ArticleApplied psychology. Health and well-being2025
Assessing the role of conspiracy beliefs in oncological treatment decisions: An experimental approach.
Article in Applied psychology. Health and well-being, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Assessing the role of conspiracy beliefs in oncological treatment decisions: An experimental approach.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer is an important issue and a model topic for misinformatfion researchers. The present research experimentally investigates the effect of cancer-related conspiracy beliefs and misinformation on oncology treatment intentions in a cancer-free population. In three pre-registered studies (N total = 1020), participants were asked to put themselves in the shoes of a patient recommended for chemotherapy. Study 1 (N = 300) failed to experimentally manipulate cancer-related conspiracy beliefs with exposure to a health scandal not related to cancer. In Study 2 (N = 258), exposure to a pro-conspiracy (vs. anti-conspiracy) content related to cancer treatment was associated with more conspiracy beliefs, less intention to use chemotherapy and more intentions to use unconventional medicines. Exploratory analyses revealed that these effects were conditioned by the credibility of the misinformation. Study 3 (N = 462) replicated these findings using a full experimental design. Exposure (vs. no exposure) to a warning and accuracy prompt, prior to exposure to the pro-conspiracy content, was found to be effective in reducing its credibility and preventing its detrimental effects. These findings corroborate the existence of an effect of conspiracy beliefs on treatment intentions in oncology and also suggest several ways to mitigate them.
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.