IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i9p5396-d804914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Breeds Conspiracy Theories in COVID-19? The Role of Risk Perception in the Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy

Author

Listed:
  • Zhaoxie Zeng

    (School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)

  • Yi Ding

    (School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)

  • Yue Zhang

    (School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)

  • Yongyu Guo

    (School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China)

Abstract

Conspiracy theories often emerge during public health crises, and can provide some explanation for the causes behind the crises. However, the prevalence of conspiracy theories also poses a serious threat to public health order and hinders the implementation of disease prevention and control measures. No studies have examined the role of multiple risk perceptions in the formation of beliefs in conspiracy theories from a cognitive perspective in the context of the epidemic. In this cross-sectional study, participants filled in an online survey in order to investigate the relationship between epidemic severity and beliefs in conspiracy theories and the mediating role of risk perception in this relationship. The results showed that COVID-19 epidemic severity positively predicted beliefs in both in- and out-group conspiracy theories. Risk perception mediated the positive relationship between COVID-19 epidemic severity and belief in in-group conspiracy theories. These results suggest that in a major public health crisis event: (1) residents at the epicenter may be more prone to believing in both in- and out-group conspiracy theories; and (2) beliefs in in- and out-group conspiracy theories may have different psychological mechanisms. Therefore, conspiracy theories about public health incidents, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, should be classified and treated by policy stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhaoxie Zeng & Yi Ding & Yue Zhang & Yongyu Guo, 2022. "What Breeds Conspiracy Theories in COVID-19? The Role of Risk Perception in the Belief in COVID-19 Conspiracy," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(9), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5396-:d:804914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5396/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/9/5396/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    2. Seoyong Kim & Sunhee Kim, 2020. "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," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-28, December.
    3. Malik Sallam & Deema Dababseh & Alaa’ Yaseen & Ayat Al-Haidar & Nidaa A. Ababneh & Faris G. Bakri & Azmi Mahafzah, 2020. "Conspiracy Beliefs Are Associated with Lower Knowledge and Higher Anxiety Levels Regarding COVID-19 among Students at the University of Jordan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(14), pages 1-15, July.
    4. William J. Burns & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and Behaviors: Anticipating and Responding to Crises," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 579-582, April.
    5. Anna Levinsson & Diana Miconi & Zhiyin Li & Rochelle L. Frounfelker & Cécile Rousseau, 2021. "Conspiracy Theories, Psychological Distress, and Sympathy for Violent Radicalization in Young Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-12, July.
    6. Robyn A. LeBoeuf & Michael I. Norton, 2012. "Consequence-Cause Matching: Looking to the Consequences of Events to Infer Their Causes," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 39(1), pages 128-141.
    7. Cho, Jinsook & Lee, Jinkook, 2006. "An integrated model of risk and risk-reducing strategies," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 112-120, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luca Simione & Monia Vagni & Tiziana Maiorano & Valeria Giostra & Daniela Pajardi, 2022. "How Implicit Attitudes toward Vaccination Affect Vaccine Hesitancy and Behaviour: Developing and Validating the V-IRAP," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-18, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    2. Chi Ma & Jianping Tao & Caifeng Tan & Wei Liu & Xia Li, 2023. "Negative Media Sentiment about the Pig Epidemic and Pork Price Fluctuations: A Study on Spatial Spillover Effect and Mechanism," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, March.
    3. van Mulukom, Valerie & Pummerer, Lotte J. & Alper, Sinan & Bai, Hui & Čavojová, Vladimíra & Farias, Jessica & Kay, Cameron S. & Lazarevic, Ljiljana B. & Lobato, Emilio J.C. & Marinthe, Gaëlle & Pavela, 2022. "Antecedents and consequences of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs: A systematic review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(C).
    4. Tao Xu & Mengyuan Shao & Ruiquan Liu & Xiaoqin Wu & Kai Zheng, 2023. "Risk Perception, Perceived Government Coping Validity, and Individual Response in the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-19, January.
    5. Roxanne E. Lewis & Michael G. Tyshenko, 2009. "The Impact of Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk and the Public Reaction to Mad Cow Disease in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(5), pages 714-728, May.
    6. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Giovanni Gull?, 2018. "La comunicazione del rischio e la percezione pubblica dei disastri: il caso studio della frana di Maierato (Calabria, Italia)," PRISMA Economia - Societ? - Lavoro, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2018(3), pages 9-29.
    7. Hung‐Chih Hung & Tzu‐Wen Wang, 2011. "Determinants and Mapping of Collective Perceptions of Technological Risk: The Case of the Second Nuclear Power Plant in Taiwan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 668-683, April.
    8. Robert D. Jagiello & Thomas T. Hills, 2018. "Bad News Has Wings: Dread Risk Mediates Social Amplification in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(10), pages 2193-2207, October.
    9. Emmanuel Songsore & Michael Buzzelli, 2016. "Ontario’s Experience of Wind Energy Development as Seen through the Lens of Human Health and Environmental Justice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    10. Sara E. Kuhar & Kate Nierenberg & Barbara Kirkpatrick & Graham A. Tobin, 2009. "Public Perceptions of Florida Red Tide Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(7), pages 963-969, July.
    11. Li Zhao & Shumin Liu & Haiying Gu & David Ahlstrom, 2023. "Risk Amplification, Risk Preference and Acceptance of Transgenic Technology," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-22, September.
    12. Daniella Kupor & Kristin Laurin & Chris Janiszewski & J Jeffrey Inman, 2020. "Probable Cause: The Influence of Prior Probabilities on Forecasts and Perceptions of Magnitude [Perceived Intent Motivates People to Magnify Observed Harms]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 46(5), pages 833-852.
    13. Matteo Iacopini & Carlo R.M.A. Santagiustina, 2021. "Filtering the intensity of public concern from social media count data with jumps," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(4), pages 1283-1302, October.
    14. Katherine L. Dickinson & Hannah Brenkert-Smith & Greg Madonia & Nicholas E. Flores, 2020. "Risk interdependency, social norms, and wildfire mitigation: a choice experiment," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1327-1354, August.
    15. Ruth E Alcock & Jerry Busby, 2006. "Risk Migration and Scientific Advance: The Case of Flame‐Retardant Compounds," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 369-381, April.
    16. Zeeshan Ahmed & Shahid Rasool & Qasim Saleem & Mubashir Ali Khan & Shamsa Kanwal, 2022. "Mediating Role of Risk Perception Between Behavioral Biases and Investor’s Investment Decisions," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    17. Vivianne H. M. Visschers & Ree M. Meertens & Wim F. Passchier & Nanne K. DeVries, 2007. "How Does the General Public Evaluate Risk Information? The Impact of Associations with Other Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 715-727, June.
    18. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    19. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    20. Evangelia Karasmanaki & Evangelos Grigoroudis & Spyridon Galatsidas & Georgios Tsantopoulos, 2023. "Satisfaction with Media Information about Renewable Energy Investments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-15, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:9:p:5396-:d:804914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.