Anna Soveri1, Linda C Karlsson2, Jan Antfolk2, Mikael Lindfelt3, Stephan Lewandowsky4,5. 1. Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Turku, Turku, Finland. anjoso@utu.fi. 2. Department of Psychology, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. 3. Department of Theological Ethics, Åbo Akademi University, Turku, Finland. 4. School of Psychological Science, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. 5. School of Psychological Science, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.
BACKGROUND: We investigated if people's response to the official recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic is associated with conspiracy beliefs related to COVID-19, a distrust in the sources providing information on COVID-19, and an endorsement of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). METHODS: The sample consisted of 1325 Finnish adults who filled out an online survey marketed on Facebook. Structural regression analysis was used to investigate whether: 1) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM predict people's response to the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) implemented by the government during the COVID-19 pandemic, and 2) conspiracy beliefs, a distrust in information sources, and endorsement of CAM are related to people's willingness to take a COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: Individuals with more conspiracy beliefs and a lower trust in information sources were less likely to have a positive response to the NPIs. Individuals with less trust in information sources and more endorsement of CAM were more unwilling to take a COVID-19 vaccine. Distrust in information sources was the strongest and most consistent predictor in all models. Our analyses also revealed that some of the people who respond negatively to the NPIs also have a lower likelihood to take the vaccine. This association was partly related to a lower trust in information sources. CONCLUSIONS: Distrusting the establishment to provide accurate information, believing in conspiracy theories, and endorsing treatments and substances that are not part of conventional medicine, are all associated with a more negative response to the official guidelines during COVID-19. How people respond to the guidelines, however, is more strongly and consistently related to the degree of trust they feel in the information sources, than to their tendency to hold conspiracy beliefs or endorse CAM. These findings highlight the need for governments and health authorities to create communication strategies that build public trust.
Entities:
Keywords:
CAM; COVID-19; Complementary and alternative medicine; Conspiracy; NPI; Non-pharmaceutical interventions; Trust; Vaccine attitudes
Authors: Seth Flaxman; Swapnil Mishra; Axel Gandy; H Juliette T Unwin; Thomas A Mellan; Helen Coupland; Charles Whittaker; Harrison Zhu; Tresnia Berah; Jeffrey W Eaton; Mélodie Monod; Azra C Ghani; Christl A Donnelly; Steven Riley; Michaela A C Vollmer; Neil M Ferguson; Lucy C Okell; Samir Bhatt Journal: Nature Date: 2020-06-08 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Anna Soveri; Linda C Karlsson; Otto Mäki; Jan Antfolk; Otto Waris; Hasse Karlsson; Linnea Karlsson; Mikael Lindfelt; Stephan Lewandowsky Journal: PLoS One Date: 2020-07-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Linda C Karlsson; Anna Soveri; Stephan Lewandowsky; Linnea Karlsson; Hasse Karlsson; Saara Nolvi; Max Karukivi; Mikael Lindfelt; Jan Antfolk Journal: Pers Individ Dif Date: 2020-12-14
Authors: Sarah M Bartsch; Kelly J O'Shea; Marie C Ferguson; Maria Elena Bottazzi; Patrick T Wedlock; Ulrich Strych; James A McKinnell; Sheryl S Siegmund; Sarah N Cox; Peter J Hotez; Bruce Y Lee Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Amélie Desvars-Larrive; Elma Dervic; Nina Haug; Thomas Niederkrotenthaler; Jiaying Chen; Anna Di Natale; Jana Lasser; Diana S Gliga; Alexandra Roux; Johannes Sorger; Abhijit Chakraborty; Alexandr Ten; Alija Dervic; Andrea Pacheco; Ania Jurczak; David Cserjan; Diana Lederhilger; Dominika Bulska; Dorontinë Berishaj; Erwin Flores Tames; Francisco S Álvarez; Huda Takriti; Jan Korbel; Jenny Reddish; Joanna Grzymała-Moszczyńska; Johannes Stangl; Lamija Hadziavdic; Laura Stoeger; Leana Gooriah; Lukas Geyrhofer; Marcia R Ferreira; Marta Bartoszek; Rainer Vierlinger; Samantha Holder; Simon Haberfellner; Verena Ahne; Viktoria Reisch; Vito D P Servedio; Xiao Chen; Xochilt María Pocasangre-Orellana; Zuzanna Garncarek; David Garcia; Stefan Thurner Journal: Sci Data Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 8.501
Authors: Nailya Bulatova; Sara Younes; Majd Arabiyat; Ahmad Abukaff; Sara Madanat; Eman Alqudah; Anoud Hamati; Farah Halawa; Abdallah Younes Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Sylvie C Briand; Matteo Cinelli; Tim Nguyen; Rosamund Lewis; Dimitri Prybylski; Carlo M Valensise; Vittoria Colizza; Alberto Eugenio Tozzi; Nicola Perra; Andrea Baronchelli; Michele Tizzoni; Fabiana Zollo; Antonio Scala; Tina Purnat; Christine Czerniak; Adam J Kucharski; Akhona Tshangela; Lei Zhou; Walter Quattrociocchi Journal: Cell Date: 2021-12-09 Impact factor: 41.582