Scientific reasoning is associated with rejection of unfounded health beliefs and adherence to evidence-based regulations during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Scientific reasoning and trust in science are two facets of science understanding. This paper examines the contribution of science understanding, over and above analytic thinking, to the endorsement of conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs about COVID-19 and behavioral intentions to engage in the recommended preventive behavior. We examined the direct and indirect effects of science understanding on normative health behavior in a representative sample of the Slovak population (N = 1024). The results showed more support for the indirect pathway: individuals with a better understanding of science generally had fewer epistemically suspect beliefs and as a consequence tended to behave more in line with the evidence-based guidelines and get vaccinated. Neither scientific reasoning nor trust in science directly predicted non-compliance with preventive measures, but analytic thinking correlated positively with non-compliance with preventive measures. The strongest predictor of epistemically suspect beliefs was trust in science, which also directly predicted the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Therefore, reasoning about which experts or sources to believe (second-order scientific reasoning) has become more important than directly evaluating the original evidence (first-order scientific reasoning). Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-023-04284-y.

How are you holding up? Personality, cognitive and social predictors of a perceived shift in subjective well-being during COVID-19 pandemic.

While well-being is known to be mainly predicted by relatively stable personality traits and demographic factors, under circumstances of the current COVID-19 pandemic, the role of these predictors may be attenuated, and more situational factors may come into play. In the present study, we examined those relatively stable predictors of well-being along with COVID-19 specific factors, such as the perception of health and economic threat, unrealistic optimism, lack of control, trust in government regulations, and the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs. The data collection took place in early November 2020, when the second wave in Slovakia started to gain momentum and a strict lockdown was issued. Slovak adults (N = 1020) reported their current positive and negative affect and current, as well as estimated pre-pandemic and predicted future life satisfaction. The results showed that positive and negative affect was predicted mainly by extraversion and negative emotionality. On the other hand, life satisfaction, and its perceived change from before the pandemic and in three months, was predicted mainly by COVID-19 factors, especially perceived economic threat, unrealistic optimism, and trust in governmental regulations. We discuss the importance of these factors when considering the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on peoples' well-being.

Does Concrete Content Help People to Reason Scientifically?: Adaptation of Scientific Reasoning Scale.

In this paper, we explored the scientific literacy of a general sample of the Slovak adult population and examined factors that might help or inhibit scientific reasoning, namely the content of the problems. In doing so, we also verified the assumption that when faced with real-life scientific problems, people do not necessarily apply decontextualized knowledge of methodological principles, but reason from the bottom up, i.e. by predominantly relying on heuristics based on what they already know or believe about the topic. One thousand and twelve adults completed three measures of scientific literacy (science knowledge, scientific reasoning, attitudes to science) and several other related constructs (numeracy, need for cognition, PISA tasks). In general, Slovak participants' performance on scientific reasoning tasks was fairly low and dependent on the context in which the problems were presented-there was a 63% success rate for a version with concrete problems and a 56% success rate for the decontextualized version. The main contribution of this study is a modification and validation of the scientific reasoning scale using a large sample size, which allows for more thorough testing of all components of scientific literacy. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11191-021-00207-0.

Seeing past the tip of your own nose? How outward and self-centred orientations could contribute to closing the green gap despite helplessness.

BACKGROUND: The present study explored moderators of the relation between environmental concerns and pro-environmental behaviour that could help close the green gap. METHODS: A sample of 500 individuals (250 women) participated in the study. Apart from socio-demographic characteristics, participants answered questions about their environmental concerns and pro-environmental behaviour, collectivism and individualism, time orientation and emotional responses to climate change. RESULTS: Our results corroborate the view that collectivism, future orientation and prosocial tendencies may form a single component of outward orientation, while individualism and immediate orientation form self-centred orientation. Generally, outwardly oriented individuals and those less self-centred reported more pro-environmental behaviour. However, strongly self-centred individuals, even when reporting elevated helplessness, showed increased involvement in pro-environmental behaviour once their concerns were high. CONCLUSIONS: The study contributes to the literature by pointing out that both outward and self-centred orientations have the potential to insulate individuals against the negative effect helplessness may have on pro-environmental behaviour. This could inform strategies that would both prompt individuals already concerned to act and arouse more concern among those who are not yet preoccupied with climate change.

