Kuhn Sarah Anne Kezia, Lieb Roselind, Freeman Daniel, Andreou Christina, Zander-Schellenberg Thea
Division of Clinical Psychology and Epidemiology, Department of Psychology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Oxford Cognitive Approaches to Psychosis, University Department of Psychiatry, University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, OxfordOX3 7JX, UK.
Psychol Med. 2021 Mar 16:1-15. doi: 10.1017/S0033291721001124.
Coronavirus-related conspiracy theories (CT) have been found to be associated with fewer pandemic containment-focused behaviors. It is therefore important to evaluate associated cognitive factors. We aimed to obtain first endorsement rate estimates of coronavirus-related conspiracy beliefs in a German-speaking general population sample and investigate whether delusion-related reasoning biases and paranoid ideation are associated with such beliefs.
We conducted a cross-sectional non-probability online study, quota-sampled for age and gender, with 1684 adults from Germany and German-speaking Switzerland. We assessed general and specific coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, reasoning biases [jumping-to-conclusions bias (JTC), liberal acceptance bias (LA), bias against disconfirmatory evidence (BADE), possibility of being mistaken (PM)], and paranoid ideation, using established experimental paradigms and self-report questionnaires.
Around 10% of our sample endorsed coronavirus-related CT beliefs at least strongly, and another 20% to some degree. Overall endorsement was similar to levels observed in a UK-based study (Freeman et al., 2020b). Higher levels of conspiracy belief endorsement were associated with greater JTC, greater LA, greater BADE, higher PM, and greater paranoid ideation. Associations were mostly small to moderate and best described by non-linear relationships.
A noticeable proportion of our sample recruited in Germany and German-speaking Switzerland endorsed coronavirus conspiracy beliefs strongly or to some degree. These beliefs are associated with reasoning biases studied in delusion research. The non-probability sampling approach limits the generalizability of findings. Future longitudinal and experimental studies investigating conspiracy beliefs along the lines of reasoning are encouraged to validate reasoning aberrations as risk factors.
研究发现，与冠状病毒相关的阴谋论（CT）与较少的以疫情防控为重点的行为有关。因此，评估相关的认知因素很重要。我们旨在获得德语区普通人群样本中对冠状病毒相关阴谋信念的首次认可率估计，并调查与妄想相关的推理偏差和偏执观念是否与这些信念有关。
我们进行了一项横断面非概率在线研究，按年龄和性别进行配额抽样，样本来自德国和德语区瑞士的1684名成年人。我们使用既定的实验范式和自我报告问卷，评估了一般和特定的冠状病毒阴谋信念、推理偏差[急于下结论偏差（JTC）、宽松接受偏差（LA）、反对反证偏差（BADE）、犯错可能性（PM）]以及偏执观念。
我们样本中约10%的人至少强烈认可与冠状病毒相关的CT信念，另有20%在一定程度上认可。总体认可程度与在一项英国研究（弗里曼等人，2020b）中观察到的水平相似。更高水平的阴谋信念认可与更高的JTC、更高的LA、更高的BADE、更高的PM以及更强的偏执观念相关。这些关联大多为小到中等程度，最好用非线性关系来描述。
我们在德国和德语区瑞士招募的样本中有相当比例的人强烈或在一定程度上认可冠状病毒阴谋信念。这些信念与妄想研究中所研究的推理偏差有关。非概率抽样方法限制了研究结果的普遍性。鼓励未来沿着推理方向对阴谋信念进行纵向和实验研究，以验证推理偏差作为风险因素。
