Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the COVID-19 Pandemic
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theory and Hypotheses
2.1. Three Approaches to Conspiracy Theories
2.2. Political Factors
2.2.1. Authoritarianism
2.2.2. Ideology
2.2.3. Partisanship
2.2.4. Religion
2.2.5. Trust
2.3. Psychological Factors
2.3.1. Perceived Risk
2.3.2. Anxiety
2.3.3. Negative Emotions
2.3.4. Perceived Control
2.3.5. Analytic Thinking
2.3.6. Blame Attribution
2.4. Structural Factors
2.4.1. Social Class
2.4.2. Knowledge
2.4.3. Education
2.4.4. Information
2.4.5. Social Support
2.4.6. Health Status
2.4.7. Age/Gender
3. Sample and Measures
4. Analysis and Findings
4.1. Descriptive Analysis
4.2. Correlation Analysis
4.3. Regression Analysis
5. Conclusions
5.1. Findings and Summary
5.2. Implications and Discussion
5.3. Limitations and Further Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Muller, R. COVID-19 Brings a Pandemic of Conspiracy Theories. 2020. Available online: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma/202004/covid-19-brings-pandemic-conspiracy-theories (accessed on 11 July 2020).
- Earnshaw, E.V.; Eaton, L.A.; Kalichman, S.C.; Brousseau, N.M.; Hill, E.C.; Fox, A.B. COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, health behaviors, and policy support. Transl. Behav. Med. 2020, 10, 850–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Miller, J.M.; Saunders, K.L.; Farhart, C.E. Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 2016, 60, 824–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Goertzel, T. Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychol. 1994, 15, 731–742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stempel, C.; Hargrove, S.; Stempel, G.H. Media use, social structure and belief in 9/11 conspiracy theories. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2007, 84, 353–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, Y.-S. The Dangerous “Corona 19 Conspiracy Theory” of Conservative YouTubers. 2020. Available online: https://www.pharmnews.com/ (accessed on 19 August 2020).
- MOHW (Ministry of Health and Welfare). COVID-19. Fact & Issue Check. Available online: http://ncov.mohw.go.kr/factBoardList.do (accessed on 11 November 2020).
- Oliver, J.; Wood, T. Conspiracy theories and the paranoid style(s) of mass opinion. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 2014, 58, 952–966. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24363536 (accessed on 10 September 2020). [CrossRef]
- Douglas, K.M.; Sutton, R.M.; Cichocka, A. The psychology of conspiracy theories. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2017, 26, 538–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Douglas, K.M.; Uscinski, J.E.; Sutton, R.M.; Cichocka, A.; Nefes, T.; Ang, C.S.; Deravi, F. Understanding Conspiracy Theories. Polit. Psychol. 2019, 40, 3–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bartlett, J.; Miller, C. The Power of Unreason: Conspiracy Theories, Extremism and Counter-Terrorism; Demos: London, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Earnshaw, V.A.; Bogart, L.M.; Klompas, M.; Katz, I.T. Medical mistrust in the context of Ebola: Implications for intended care-seeking and quarantine policy support in the United States. J. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 219–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogart, L.M.; Wagner, G.; Galvan, F.H.; Banks, D. Conspiracy beliefs about HIV are related to antiretroviral treatment nonadherence among African American men with HIV. J. Acqu. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2010, 53, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swami, V.; Furnham, A. Political Paranoia and Conspiracy Theories. In Power Politics, and Paranoia: Why People Are Suspicious of Their Leaders; van Prooijen, J.W., van Lange, P.A.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 218–236. [Google Scholar]
- Sullivan, L.E. Conspiracy theory. In The SAGE Glossary of the Social and Behavioral Sciences; SAGE Publications, Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009; p. 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uscinski, J.E.; Klofstad, C.; Atkinson, M.D. What drives conspiratorial beliefs? The role of informational cues and predispositions. Political Res. Q. 2016, 69, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Swami, V.; Chamorro-Premuzic, T.; Furnham, A. Unanswered questions: A preliminary investigation of personality and individual difference predictors of 9/11 conspiracist beliefs. Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 2010, 24, 749–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Enders, A.M.; Smallpage, S.M. Who are conspiracy theorists? A comprehensive approach to explaining conspiracy beliefs. Soc. Sci. Q. 2019, 100, 2017–2032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, S. Conspiracy theories: Public arguments as coded social critiques. A rhetorical analysis of the TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories. Argum. Advocacy 2002, 39, 40–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uscinski, J.E.; Joseph, M. Parent. In American Conspiracy Theories; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Crocker, J.; Luhtanen, R.; Broadnax, S.; Blaine, B.E. Belief in U.S. Government conspiracies against blacks among black and white college students: Powerlessness or system blame? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1999, 25, 941–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Altemeyer, B. The Authoritarian Specter; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Giry, J.; Gürpınar, D. Functions and Uses of Conspiracy Theories in Authoritarian Regimes; Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories; Institute of Public Law and Political Science: Graz, Austria, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Abalakina-Paap, M.; Stephan, W.G.; Craig, T.; Gregory, W.L. Beliefs in conspiracies. Political Psychol. 1999, 20, 637–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swami, V. Social psychological origins of conspiracy theories: The case of the Jewish conspiracy theory in Malaysia. Front. Psychol. 2012, 3, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Goldberg, Z.J.; Richey, S. Anti-vaccination beliefs and unrelated conspiracy theories. World Affairs 2020, 183, 105–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gruzd, A.; Mai, P. Going viral: How a single tweet spawned a COVID-19 conspiracy theory on Twitter. Big Data Soc. 2020, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Krouwel, A.P.; Pollet, T.V. Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2015, 6, 570–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hart, J.; Graether, M. Something’s going on here: Psychological predictors of belief in conspiracy theories. J. Individ. Differ. 2018, 39, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berinsky, A.J. Rumors, Truths, and Reality: A Study of Political Misinformation; Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Unpublished manuscript; Available online: https://drive.google.com/a/umn.edu/?tab=mo#folders/0B6tFsgslztWbR1pjNlVyQk84dEU (accessed on 15 September 2020).
- Georgiou, N.; Delfabbro, P.; Balzan, R. COVID-19-related conspiracy beliefs and their relationship with perceived stress and pre-existing conspiracy beliefs. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 166, 110201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smallpage, S.; Enders, A.; Uscinski, J. The partisan contours of conspiracy theory beliefs. Res. Political 2017, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bezalel, G. Conspiracy theories and religion: Reframing conspiracy theories as Blinks. Episteme 2019, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franks, B.; Bangerter, A.; Bauer, M.W. Conspiracy theories as quasi-religious mentality: An integrated account from cognitive science, social representations theory, and frame theory. Front. Psychol. 2013, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Robertson, D.G.; Dyrendal, A. Conspiracy theories and religion; superstition, seekership, and salvation. In Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them; Uscinski, J.E., Ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jasinskaja-Lahti, I.; Jetten, J. Unpacking the relationship between religiosity and conspiracy beliefs in Australia. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 58, 938–954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Swami, V.; Voracek, M.; Stieger, S.; Tran, U.S.; Furnham, A. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition 2014, 133, 572–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Norris, P.; Inglehart, R. Sacred and Secular. In Religion and Politics Worldwide, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Esmer, Y.; Pettersson, T. The effects of religion and religiosity on voting behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior; Dalton, R.J., Klingemann, H.-D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 481–503. [Google Scholar]
- Van der Linden, S.; Panagopoulos, C.; Azevedo, F.; Jost, J.T. The paranoid style in American politics revisited: An ideological asymmetry in conspiratorial thinking. Political Psychol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marchlewska, M.; Cichocka, A.; Łozowski, F.; Górska, P.; Winiewski, M. In search of an imaginary enemy: Catholic collective narcissism and the endorsement of gender conspiracy beliefs. J. Soc. Psychol. 2019, 159, 766–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- RELEVANT Staff. Why Do So Many Christians Buy into Conspiracy Theories Like ‘Pandemic’? 2020. Available online: https://www.relevantmagazine.com/current/why-do-so-many-christians-buy-into-conspiracy-theories-like-plandemic/ (accessed on 16 September 2020).
- Einstein, K.L.; Glick, D.M. Scandals, conspiracies and the vicious cycle of cynicism. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, USA, 31 August 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, F.; Wang, W.; Zhao, L.; Dougherty, E.; Yang, C.; Lu, C.-T.; Ramakrishnan, N. Misinformation propagation in the age of Twitter. Computer 2014, 47, 90–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Jostmann, N.B. Belief in conspiracy theories: The influence of uncertainty and perceived morality. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 43, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Douglas, K.M. Conspiracy theories as part of history: The role of societal crisis situations. Mem. Stud. 2017, 10, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Swami, V.; Furnham, A.; Smyth, N.; Weis, L.; Lay, A.; Clow, A. Putting the stress on conspiracy theories: Examining associations between psychological stress, anxiety, and belief in conspiracy theories. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 99, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grzesiak-Feldman, M. The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiracy thinking. Curr. Psychol. 2013, 32, 100–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radnitz, S.; Underwood, P. Is belief in conspiracy theories pathological? A survey experiment on the cognitive roots of extreme suspicion. Br. J. Political Sci. 2015, 47, 113–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whitson, J.; Galinsky, A.; Kay, A. The Emotional roots of conspiratorial perceptions, system justification, and belief in the paranormal. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2015, 56, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Douglas, K.; De Inocencio, C. Connecting the dots: Illusory pattern perception predicts belief in conspiracies and the supernatural. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 48, 320–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Park, C.L. Making sense of the meaning literature: An integrative review of meaning making and its effects on adjustment to stressful life events. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136, 257–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Butler, L.D.; Koopman, C.; Zimbardo, P.G. The psychological impact of viewing the film J.F.K.: Emotions, beliefs, and political behavioral intentions. Political Psychol. 1995, 16, 237–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lachman, M.E.; Weaver, S.L. The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1998, 74, 763–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stojanov, A.; Bering, J.M.; Halberstadt, J. Does Perceived lack of control lead to conspiracy theory beliefs? Findings from an online MTurk sample. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sullivan, D.; Landau, M.J.; Rothschild, Z.K. An existential function of enemyship: Evidence that people attribute influence to personal and political enemies to compensate for threats to control. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2010, 98, 434–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Leman, P.J.; Cinnirella, M. A major event has a major cause: Evidence for the role of heuristics in reasoning about conspiracy theories. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 2007, 9, 18–28. [Google Scholar]
- Moulding, R.; Nix-Carnell, S.; Schnabel, A.; Nedeljkovic, M.; Burnside, E.E.; Lentini, A.F.; Mehzabin, N. Better the devil you know than a world you don’t? Intolerance of uncertainty and worldview explanations for belief in conspiracy theories. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2016, 98, 345–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clark, S. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorizing. Philos. Soc. Sci. 2002, 32, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schulzke, M. The politics of attributing blame for cyberattacks and the costs of uncertainty. Perspect. Political 2018, 16, 954–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mao, J.-Y.; Yang, S.-L.; Guo, Y.-Y. Are individuals from lower social classes more susceptible to conspiracy theories? An explanation from the compensatory control theory. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W. Why education predicts decreased belief in conspiracy theories. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2017, 31, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Golec de Zavala, A.; Federico, C.M. Collective narcissism and the growth of conspiracy thinking over the course of the 2016 United States presidential election: A longitudinal analysis. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 48, 1011–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Acker, M. The influence of control on belief in conspiracy theories: Conceptual and applied extensions. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2015, 29, 753–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Craft, S.; Ashley, S.; Maksl, A. News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Commun. Public 2017, 2, 388–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Prooijen, J.W.; Douglas, K.M. Belief in conspiracy theories: Basic principles of an emerging research domain. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 48, 897–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Freeman, D.; Bentall, R.P. The concomitants of conspiracy concerns. Soc. Psychiatry Psychiatr. Epidemiol. 2017, 52, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grohol, J.M. Conspiracy Theory Disorder: Understanding Why People Believe. 2020. Available online: https://psychcentral.com/blog/conspiracy-theory-disorder-understanding-why-people-believe/ (accessed on 13 September 2020).
- Sapountzis, A.; Condor, S. Conspiracy accounts. Political Psychol. 2013, 34, 731–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barron, D.; Furnham, A.; Weis, L.; Morgan, K.D.; Towell, T.; Swami, V. The relationship between schizotypal facets and conspiracist beliefs via cognitive processes. Psychiatry Res. 2018, 259, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Coltheart, M. The neuropsychology of delusions. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1191, 16–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- March, E.; Springer, J. Belief in conspiracy theories: The predictive role of schizotypy, Machiavellianism, and primary psychopathy. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.; Zhang, S.X.; Jahanshahi, A.A.; Alvarez-Risco, A.; Dai, H.; Li, J.; Ibarra, V.G. Belief in conspiracy theory about covid-19 predicts mental health and well-being—A study of healthcare staff in Ecuador. medRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cassese, E.; Farhart, C.; Miller, J. Gender differences in covid-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Political Gender 2020, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goreis, A.; Voracek, M. A Systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: Field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Jolley, D.; Douglas, K.M. Prevention is better than cure: Addressing anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 47, 459–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, S. Analysis of the impact of health beliefs and resource factors on preventive behaviors against the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ryu, Y.; Kim, S.; Kim, S. Does trust matter? Analyzing the impact of trust on the perceived risk and acceptance of nuclear power energy. Sustainability 2018, 10, 758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kwon, S.A.; Kim, S.; Lee, J.E. Analyzing the determinants of individual action on climate change by specifying the roles of six values in South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.; Lee, J.E.; Kim, D. Searching for the next new energy in energy transition: Comparing the impacts of economic incentives on local acceptance of fossil fuels, renewable, and nuclear energies. Sustainability 2019, 11, 2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.; Kwon, S.A.; Lee, J.E.; Ahn, B.-C.; Lee, J.H.; Chen, A.; Kitagawa, K.; Kim, D.; Wang, J. Analyzing the role of resource factors in citizens’ intention to pay for and participate in disaster management. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.; Kim, S. The Crisis of Public Health and Infodemic: Analyzing Belief Structure of Fake News about COVID-19 Pandemic. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ryu, Y.; Kim, S. Testing the heuristic/systematic information-processing model (HSM) on the perception of risk after the Fukushima nuclear accidents. J. Risk Res. 2014, 18, 840–859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, S. Exploring the determinants of perceived risk of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in Korea. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, J.; Kim, S. Searching for new directions for energy policy: Testing the cross-effect of risk perception and cyberspace factors on online/offline opposition to nuclear energy in South Korea. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S.; Kim, D. Does government make people happy? Exploring new research directions for government’s roles in happiness. J. Happiness Stud. 2011, 13, 875–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Choi, S.-O.; Wang, J. Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries. Sci. Public Policy 2014, 41, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Kim, S. Comparative analysis of public attitudes toward nuclear power energy across 27 European countries by applying the multilevel model. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kim, S. Irresolvable cultural conflicts and conservation/development arguments: Analysis of Korea’s Saemangeum project. Policy Sci. 2003, 36, 125–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, H. Does cultural capital matter? Cultural divide and quality of life. Soc. Indic. Res. 2009, 93, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S.; Kim, S. Exploring the Effect of Four Factors on Affirmative Action Programs for Women. Asian J. Women’s Stud. 2014, 20, 31–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, J.; Kim, S. Analysis of the impact of values and perception on climate change skepticism and its implication for public policy. Climate 2018, 6, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Variables | Measures | Scale | Reliability |
---|---|---|---|
Authoritarianism | A slightly dictatorial political leader is needed to resolve the coronavirus crisis. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.806 |
Control about free media is needed to respond to the coronavirus problem. | |||
To solve the coronavirus problem, individual liberties must be suppressed to a considerable extent. | |||
Ideology | On a scale from one to ten points, where one point is the most conservative and ten points is the most progressive, where do you rate your political ideology? | Ten-point scale (1. conservative, 10. progressive) | - |
Support for Moon’s government | How much do you support the Moon Jae-In administration? | Ten-point scale (1. disagree, 10. agree) | - |
Religiosity | How much devoted to religion do you think you are? | Ten-point scale (1. not at all, 10. very much) | - |
Trust in the government | How much do you trust the following subjects to provide coronavirus-related information? Government | Five-point scale (1. distrust, 5. trust) | - |
Trust in doctors | How much do you trust the following subjects to provide coronavirus-related information? Doctors | Five-point scale (1. distrust, 5. trust) | - |
Trust in SNS | How much do you trust the following subjects to provide coronavirus-related information? SNS | Five-point scale (1. distrust, 5. trust) | - |
Trust in people | Generally speaking, how much do you think you can trust people in a relationship? | Five-point scale (1. can’t believe almost everyone, 5. can believe almost everyone) | - |
Perceived risk | I am relatively more likely to get coronavirus compared to others | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.846 |
I am more vulnerable to coronavirus compared to others | |||
Anxiety | After the coronavirus outbreak, how often do you feel the following items? 1. My nerves have become sensitive. 2. I have no hope. 3. I am anxious. 4. I am so depressed that nothing can comfort me. 5. I have no value or meaning. 6. I am worried. 7. I am depressed. 8. I am nervous. 9. I cannot concentrate. 10. I am lonely. | Five-point scale (1. very occasionally, 5. very often) | 0.964 |
Negative emotions | I am annoyed when I come across coronavirus-related information. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.719 |
I feel anxious when checking coronavirus-related information. | |||
I think the future is dark when I come across coronavirus-related information. | |||
Perceived control | The coronavirus problem can be overcome through human effort. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.666 |
Coronavirus-related risks can be overcome with my efforts. | |||
Analytic thinking | Rather than analyzing coronavirus-related information carefully and logically, I made judgments based on intuitive feelings. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.816 |
I interpret coronavirus-related information emotionally rather than rationally. | |||
Blame attribution | People other than me contributed more to the coronavirus outbreak. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.700 |
The responsibility for resolving the coronavirus outbreak lies with others rather than me. | |||
Knowledge | I am familiar with coronavirus disease. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.840 |
I know more about coronavirus disease than others do. | |||
Quality of information | Coronavirus-related information provided by the government is objective and based on facts. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.912 |
Coronavirus-related information provided by the government is scientifically based and professional. | |||
Quantity of information | I have more coronavirus-related information than others have. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.889 |
I have obtained a lot of meaningful information related to coronavirus disease. | |||