How scientific reasoning correlates with health-related beliefs and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic?

We examined whether scientific reasoning is associated with health-related beliefs and behaviors over and above general analytic thinking ability in the general public (N = 783, aged 18-84). Health-related beliefs included: anti-vaccination attitudes, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and generic health-related epistemically suspect beliefs. Scientific reasoning correlated with generic pseudoscientific and health-related conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs. Crucially, scientific reasoning was a stronger independent predictor of unfounded beliefs (including anti-vaccination attitudes) than general analytic thinking was; however, it had a more modest role in health-related behaviors.

Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A systematic review.

RATIONALE: Belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories can have severe consequences; it is therefore crucial to understand this phenomenon, in its similarities with general conspiracy belief, but also in how it is context-dependent. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the available research on COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and to synthesise this research to make it widely accessible. METHODS: We present a synthesis of COVID-19 conspiracy belief research from 85 international articles, identified and appraised through a systematic review, in line with contemporary protocols and guidelines for systematic reviews. RESULTS: We identify a number of potential antecedents of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs (individual differences, personality traits, demographic variables, attitudes, thinking styles and biases, group identity, trust in authorities, and social media use), their consequences (protective behaviours, self-centred and misguided behaviours such as hoarding and pseudoscientific health practices, vaccination intentions, psychological wellbeing, and other negative social consequences such as discrimination and violence), and the effect sizes of their relations with the conspiracy beliefs. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that understanding both the potential antecedents and consequences of conspiracy beliefs and how they are context-dependent is highly important to tackle them, whether in the COVID-19 pandemic or future threats, such as that of climate change.

When we are worried, what are we thinking? Anxiety, lack of control, and conspiracy beliefs amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.

Societal crises and stressful events are associated with an upsurge of conspiracy beliefs that may help people to tackle feelings of lack of control. In our study (N = 783), we examined whether people with higher feelings of anxiety and lack of control early in the COVID-19 pandemic endorse more conspiracy theories. Our results show that a higher perception of risk of COVID-19 and lower trust in institutions' response to the pandemic were related to feelings of anxiety and lack of control. Feeling the lack of control, but not anxiety, independently predicted COVID-19 conspiracy theory endorsement. Importantly, COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs were strongly correlated with generic conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs, which were likewise associated with the feeling of lack of control and lower trust in institutions. The results highlight that considering people's emotional responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial for our understanding of the spread of conspiracy and pseudoscientific beliefs.

Finding Someone to Blame: The Link Between COVID-19 Conspiracy Beliefs, Prejudice, Support for Violence, and Other Negative Social Outcomes.

One of the appeals of conspiracy theories in times of crises is that they provide someone to blame for what has happened. Thereby, they increase distrust, negative feelings, and hostility toward implicated actors, whether those are powerful social outgroups or one's own government representatives. Two studies reported here examine associations of COVID-19 conspiracy theories with prejudice, support for violence, and other and negative social outcomes. In Study 1 (N = 501), the endorsement of the more specific conspiracy theories about the alleged role of China was associated with more prejudiced views of Chinese and Italian people. In Study 2 (N = 1024), lowered trust in government regulations and increased hostility associated with the COVID-19 and generic conspiracy beliefs were correlated with justification of and willingness to engage in non-compliance with regulations, violent attacks on 5G masts, and anti-government protests. Across both of the studies, higher exposure to news about COVID-19 was associated with lower endorsement of conspiracy theories, but also with increased feelings of anxiety and lack of control, which in turn were correlated with higher COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs endorsement. We highlight the potential social problems which are associated with the wide-spread endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories.