IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v292y2022ics0277953621009436.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories? The role of psychotic-like experiences and confinement-related factors

Author

Listed:
  • Ferreira, Simão
  • Campos, Carlos
  • Marinho, Beatriz
  • Rocha, Susana
  • Fonseca-Pedrero, Eduardo
  • Barbosa Rocha, Nuno

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is a worldwide threat to public health and the global economy. The climate of fear and uncertainty associated with the pandemic has fostered the emergence of a wide range of COVID-19 conspiracy theories that have the potential to shape public opinion and hinder the effective dissemination of valid information. Beliefs in conspiracy theories have been associated with maladaptive personality traits such as schizotypy and paranoia, as well as other non-psychotic psychological characteristics (e.g., social isolation, stress).

Suggested Citation

  • Ferreira, Simão & Campos, Carlos & Marinho, Beatriz & Rocha, Susana & Fonseca-Pedrero, Eduardo & Barbosa Rocha, Nuno, 2022. "What drives beliefs in COVID-19 conspiracy theories? The role of psychotic-like experiences and confinement-related factors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 292(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:292:y:2022:i:c:s0277953621009436
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114611
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621009436
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114611?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gilens, Martin, 2001. "Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 379-396, June.
    2. Unknown, 2014. "Media Coverage 2014," 2014: Ethics, Efficiency and Food Security: Feeding the 9 Billion, Well, 26-28 August 2014 225573, Crawford Fund.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521585934.
    5. Flachaire, Emmanuel, 2005. "Bootstrapping heteroskedastic regression models: wild bootstrap vs. pairs bootstrap," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 361-376, April.
    6. Michiel van Elk, 2015. "Perceptual Biases in Relation to Paranormal and Conspiracy Beliefs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    7. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487.
    8. Praveen Suthaharan & Erin J. Reed & Pantelis Leptourgos & Joshua G. Kenney & Stefan Uddenberg & Christoph D. Mathys & Leib Litman & Jonathan Robinson & Aaron J. Moss & Jane R. Taylor & Stephanie M. Gr, 2021. "Paranoia and belief updating during the COVID-19 crisis," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(9), pages 1190-1202, September.
    9. Graeme D. Smith & Fowie Ng & William Ho Cheung Li, 2020. "COVID‐19: Emerging compassion, courage and resilience in the face of misinformation and adversity," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(9-10), pages 1425-1428, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brendan Nyhan, 2011. "The limited effects of testimony on political persuasion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 283-312, September.
    2. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    3. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    4. Valentino Larcinese, 2007. "Does political knowledge increase turnout? Evidence from the 1997 British general election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 131(3), pages 387-411, June.
    5. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    6. Thompson, Paul N., 2019. "Are school officials held accountable for fiscal stress? Evidence from school district financial intervention systems," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 44-54.
    7. Nicholas Clark & Timothy Hellwig, 2012. "Information effects and mass support for EU policy control," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 535-557, December.
    8. Christopher Gelpi, 2010. "Performing on Cue? The Formation of Public Opinion Toward War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 54(1), pages 88-116, February.
    9. Christenson, Dino P. & Goldfarb, Jillian L. & Kriner, Douglas L., 2017. "Costs, benefits, and the malleability of public support for “Fracking”," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 407-417.
    10. Philip Paolino, 2017. "Surprising Events and Surprising Opinions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(8), pages 1795-1815, September.
    11. Anders Gustafsson, 2019. "Busy doing nothing: why politicians implement inefficient policies," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 282-299, September.
    12. David Altman, 2002. "Prospects for E-Government in Latin America: Satisfaction With Democracy, Social Accountability, and Direct Democracy," International Review of Public Administration, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 5-20, December.
    13. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    14. Donald Wittman, 2008. "Targeted political advertising and strategic behavior by uninformed voters," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 87-100, January.
    15. John Patty & Roberto Weber, 2007. "Letting the good times roll: A theory of voter inference and experimental evidence," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 130(3), pages 293-310, March.
    16. Matthijs Rooduijn & Brian Burgoon & Erika J van Elsas & Herman G van de Werfhorst, 2017. "Radical distinction: Support for radical left and radical right parties in Europe," European Union Politics, , vol. 18(4), pages 536-559, December.
    17. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "Direct Democracy: Designing a Living Constitution," IEW - Working Papers 167, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    18. Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, 2013. "Why do they want the UN to decide? A two-step model of public support for UN authority," TranState Working Papers 171, University of Bremen, Collaborative Research Center 597: Transformations of the State.
    19. Frey, Bruno S., 2004. "Direct Democracy for a Living Constitution," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 04/5, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
    20. Johannes Urpelainen, 2012. "How Does Democratic Accountability Shape International Cooperation?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(1), pages 28-55, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:292:y:2022:i:c:s0277953621009436. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.