Health status | I am healthy. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.901 |
I am in good health compared to other people. | |||
Health after COVID-19 (worse) | My physical health deteriorated after COVID-19. | Five-point scale (1. disagree, 5. agree) | 0.771 |
My mental health deteriorated after COVID-19. |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Belief in the Conspiracy theories | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political Factor | 2. Authoritarianism | 0.040 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3. Ideology (progressive) | −0.161 *** | 0.169 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4. Support for Moon’s Gov. | −0.337 *** | 0.258 *** | 0.564 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||||||||||
5. Religiosity | 0.029 | 0.009 | −0.006 | 0.066 * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||||
Trust | 6. Trust in the government | −0.350 *** | 0.217 *** | 0.357 *** | 0.565 *** | 0.050 | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
7. Trust in doctors | −0.026 | −0.023 | −0.026 | −0.028 | 0.084 ** | 0.128 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||||||
8. Trust in SNS | 0.134 *** | 0.051 * | −0.020 | −0.020 | 0.162 *** | 0.078 ** | 0.251 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||||||
9. Trust in people | −0.145 *** | −0.085 ** | 0.055 * | 0.114 *** | 0.088 ** | 0.123 *** | 0.052 * | 0.051 * | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Psychological factors | 10. Perceived risk | 0.235 *** | 0.108 *** | 0.020 | −0.031 | 0.059 * | −0.036 | 0.055 * | 0.096 *** | −0.078 ** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
11. Anxiety | 0.294 *** | 0.130 *** | 0.019 | −0.089 ** | −0.037 | −0.147 *** | −0.042 | 0.031 | −0.206 *** | 0.289 *** | 1 | ||||||||||||||
12. Negative emotions | 0.310 *** | 0.138 *** | −0.011 | −0.127 *** | 0.030 | −0.094 *** | 0.067 ** | 0.184 *** | −0.093 *** | 0.310 *** | 0.361 *** | 1 | |||||||||||||
13. Perceived control | −0.193 *** | 0.068 ** | 0.036 | 0.185 *** | 0.078 ** | 0.287 *** | 0.170 *** | 0.113 *** | 0.151 *** | −0.090 *** | −0.200 *** | −0.053 * | 1 | ||||||||||||
14. Analytic thinking | −0.134 *** | −0.202 *** | −0.077 ** | −0.093 *** | −0.056 * | −0.120 *** | −0.041 | −0.238 *** | 0.023 | −0.217 *** | −0.142 *** | −0.345 *** | −0.103 *** | 1 | |||||||||||
15. Blame attribution | 0.155 *** | 0.148 *** | 0.004 | −0.042 | −0.090 *** | −0.057 * | 0.022 | −0.025 | −0.101 *** | 0.035 | 0.155 *** | 0.180 *** | −0.056 * | −0.039 | 1 | ||||||||||
Structural factors | 16. Education level | −0.024 | −0.061 * | 0.076 ** | 0.069 ** | 0.032 | 0.023 | −0.008 | −0.064 * | 0.040 | −0.061 * | −0.021 | −0.068 ** | 0.036 | 0.073 ** | 0.014 | 1 | ||||||||
17. Income | −0.051 * | −0.019 | 0.024 | 0.048 | 0.021 | 0.014 | 0.063 * | 0.014 | 0.118 *** | −0.114 *** | −0.102 *** | −0.016 | 0.065 * | 0.027 | 0.033 | 0.220 *** | 1 | ||||||||
18. Knowledge | −0.065 * | 0.051 * | 0.136 *** | 0.123 *** | 0.099 *** | 0.121 *** | 0.127 *** | 0.116 *** | 0.105 *** | 0.075 ** | 0.001 | 0.050 | 0.235 *** | −0.045 | 0.084 ** | 0.084 ** | 0.054 * | 1 | |||||||
19. Quality of information | −0.414 *** | 0.215 *** | 0.356 *** | 0.582 *** | 0.031 | 0.720 *** | 0.125 *** | 0.023 | 0.140 *** | −0.060 * | −0.166 *** | −0.099 *** | 0.358 *** | −0.136 *** | −0.046 | 0.025 | 0.044 | 0.194 *** | 1 | ||||||
20. Quantity of information | −0.033 | 0.151 *** | 0.165 *** | 0.247 *** | 0.145 *** | 0.290 *** | 0.172 *** | 0.208 *** | 0.081 ** | 0.100 *** | 0.024 | 0.145 *** | 0.263 *** | −0.318 *** | 0.012 | 0.042 | 0.034 | 0.454 *** | 0.406 *** | 1 | |||||
21. Health status | 0.013 | 0.020 | 0.075 ** | 0.083 ** | 0.058 * | 0.123 *** | 0.089 ** | 0.067 ** | 0.122 *** | −0.264 *** | −0.215 *** | −0.044 | 0.197 *** | −0.037 | 0.032 | 0.134 *** | 0.185 *** | 0.202 *** | 0.162 *** | 0.188 *** | 1 | ||||
22. Health status after COVID-19 (worse) | 0.292 *** | 0.100 *** | 0.032 | −0.106 *** | 0.010 | −0.146 *** | 0.019 | 0.084 ** | −0.094 *** | 0.341 *** | 0.444 *** | 0.354 *** | −0.116 *** | −0.143 *** | 0.132 *** | −0.036 | −0.034 | 0.077 ** | −0.183 *** | 0.082 ** | −0.146 *** | 1 | |||
