Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34831589›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

The Paradox of Conspiracy Theory: The Positive Impact of Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories on Preventive Actions and Vaccination Intentions during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Jaesun Wang, Seoyong Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Implications for COVID-19 vaccine uptake: A systematic review.Journal of infection and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Different COVID-19 treatments' impact on hospital length of stay.European journal of medical research · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

2 authors.

Jaesun WangDepartment of Public Administration, Division of Global Human Resources, Kangwon National University, Samcheok-si 25913, Korea.
Seoyong KimDepartment of Public Administration, Ajou University, Suwon 16499, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5536-4907

Funding

National Research Foundation of Korea NRF-2018S1A3A2075609
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the direct and indirect impact of beliefs in conspiracy theories on COVID-19-related preventive actions and vaccination intentions. The dominant theory in the literature is that beliefs in conspiracy theories have negative consequences. In particular, strong beliefs in conspiracy theories lower people's intentions to engage in preventive actions and get vaccinated. Previous studies indicated that this dominant theory applies in Korea as well. However, we find that this dominant theory does not apply in Korea. Based on an analysis of survey data, we find that beliefs in conspiracy theories have positive impact on preventive actions and vaccination intentions. In addition, beliefs in conspiracy theories play indirect roles in these two responses to COVID-19. Specifically, when perceived benefits and trust in the government or science enhance preventive actions or increase vaccination intentions, strong beliefs in conspiracy theories promote this effect. This positive role of conspiracy theories is paradoxical because they are generally viewed as negative.

Indexed as

COVID-19HumansIntentionPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Vaccinationbelief in conspiracy theoriesconspiracy theoriesCOVID-19 pandemicpreventive actiontrustvaccination

Identifiers

PMID34831589
PMCPMC8624959

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.