SynthesisScientific reports2022
A continuous time meta-analysis of the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and individual preventive behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. 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.
- Fighting fire with fire: Prebunking with the use of a plausible meta-conspiracy framing.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Stability of Network Models Linking Personality to Conspiracy Mentality Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Europe's journal of psychology · 2026Article
- Understanding Belief-Behavior Correspondence: Beliefs and Belief-to-Behavior Inferences.Psychological inquiry · 2025Article
- The role of interdependent self-construal in mitigating the effect of conspiratorial beliefs on vaccine acceptance.The British journal of social psychology · 2025Article
- Leveraging artificial intelligence to identify the psychological factors associated with conspiracy theory beliefs online.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Determinants of behaviour and their efficacy as targets of behavioural change interventions.Nature reviews. Psychology · 2024Article
- The persuasive effects of social cues and source effects on misinformation susceptibility.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Endorsement of alternative medicine and vaccine hesitancy among physicians: A cross-sectional study in four European countries.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2023Article
- Preventive Behaviors and Influencing Factors among Thai Residents in Endemic Areas during the Highest Epidemic Peak of the COVID-19 Outbreak.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Using psychological science to understand and fight health misinformation: An APA consensus statement.The American psychologistReview
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
In several longitudinal studies, reduced willingness to show COVID-19-related preventive behavior (e.g., wearing masks, social distancing) has been partially attributed to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. However, there is considerable uncertainty with respect to the strength of the relationship and whether the negative relationship exists in both directions (reciprocal effects). One explanation of the heterogeneity pertains to the fact that the time interval between consecutive measurement occasions varies (e.g., 1 month, 3 months) both between and within studies. Therefore, a continuous time meta-analysis based on longitudinal studies was conducted. This approach enables one to examine how the strength of the relationship between conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 preventive behavior depends on the time interval. In total, 1035 correlations were coded for 17 samples (N = 16,350). The results for both the full set of studies and a subset consisting of 13 studies corroborated the existence of reciprocal effects. Furthermore, there was some evidence of publication bias. The largest cross-lagged effects were observed between 3 and 6 months, which can inform decision-makers and researchers when carrying out interventions or designing studies examining the consequences of new conspiracy theories.
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.