IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsoctx/v11y2021i4p138-d678302.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories about the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania? An Analysis of Conspiracy Theories Believers’ Profiles

Author

Listed:
  • Raluca Buturoiu

    (Faculty of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 012104 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Georgiana Udrea

    (Faculty of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 012104 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Denisa-Adriana Oprea

    (Faculty of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 012104 Bucharest, Romania)

  • Nicoleta Corbu

    (Faculty of Communication and Public Relations, National University of Political Studies and Public Administration, 012104 Bucharest, Romania)

Abstract

The current COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by the circulation of an unprecedented amount of “polluted” information, especially in the social media environment, among which are false narratives and conspiracy theories about both the pandemic and vaccination against COVID-19. The effects of such questionable information primarily concern the lack of compliance with restrictive measures and a negative attitude towards vaccination campaigns, as well as more complex social effects, such as street protests or distrust in governments and authorities in general. Even though there is a lot of scholarly attention given to these narratives in many countries, research about the profile of people who are more prone to believe or spread them is rather scarce. In this context, we investigate the role of age, compared with other socio-demographic factors (such as education and religiosity), as well as the role of the media (the frequency of news consumption, the perceived usefulness of social media, and the perceived incidence of fake information about the virus in the media) and the critical thinking disposition of people who tend to believe such misleading narratives. To address these issues, we conducted a national survey ( N = 945) in April 2021 in Romania. Using a hierarchical OLS regression model, we found that people who perceive higher incidence of fake news (ß = 0.33, p < 0.001), find social media platforms more useful (ß = 0.13, p < 0.001), have lower education (ß = −0.17, p < 0.001), and have higher levels of religiosity (ß = 0.08, p < 0.05) are more prone to believe COVID-19-related misleading narratives. At the same time, the frequency of news consumption (regardless of the type of media), critical thinking disposition, and age do not play a significant role in the profile of the believer in conspiracy theories about the COVID-19 pandemic. Somewhat surprisingly, age does not play a role in predicting belief in conspiracy theories, even though there are studies that suggest that older people are more prone to believe conspiracy narratives. As far as media is concerned, the frequency of news media consumption does not significantly differ for believers and non-believers. We discuss these results within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Raluca Buturoiu & Georgiana Udrea & Denisa-Adriana Oprea & Nicoleta Corbu, 2021. "Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories about the COVID-19 Pandemic in Romania? An Analysis of Conspiracy Theories Believers’ Profiles," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-16, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsoctx:v:11:y:2021:i:4:p:138-:d:678302
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/4/138/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/11/4/138/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Talwar, Shalini & Dhir, Amandeep & Singh, Dilraj & Virk, Gurnam Singh & Salo, Jari, 2020. "Sharing of fake news on social media: Application of the honeycomb framework and the third-person effect hypothesis," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    2. Romer, Daniel & Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, 2020. "Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 263(C).
    3. Radnitz, Scott & Underwood, Patrick, 2017. "Is Belief in Conspiracy Theories Pathological? A Survey Experiment on the Cognitive Roots of Extreme Suspicion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 113-129, January.
    4. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," NBER Working Papers 23089, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Sahil Loomba & Alexandre Figueiredo & Simon J. Piatek & Kristen Graaf & Heidi J. Larson, 2021. "Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(3), pages 337-348, March.
    6. Jamie Murphy & Frédérique Vallières & Richard P. Bentall & Mark Shevlin & Orla McBride & Todd K. Hartman & Ryan McKay & Kate Bennett & Liam Mason & Jilly Gibson-Miller & Liat Levita & Anton P. Martine, 2021. "Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Matteo Cinelli & Emanuele Brugnoli & Ana Lucia Schmidt & Fabiana Zollo & Walter Quattrociocchi & Antonio Scala, 2020. "Selective exposure shapes the Facebook news diet," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(3), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Hunt Allcott & Matthew Gentzkow, 2017. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 31(2), pages 211-236, Spring.
    9. Bertin Martens & Luis Aguiar & Estrella Gomez Herrera & Frank Muller, 2018. "The digital transformation of news media and the rise of disinformation and fake news," JRC Working Papers on Digital Economy 2018-02, Joint Research Centre.
    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. Sara Staszak & Julia Maciejowska & Wiktoria Urjasz & Tomasz Misiuro & Andrzej Cudo, 2022. "The Relationship between the Need for Closure and Coronavirus Fear: The Mediating Effect of Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories about COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-18, November.
    2. Andreea Nistor & Eduard Zadobrischi, 2022. "The Influence of Fake News on Social Media: Analysis and Verification of Web Content during the COVID-19 Pandemic by Advanced Machine Learning Methods and Natural Language Processing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-24, August.
    3. Mihai Popescu & Oana Mara Ştefan & Mihai Ştefan & Liana Văleanu & Dana Tomescu, 2022. "ICU-Associated Costs during the Fourth Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Hospital in a Low-Vaccinated Eastern European Country," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-11, February.

