The dark side of belief in Covid-19 scientists and scientific evidence

Graso, Maja; Henwood, Amanda; Dolan, Paul; Chen, Fan Xuan

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111594

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sample E replicated these patterns with updated PSE items and showed that people who support NNPs believe that there is evidence behind statements such as N95 masks are safe for children's use during a typical school day, if the US had high (95%) vaccination rates, COVID-19 would have stopped spreading, and needing to prioritize children under the age of 12 for booster shots, even if there is no evidence behind those claims or WHO recommends otherwise (Table 15). These results suggest that it is possible that the PSE items are more related to beliefs in scientific evidence, which is a research question that my colleagues and I pursued in a different project [134].…”

Section: Perceived Scientific Consensusmentioning

confidence: 84%

The new normal: Covid-19 risk perceptions and support for continuing restrictions past vaccinations

Graso

2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I test the possibility that over-estimating negative consequences of COVID-19 (e.g., hospitalizations, deaths, and threats to children) will be associated with stronger support the ‘new normal’ (i.e., continuation of restrictions for an undefined period starting with wide-spread access to vaccines and completed vaccinations of vulnerable people). The new normal was assessed by endorsing practices such as vaccine passports, travel restrictions, mandatory masking, continuing contact tracing, and pursuing elimination. Results are based on five samples (N = 1,233 from April 2021 and N = 264 from January 2022) and suggest that people over-estimate COVID-19 risks to children and healthy people, as evidenced by median estimates that 5% of all global deaths were children, 29% were generally healthy people under 65, and that a healthy person under the age of 65 has 5% chance of dying from COVID-19. Over-estimates observed in this study align with those based on representative samples, and they were consistently related to stronger support for the new normal. This relationship emerged when participants estimated risks with percentages (core indicators) and indicated the extent to which risk-based statements are true/supported with evidence or false/unsupported (alternative indicators). People were notably more likely to support continuing restrictions if they believed that COVID-19 risk and risk mitigation tactics are true, even when they are not (e.g., children need to be prioritized for boosters). These relationships persisted when considering competing explanations (political ideology, statistics literacy, belief in conspiracy theories). I trace these effects to well-meaning efforts to prevent under-estimation. Public policy and people’s perceptions of risks are intertwined, where even inaccurate judgments may influence decisions. Failure to combat all misinformation with equal rigor may jeopardize the restoration of the social and economic life essential for building adaptive post-pandemic societies.

show abstract

Section: Perceived Scientific Consensusmentioning

confidence: 84%

The new normal: Covid-19 risk perceptions and support for continuing restrictions past vaccinations

Graso

2022

PLoS ONE

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…28 Above, a strong belief in COVID-19 scientists is associated with moralization of measures to mitigate the pandemic. 29 Strong beliefs in scientific experts lead to distrust in people who do not follow the rules and intensifies the support of pandemic mitigation authoritarianism. Graso and colleagues call it the "dark side" of science, characterized by the conviction that health experts are the only ones who are able to conquer the crises.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their study demonstrates that a strong belief in COVID-19 experts can involve "extremist views, censorships, and punitive reactions". 29 Subsequently, those who do not share the common narrative are more likely to be penalized, and social cohesion could be impaired and replaced by a polarized culture. Data of our study hint, this could have taken place already.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations for COVID-19 vaccination: fear, solidarity, obedience, leisure orientation or thoughtlessness?

Wüstner

2022

Int J Res Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic exemplifies why it is important to understand people’s health behavior, and with respect to vaccination why they decided for or against it.Methods: This paper presents results of a small online-study carried out in Germany (n=281). It analyzes motivations for vaccination, including intrinsic, extrinsic, structural motivators that can be health related or not. Further, thoughtless decisions are included as well.Results: The most important aim of vaccination was to get back to normal. Social motivators were second most important. Further motivators were intrinsic, especially fear of the virus, or structural, e.g., reflecting leisure orientation. Some were motivated to get vaccinated because other people said they should. However, a remarkable number of respondents stated they got vaccinated without big thoughts.Conclusions: This small study exemplarily illustrates that various motives can influence an important health decision, such as for (or against) COVID-19 vaccination. A subgroup represents the ideal of a modern empowered citizen only to a limited extent. Health policy needs to strengthen critical health literacy of citizens even in crises.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it was shown that lockdowns were very costly economically, but probably did not save lives ( 6 , 91 ). Despite this, citizens generally believed many unfounded COVID-19 scientific claims leading to strong support of NPIs ( 92 ). Other options such as involving communities in responses to collective threats, may have avoided many if not all of the negative side effects ( 63 ), and voluntary measures may have been better in terms of ethics and human rights ( 5 , 93 ).…”

Section: Psychological Tacticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

Schippers

Ioannidis

Joffe

2022

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of aggressive restrictive measures were adopted around the world in 2020–2022 to attempt to prevent SARS-CoV-2 from spreading. However, it has become increasingly clear the most aggressive (lockdown) response strategies may involve negative side-effects such as a steep increase in poverty, hunger, and inequalities. Several economic, educational, and health repercussions have fallen disproportionately on children, students, young workers, and especially on groups with pre-existing inequalities such as low-income families, ethnic minorities, and women. This has led to a vicious cycle of rising inequalities and health issues. For example, educational and financial security decreased along with rising unemployment and loss of life purpose. Domestic violence surged due to dysfunctional families being forced to spend more time with each other. In the current narrative and scoping review, we describe macro-dynamics that are taking place because of aggressive public health policies and psychological tactics to influence public behavior, such as mass formation and crowd behavior. Coupled with the effect of inequalities, we describe how these factors can interact toward aggravating ripple effects. In light of evidence regarding the health, economic and social costs, that likely far outweigh potential benefits, the authors suggest that, first, where applicable, aggressive lockdown policies should be reversed and their re-adoption in the future should be avoided. If measures are needed, these should be non-disruptive. Second, it is important to assess dispassionately the damage done by aggressive measures and offer ways to alleviate the burden and long-term effects. Third, the structures in place that have led to counterproductive policies should be assessed and ways should be sought to optimize decision-making, such as counteracting groupthink and increasing the level of reflexivity. Finally, a package of scalable positive psychology interventions is suggested to counteract the damage done and improve humanity's prospects.

show abstract

The dark side of belief in Covid-19 scientists and scientific evidence

Cited by 10 publications

References 48 publications

The new normal: Covid-19 risk perceptions and support for continuing restrictions past vaccinations

The new normal: Covid-19 risk perceptions and support for continuing restrictions past vaccinations

Motivations for COVID-19 vaccination: fear, solidarity, obedience, leisure orientation or thoughtlessness?

Aggressive measures, rising inequalities, and mass formation during the COVID-19 crisis: An overview and proposed way forward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About