Conspiratorial thinking in a 50-state survey of American adults

Roy H Perlis, Ata Uslu, Sergio A. Barroilhet, Paul A. Vohringer, Mauricio Santillana, Matthew A. Baum, James N. Druckman, Katherine Ognyanova, David Lazer
{"title":"Conspiratorial thinking in a 50-state survey of American adults","authors":"Roy H Perlis, Ata Uslu, Sergio A. Barroilhet, Paul A. Vohringer, Mauricio Santillana, Matthew A. Baum, James N. Druckman, Katherine Ognyanova, David Lazer","doi":"10.1101/2024.09.12.24313575","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: While the NIMH Research Domain Criteria framework stresses understanding how neuropsychiatric phenotypes vary across populations, little is known outside of small clinical cohorts about conspiratorial thoughts as an aspect of cognition. Methods: We conducted a 50-state non-probability internet survey conducted in 6 waves between October 6, 2022 and January 29, 2024, with respondents age 18 and older. Respondents completed the American Conspiratorial Thinking Scale (ACTS) and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Survey-weighted regression models were used to examine sociodemographic and clinical associations with ACTS score, and associations with vaccination status.\nResults: Across the 6 survey waves, there were 123,781 unique individuals. After reweighting, a total of 78.6% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one conspiratorial idea; 19.0% agreed with all four of them. More conspiratorial thoughts were reported among those age 25 - 54, males, individuals who finished high school but did not start or complete college, those with household income between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, and those who reside in rural areas, as well as those with greater levels of depressive symptoms. Endorsing more conspiratorial thoughts was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19.\nDiscussion: A substantial proportion of US adults endorsed at least some conspiratorial thinking, which varied widely across population subgroups. The extent of correlation with non-vaccination suggests the importance of considering such thinking in designing public health strategies.","PeriodicalId":501388,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.09.12.24313575","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: While the NIMH Research Domain Criteria framework stresses understanding how neuropsychiatric phenotypes vary across populations, little is known outside of small clinical cohorts about conspiratorial thoughts as an aspect of cognition. Methods: We conducted a 50-state non-probability internet survey conducted in 6 waves between October 6, 2022 and January 29, 2024, with respondents age 18 and older. Respondents completed the American Conspiratorial Thinking Scale (ACTS) and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Survey-weighted regression models were used to examine sociodemographic and clinical associations with ACTS score, and associations with vaccination status. Results: Across the 6 survey waves, there were 123,781 unique individuals. After reweighting, a total of 78.6% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one conspiratorial idea; 19.0% agreed with all four of them. More conspiratorial thoughts were reported among those age 25 - 54, males, individuals who finished high school but did not start or complete college, those with household income between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, and those who reside in rural areas, as well as those with greater levels of depressive symptoms. Endorsing more conspiratorial thoughts was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19. Discussion: A substantial proportion of US adults endorsed at least some conspiratorial thinking, which varied widely across population subgroups. The extent of correlation with non-vaccination suggests the importance of considering such thinking in designing public health strategies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国 50 个州成人调查中的阴谋论思想
背景:尽管 NIMH 研究领域标准框架强调要了解不同人群的神经精神表型是如何变化的,但在小型临床队列之外,人们对作为认知一个方面的阴谋论思想知之甚少。研究方法我们在 2022 年 10 月 6 日至 2024 年 1 月 29 日期间分 6 次对 50 个州的 18 岁及以上受访者进行了非概率互联网调查。受访者填写了美国阴谋论思维量表 (ACTS) 和 9 项患者健康问卷 (PHQ-9)。调查加权回归模型用于研究社会人口学和临床与 ACTS 评分的关系,以及与疫苗接种状况的关系:在 6 次调查中,共有 123,781 名独特的个体。经过重新加权,78.6%的受访者在某种程度上或非常同意至少一种阴谋论观点;19.0%的受访者同意所有四种阴谋论观点。年龄在 25 - 54 岁之间、男性、高中毕业但未开始或未完成大学学业者、家庭年收入在 25,000 美元至 50,000 美元之间者、居住在农村地区者以及抑郁症状较严重者的阴谋论想法较多。赞同更多阴谋论思想的人接种COVID-19疫苗的可能性明显较低:讨论:相当大比例的美国成年人至少赞同一些阴谋论思想,不同人群之间的差异很大。与不接种疫苗之间的相关程度表明,在设计公共卫生策略时必须考虑到这种思想。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Socio-medical Factors Associated with Neurodevelopmental Disorders on the Kenyan Coast Relationship between blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier integrity, cardiometabolic and inflammatory factors in schizophrenia-spectrum disorders Whole-exome sequencing study of opioid dependence offers novel insights into the contributions of exome variants Mayo Normative Studies: regression-based normative data for remote self-administration of the Stricker Learning Span, Symbols Test and Mayo Test Drive Screening Battery Composite and validation in individuals with Mild Cognitive Impairment and dementia EEG frontal alpha asymmetry mediates the association between maternal and child internalizing symptoms in childhood
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1