ArticleFrontiers in psychology2024
The strength of conspiracy beliefs versus scientific information: the case of COVID 19 preventive behaviours.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Free from conspiracies: The negative relationship between societal freedom and belief in generic and content-specific conspiracy theories.The British journal of social psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.