Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33935904›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2021

Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation About COVID-19: Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Anxiety, Depression and Exposure to and Trust in Information Sources.

David De Coninck, Thomas Frissen, Koen Matthijs, Leen d'Haenens, Grégoire Lits, Olivier Champagne-Poirier, Marie-Eve Carignan, Marc D David, Nathalie Pignard-Cheynel, Sébastien Salerno and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 105 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
105citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
94.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

105 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 304 citations in OpenAlex.

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

45 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

David De ConinckCentre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Thomas FrissenDepartment of Technology and Society Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
Koen MatthijsCentre for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Leen d'HaenensInstitute for Media Studies, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Grégoire LitsInstitut Langage et Communication, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Olivier Champagne-PoirierDépartement de Communication, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Marie-Eve CarignanDépartement de Communication, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Marc D DavidDépartement de Communication, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Nathalie Pignard-CheynelUniversité de Neuchâtel, Académie du Journalisme et des Médias, Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Sébastien SalernoMedi@Lab, Université de Genève, Genève, Switzerland.
Melissa GénéreuxDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Université de Sherbrooke · CAKU Leuven · BEMaastricht University · NLUCLouvain · BEUniversity of Geneva · CHUniversity of Neuchâtel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While COVID-19 spreads aggressively and rapidly across the globe, many societies have also witnessed the spread of other viral phenomena like misinformation, conspiracy theories, and general mass suspicions about what is really going on. This study investigates how exposure to and trust in information sources, and anxiety and depression, are associated with conspiracy and misinformation beliefs in eight countries/regions (Belgium, Canada, England, Philippines, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United States, Switzerland) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected in an online survey fielded from May 29, 2020 to June 12, 2020, resulting in a multinational representative sample of 8,806 adult respondents. Results indicate that greater exposure to traditional media (television, radio, newspapers) is associated with lower conspiracy and misinformation beliefs, while exposure to politicians and digital media and personal contacts are associated with greater conspiracy and misinformation beliefs. Exposure to health experts is associated with lower conspiracy beliefs only. Higher feelings of depression are also associated with greater conspiracy and misinformation beliefs. We also found relevant group- and country differences. We discuss the implications of these results.

Indexed as

conspiracy beliefsconspiracy theoriesCOVID-19information sourcesmisinformation beliefspandemic

Identifiers

PMID33935904
PMCPMC8085263
OpenAlexW3155023262

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.