Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38638523›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024

The strength of conspiracy beliefs versus scientific information: the case of COVID 19 preventive behaviours.

Daniel Pinazo-Calatayud, Sonia Agut-Nieto, Lorena Arahuete, Rosana Peris, Alfonso Barros, Carolina Vázquez-Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

6 authors.

Daniel Pinazo-CalatayudUniversity of Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain.
Sonia Agut-NietoUniversity of Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain.
Lorena ArahueteUniversity of Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain.
Rosana PerisUniversity of Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain.
Alfonso BarrosUniversity of Jaume I, Castelló de La Plana, Spain.
Carolina Vázquez-RodríguezMiguel Hernández University of Elche, Elche, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Controlling the spread of COVID-19 requires individuals to adopt preventive behaviours, but conspiracy beliefs about its origin are spreading. The aim of this paper is to better comprehend the strength of conspiracy beliefs versus objective COVID-19 information to predict people's adherence to protective behaviours (getting vaccinated, being tracked through APPs, and keeping social distance from infected people). Study 1 shows that COVID-19 implicit theories detected in the Pre-study were activated as independent factors that constitute people's interpretations of the virus origin. These beliefs were related to a lesser intention to engage in preventive behaviours and a higher level of mistrust in institutional information, although some beliefs generate positive expectations about COVID-19 consequences. In Study 2, conducted with a different sample, official COVID-19 information was included as an independent variable, but this new variable did not further explain results. Lastly, Study 3 consisting of both previous samples confirmed that conspiracy beliefs had a direct effect on a lesser willingness to engage in preventive actions, a higher mistrust, and positive expectations about COVID-19 consequences. We conclude that objective COVID-19 information did not buffer the effect of conspiracy beliefs; they interfere with actions to prevent it by taking institutions as scapegoats or complicit with secret powers.

Indexed as

conspiracy beliefsCOVID-19implicit theoriesobjective informationpreventive behaviours

Identifiers

PMID38638523
PMCPMC11024355

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.