ArticleApplied cognitive psychology
Individual differences in risk perception and misperception of COVID-19 in the context of political ideology.
Article in Applied cognitive psychology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers to COVID-19 vaccination and strategies to increase trust and uptake among racial and ethnic minorities with HIV in South Florida: a qualitative study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and short-term and long-term intentions among unvaccinated young adults: a mixed-method approach.BMC public health · 2022Article
- Suicide in the context of infodemic during COVID-19 pandemic: A global perspective.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2022Article
- Outgroup threat, ideology, and favorable evaluations of the government's responses to COVID-19.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Conservative Media Use and COVID-19 Related Behavior: The Moderating Role of Media Literacy Variables.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- The Pandemic and the "Perpetual Foreigner": How Threats Posed by the COVID-19 Pandemic Relate to Stereotyping of Asian Americans.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Fuzzy-Trace Theory and the Battle for the Gist in the Public Mind.Journal of applied research in memory and cognition · 2021Article
- Individual differences in risk perception and misperception of COVID-19 in the context of political ideology.Applied cognitive psychologyArticle
- Navigating the infodemic: A qualitative study of university students' information strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by misinformation, politicization of public health, and extreme differences in risk assessment. In two studies, we sought to understand factors that contribute to differences in people's understanding of the virus and associated risks. We found that conservative participants reported higher levels of acceptable risk, have lower risk estimates of activities, and endorsed more misinformation. Participants with personal health risk factors rated COVID-19 risks as higher, more reflective participants had lower acceptable risk levels, and impulsive participants endorsed more misinformation. In our second study, we also found that reflective participants were more likely to wear a mask, get vaccinated, and maintain social distancing, and that participants judged arguments about COVID-19 measures largely based on the claim rather than supporting reasons. By clarifying these individual differences, public health experts can more effectively create targeted interventions for at risk populations, and be better prepared for future outbreaks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.