersonality and individual differences2020

COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs.

Neophytos Georgiou, Paul Delfabbro, Ryan Balzan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Personality and individual differences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 117 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
117citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

117 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

57 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Neophytos GeorgiouSchool of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Paul DelfabbroSchool of Psychology, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Ryan BalzanCollege of Education, Psychology and Social Work, Flinders University, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Conspiracy theoriesCOVID-19EducationPerceived stress

Identifiers

PMID32565592
PMCPMC7296298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.