    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. Cantay Caliskan & Alaz Kilicaslan, 2023. "Varieties of corona news: a cross-national study on the foundations of online misinformation production during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 191-243, April.
    2. Stephanie L. Chan, 2021. "The Social Value of Public Information When Not Everyone is Privately Informed," Working Papers 2021-09-18, Wang Yanan Institute for Studies in Economics (WISE), Xiamen University.
    3. Giandomenico Domenico & Annamaria Tuan & Marco Visentin, 2021. "Linguistic drivers of misinformation diffusion on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic," Italian Journal of Marketing, Springer, vol. 2021(4), pages 351-369, December.
    4. Sheikh, Muhammad Ammad & Mumtaz, Talha & Sohail, Nabeel & Ahmed, Bilal & Noor, Zain, 2021. "Fake News Acceptance by Demographics and Culture On Social Media," MPRA Paper 108934, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Petratos, Pythagoras N., 2021. "Misinformation, disinformation, and fake news: Cyber risks to business," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(6), pages 763-774.
    6. Sarraf, Shagun & Kushwaha, Amit Kumar & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Giannakis, Mihalis, 2024. "How did online misinformation impact stockouts in the e-commerce supply chain during COVID-19 – A mixed methods study," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 267(C).
    7. Hsin‐Hui Lin & Ching‐Feng Chen & Chih‐Lun Wu, 2023. "The effects of news authenticity and social media tie strength on consumer dissemination behavior," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(4), pages 2292-2313, June.
    8. Shasha Teng & Nan Jiang & Kok Wei Khong, 2022. "Using big data to understand the online ecology of COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Bermes, Alena, 2021. "Information overload and fake news sharing: A transactional stress perspective exploring the mitigating role of consumers’ resilience during COVID-19," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    10. Domenico, Giandomenico Di & Sit, Jason & Ishizaka, Alessio & Nunan, Daniel, 2021. "Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 329-341.
    11. Julia Cage & Nicolas Hervé & Marie-Luce Viaud, 2017. "The Production of Information in an Online World: Is Copy Right?," Working Papers hal-03393171, HAL.
    12. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    13. Tetsuro Kobayashi & Fumiaki Taka & Takahisa Suzuki, 2021. "Can “Googling” correct misbelief? Cognitive and affective consequences of online search," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    14. Dean Neu & Gregory D. Saxton & Abu S. Rahaman, 2022. "Social Accountability, Ethics, and the Occupy Wall Street Protests," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 180(1), pages 17-31, September.
    15. Giulietti, Corrado & Vlassopoulos, Michael & Zenou, Yves, 2021. "When Reality Bites: Local Deaths and Vaccine Take-Up," GLO Discussion Paper Series 999, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    16. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    17. Henrik Skaug Sætra, 2021. "AI in Context and the Sustainable Development Goals: Factoring in the Unsustainability of the Sociotechnical System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    18. Fathey Mohammed & Nabil Hasan Al-Kumaim & Ahmed Ibrahim Alzahrani & Yousef Fazea, 2023. "The Impact of Social Media Shared Health Content on Protective Behavior against COVID-19," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-16, January.
    19. Michele Cantarella & Nicolo' Fraccaroli & Roberto Volpe, 2019. "Does fake news affect voting behaviour?," Department of Economics 0146, University of Modena and Reggio E., Faculty of Economics "Marco Biagi".
    20. Joël Cariolle & Yasmine Elkhateeb & Mathilde Maurel, 2022. "(Mis-)information technology: Internet use and perception of democracy in Africa," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 22010, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.

    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:jsoctx:v:11:y:2021:i:4:p:138-:d:678302. 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.