23. Gender | −0.017 | 0.038 | 0.059 * | 0.000 | 0.072 ** | −0.005 | 0.041 | 0.015 | −0.049 | −0.011 | 0.043 | 0.124 *** | −0.094 *** | 0.023 | 0.031 | −0.082 ** | −0.027 | −0.066 * | 0.008 | −0.045 | −0.022 | 0.054 * | 1 | ||
24. Age | −0.010 | 0.027 | −0.125 *** | −0.103 *** | 0.231 *** | 0.057 * | 0.051 * | 0.104 *** | 0.076 ** | 0.104 *** | −0.171 *** | 0.055 * | 0.167 *** | −0.025 | −0.156 *** | −0.154 *** | −0.088 ** | 0.041 | 0.023 | 0.065 * | −0.033 | 0.019 | −0.003 |
Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
B | SE | Beta | B | SE | Beta | B | SE | Beta | B | SE | Beta | |||
Constant | 3.301 | 0.126 | 1.993 | 0.180 | 3.076 | 0.145 | 2.479 | 0.218 | ||||||
Politi-cal factors | Authoritarianism | 0.109 *** | 0.020 | 0.137 | 0.055 *** | 0.019 | 0.068 | |||||||
Ideology | Conservative | 0.044 | 0.051 | 0.022 | −0.006 | 0.047 | −0.003 | |||||||
Progressive | −0.046 | 0.063 | −0.019 | 0.021 | 0.058 | 0.009 | ||||||||
Support for Moon’s Gov. | −0.058 *** | 0.009 | −0.240 | −0.034 *** | 0.008 | −0.141 | ||||||||
Supporting party | Democratic Party | 0.024 | 0.050 | 0.016 | 0.019 | 0.046 | 0.012 | |||||||
Integration Party | 0.033 | 0.061 | 0.015 | −0.007 | 0.057 | −0.003 | ||||||||
Justice Party | −0.077 | 0.094 | −0.020 | −0.063 | 0.086 | −0.016 | ||||||||
People Party | −0.001 | 0.130 | 0.000 | −0.021 | 0.119 | −0.004 | ||||||||
Other party | 0.212 | 0.129 | 0.039 | 0.251 ** | 0.118 | 0.046 | ||||||||
Religion | Religiosity | 0.024 *** | 0.008 | 0.094 | 0.019 ** | 0.008 | 0.074 | |||||||
Catholic | −0.089 | 0.064 | −0.038 | −0.073 | 0.059 | −0.031 | ||||||||
Christian | −0.138 *** | 0.060 | −0.077 | −0.096 * | 0.055 | −0.053 | ||||||||
Buddhist | −0.035 | 0.054 | −0.018 | −0.006 | 0.049 | −0.003 | ||||||||
Trust | Trust in gov. | −0.176 *** | 0.020 | −0.256 | −0.056 ** | 0.022 | −0.081 | |||||||
Trust in doctors | −0.022 | 0.019 | −0.027 | −0.017 | 0.018 | −0.022 | ||||||||
Trust in SNS | 0.115 *** | 0.020 | 0.144 | 0.067 *** | 0.019 | 0.084 | ||||||||
Trust in people | −0.083 *** | 0.023 | −0.087 | −0.034 | 0.021 | −0.036 | ||||||||
Psychological factors | Perceived risk | 0.094 *** | 0.021 | 0.111 | 0.108 *** | 0.021 | 0.128 | |||||||
Anxiety | 0.115 *** | 0.020 | 0.147 | 0.081 *** | 0.020 | 0.104 | ||||||||
Negative emotions | 0.183 *** | 0.027 | 0.187 | 0.097 *** | 0.025 | 0.099 | ||||||||
Perceived control | −0.143 *** | 0.024 | −0.143 | −0.045 * | 0.024 | −0.045 | ||||||||
Analytic thinking | −0.034 | 0.024 | −0.036 | −0.043 * | 0.023 | −0.046 | ||||||||
Blame attribution | 0.078 *** | 0.022 | 0.085 | 0.067 *** | 0.021 | 0.072 | ||||||||
Structural factors | Education level | −0.018 | 0.036 | −0.012 | 0.026 | 0.034 | 0.017 | |||||||
Income | −0.046 | 0.037 | −0.028 | −0.053 | 0.036 | −0.033 | ||||||||
Knowledge | −0.095 *** | 0.029 | −0.084 | −0.091 *** | 0.028 | −0.081 | ||||||||
Quality of information | −0.355 *** | 0.021 | −0.431 | −0.214 *** | 0.029 | −0.260 | ||||||||
Quantity of information | 0.136 *** | 0.026 | 0.143 | 0.067 ** | 0.026 | 0.071 | ||||||||
Health status | 0.101 *** | 0.022 | 0.111 | 0.141 *** | 0.021 | 0.154 | ||||||||
Health after COVID-19 (worse) | 0.197 *** | 0.021 | 0.224 | 0.070 *** | 0.022 | 0.080 | ||||||||
Gender | −0.035 | 0.033 | −0.023 | −0.065 ** | 0.033 | −0.044 | ||||||||
Age | −0.001 | 0.001 | −0.013 | 0.000 | 0.001 | −0.007 | ||||||||
F-value | 22.904 *** | 52.769 *** | 55.456 *** | 24.824 *** | ||||||||||
R2/Adjusted R2 | 0.208/0.199 | 0.173/0.169 | 0.248/0.243 | 0.352/0.337 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, S.; Kim, S. Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010266
Kim S, Kim S. Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(1):266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010266
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Seoyong, and Sunhee Kim. 2021. "Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the COVID-19 Pandemic" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 1: 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010266
APA StyleKim, S., & Kim, S. (2021). Searching for General Model of Conspiracy Theories and Its Implication for Public Health Policy: Analysis of the Impacts of Political, Psychological, Structural Factors on Conspiracy Beliefs about the COVID-19 Pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(1), 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18010266