ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022
[Causes of belief in conspiracy narratives and recommendations for successful risk communication in healthcare].
Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gaming with health misinformation: a social capital-based study of corrective information sharing factors in social media.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Climate change and public health in Germany - A synthesis of options for action from the German status report on climate change and health 2023.Journal of health monitoring · 2023Article
- Sickness absence due to mandatory COVID-19 certificates in the workplace.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Is it time for a time-out? Progress versus politics in studying the psychosexual implications of penile circumcision.International journal of impotence research · 2023Article
- [Sharing information on COVID-19 vaccination: quantitative online survey on actors, content, sources, and motives].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the belief in conspiracy narratives within the population strongly influenced the implementation of containment measures and medical recommendations. Conspiracy narratives involve the belief that a group perceived as powerful would pursue secret plans to harm society, which distinguishes them from misinformation or disinformation. This paper presents findings from the research literature on the causes of conspiracy beliefs, their effects on individual health behaviors, and ways to counteract their spread.In situations where people have less capacity and motivation for deeper information processing, they form their opinions more heuristically, which increases vulnerability to cognitive biases. People become particularly susceptible to receiving misinformation or disinformation, which are frequently linked to the emotionalization of facts and simplistic responses. Belief in conspiracy narratives may become more easily established, with additional issues of personal identity and various psychological motives playing a role, among others. A general distrust of people who are perceived as "powerful," such as representatives from science, medicine, and politics, can arise. Digital networks additionally contribute to the spread of conspiracy narratives.There are several ways that healthcare institutions can reduce the emergence and spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy narratives through their risk and crisis communications. The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model (CERC) provides important approaches in this regard.
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.