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

Jan-Willem van Prooijen, David M Amodio, Arnout Boot, Anita Eerland, Tom Etienne, André P M Krouwel, Michal Onderco, Peter Verkoeijen, Rolf A Zwaan
Author Information
  1. Jan-Willem van Prooijen: Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. ORCID
  2. David M Amodio: Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY, USA.
  3. Arnout Boot: Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  4. Anita Eerland: Department of Communication Science, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
  5. Tom Etienne: Kieskompas, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  6. André P M Krouwel: Departments of Political Science and Communication Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
  7. Michal Onderco: Department of Public Administration and Sociology, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  8. Peter Verkoeijen: Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
  9. Rolf A Zwaan: Department of Psychology, Education, and Child Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Abstract

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 ( = 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.

Keywords

References

  1. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021 Feb 23;118(8): [PMID: 33542156]
  2. J Health Psychol. 2022 May;27(6):1421-1431 [PMID: 34670439]
  3. Psychol Methods. 2015 Mar;20(1):102-16 [PMID: 25822208]
  4. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2021 Apr;120(4):1013-1034 [PMID: 32730068]
  5. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Aug;46:101346 [PMID: 35486966]
  6. Pers Individ Dif. 2021 Jun;175:110697 [PMID: 33531725]
  7. Nat Commun. 2022 Jan 26;13(1):517 [PMID: 35082277]
  8. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Nov;13(6):770-788 [PMID: 30231213]
  9. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Feb;43:65-69 [PMID: 34298201]
  10. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2021 Mar;51(2):285-293 [PMID: 33821057]
  11. Curr Opin Psychol. 2022 Oct;47:101352 [PMID: 35644093]
  12. Front Psychol. 2021 Sep 01;12:666928 [PMID: 34539483]
  13. PLoS One. 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89177 [PMID: 24586574]
  14. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2021 May-Jun;35(3):720-729 [PMID: 33821088]
  15. Psychol Med. 2023 Apr;53(6):2514-2521 [PMID: 34641992]
  16. Br J Psychol. 2014 Feb;105(1):35-56 [PMID: 24387095]
  17. Br J Soc Psychol. 2019 Jul;58(3):534-549 [PMID: 30659628]
  18. Psychol Med. 2022 Jan;52(2):251-263 [PMID: 32436485]
  19. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2018 Dec;48(7):897-908 [PMID: 30555188]
  20. Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2020 Dec;12(4):1270-1285 [PMID: 32864837]
  21. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2020 Nov;11(8):1110-1118 [PMID: 38602949]
  22. Br J Health Psychol. 2020 Nov;25(4):957-980 [PMID: 32583540]
  23. Mem Stud. 2017 Jul;10(3):323-333 [PMID: 29081831]

MeSH Term

Humans
COVID-19
Communicable Disease Control
Longitudinal Studies
Netherlands
Physical Distancing

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0beliefsconspiracyresponseshealthtimelockdownpredictWavepandemiclongitudinalcross-laggedphysicaldistancingsupport2020effectscoronavirusCovid-19hypotheseshypothesizedetrimentalhealth-relatedpolicyfirstoverallsupportedresultseffecthypothesisBACKGROUND:Littleknowninterrelatedcoursedisease2019studytestedtwocontrastingmutuallyexclusivemodelingFirstbasedconsequentialnatureincreaseSecondpeoplemayrationalizebehaviorincreasedMETHODS:measuredseveralieperceptiondangerousthreephasesNetherlands=4913:1:April2:Junesecond3:DecemberRESULTS:perceiveddangeralthoughstandardizedlargerviceversawithin-personchangedependingphaseFurthermorereducedemerged23CONCLUSIONS:providestrongeranalysisConspiracytheoriesSARS-CoV2design

Similar Articles

Cited By (2)