• Something wrong with this record ?

A longitudinal analysis of conspiracy beliefs and Covid-19 health responses

JW. van Prooijen, DM. Amodio, A. Boot, A. Eerland, T. Etienne, APM. Krouwel, M. Onderco, P. Verkoeijen, RA. Zwaan

. 2023 ; 53 (12) : 5709-5716. [pub] 20220926

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc24001262

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how conspiracy beliefs and health responses are interrelated over time during the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. This longitudinal study tested two contrasting, but not mutually exclusive, hypotheses through cross-lagged modeling. First, based on the consequential nature of conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that conspiracy beliefs predict an increase in detrimental health responses over time. Second, as people may rationalize their behavior through conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that detrimental health responses predict increased conspiracy beliefs over time. METHODS: We measured conspiracy beliefs and several health-related responses (i.e. physical distancing, support for lockdown policy, and the perception of the coronavirus as dangerous) at three phases of the pandemic in the Netherlands (N = 4913): During the first lockdown (Wave 1: April 2020), after the first lockdown (Wave 2: June 2020), and during the second lockdown (Wave 3: December 2020). RESULTS: For physical distancing and perceived danger, the overall cross-lagged effects supported both hypotheses, although the standardized effects were larger for the effects of conspiracy beliefs on these health responses than vice versa. The within-person change results only supported an effect of conspiracy beliefs on these health responses, depending on the phase of the pandemic. Furthermore, an overall cross-lagged effect of conspiracy beliefs on reduced support for lockdown policy emerged from Wave 2 to 3. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide stronger support for the hypothesis that conspiracy beliefs predict health responses over time than for the hypothesis that health responses predict conspiracy beliefs over time.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc24001262
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240213094501.0
007      
ta
008      
240109s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1017/S0033291722002938 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)36154946
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a van Prooijen, Jan-Willem $u Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands $u The Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement (NSCR), Amsterdam, the Netherlands $u Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands $1 https://orcid.org/0000000162360819 $7 vse20211131502
245    12
$a A longitudinal analysis of conspiracy beliefs and Covid-19 health responses / $c JW. van Prooijen, DM. Amodio, A. Boot, A. Eerland, T. Etienne, APM. Krouwel, M. Onderco, P. Verkoeijen, RA. Zwaan
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Little is known about how conspiracy beliefs and health responses are interrelated over time during the course of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic. This longitudinal study tested two contrasting, but not mutually exclusive, hypotheses through cross-lagged modeling. First, based on the consequential nature of conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that conspiracy beliefs predict an increase in detrimental health responses over time. Second, as people may rationalize their behavior through conspiracy beliefs, we hypothesize that detrimental health responses predict increased conspiracy beliefs over time. METHODS: We measured conspiracy beliefs and several health-related responses (i.e. physical distancing, support for lockdown policy, and the perception of the coronavirus as dangerous) at three phases of the pandemic in the Netherlands (N = 4913): During the first lockdown (Wave 1: April 2020), after the first lockdown (Wave 2: June 2020), and during the second lockdown (Wave 3: December 2020). RESULTS: For physical distancing and perceived danger, the overall cross-lagged effects supported both hypotheses, although the standardized effects were larger for the effects of conspiracy beliefs on these health responses than vice versa. The within-person change results only supported an effect of conspiracy beliefs on these health responses, depending on the phase of the pandemic. Furthermore, an overall cross-lagged effect of conspiracy beliefs on reduced support for lockdown policy emerged from Wave 2 to 3. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide stronger support for the hypothesis that conspiracy beliefs predict health responses over time than for the hypothesis that health responses predict conspiracy beliefs over time.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a COVID-19 $x prevence a kontrola $7 D000086382
650    _2
$a kontrola infekčních nemocí $7 D003140
650    _2
$a longitudinální studie $7 D008137
650    _2
$a fyzický odstup $7 D000085762
651    _2
$a Nizozemsko $x epidemiologie $7 D009426
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Amodio, David M $u Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA $u Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Boot, Arnout $u Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Eerland, Anita $u Department of Communication Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Etienne, Tom $u Kieskompas, Amsterdam, the Netherlands $u Department of Political Science & Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
700    1_
$a Krouwel, André P M $u Departments of Political Science and Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Onderco, Michal $u Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands $u Peace Research Center Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Charles University, Prague, Czechia
700    1_
$a Verkoeijen, Peter $u Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands $u Brain and Learning Research Group, Learning and Innovation Center, Avans University of Applied Sciences, Breda, the Netherlands
700    1_
$a Zwaan, Rolf A $u Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
773    0_
$w MED00003972 $t Psychological medicine $x 1469-8978 $g Roč. 53, č. 12 (2023), s. 5709-5716
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36154946 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20240109 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240213094458 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2049714 $s 1210956
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 53 $c 12 $d 5709-5716 $e 20220926 $i 1469-8978 $m Psychological medicine $n Psychol Med $x MED00003972
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20240109

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options