Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39314976›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Conspiratorial thinking in a 50-state survey of American adults.

Roy H Perlis, Ata Uslu, Sergio A Barroilhet, Paul A Vohringer, Mauricio Santillana, Matthew A Baum, James N Druckman, Katherine Ognyanova, David Lazer

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sergio A BarroilhetORCID 0000-0002-2016-3662
Paul A Vohringer
Mauricio SantillanaORCID 0000-0002-4206-418X
Katherine OgnyanovaORCID 0000-0003-3038-7077

Funding

Development of an Open-Source and Data-Driven Modeling Platform to Monitor and Forecast Disease ActivityR01GM130668 · NIGMS · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI SANTILLANA, MAURICIO · 2018 to 2022
$1.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM130668
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While the NIMH Research Domain Criteria framework stresses understanding how neuropsychiatric phenotypes vary across populations, little is known outside of small clinical cohorts about conspiratorial thoughts as an aspect of cognition. Methods: We conducted a 50-state non-probability internet survey conducted in 6 waves between October 6, 2022 and January 29, 2024, with respondents age 18 and older. Respondents completed the American Conspiratorial Thinking Scale (ACTS) and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Survey-weighted regression models were used to examine sociodemographic and clinical associations with ACTS score, and associations with vaccination status. Results: Across the 6 survey waves, there were 123,781 unique individuals. After reweighting, a total of 78.6% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one conspiratorial idea; 19.0% agreed with all four of them. More conspiratorial thoughts were reported among those age 25 - 54, males, individuals who finished high school but did not start or complete college, those with household income between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, and those who reside in rural areas, as well as those with greater levels of depressive symptoms. Endorsing more conspiratorial thoughts was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19. Discussion: A substantial proportion of US adults endorsed at least some conspiratorial thinking, which varied widely across population subgroups. The extent of correlation with non-vaccination suggests the importance of considering such thinking in designing public health strategies.

Identifiers

PMID39314976
PMCPMC11419219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.