The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 49 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 32 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions
Open accessAbstract
The current studies investigated the potential impact of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, and exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, on vaccination intentions. In Study 1, British parents completed a questionnaire measuring beliefs in anti-vaccine conspiracy theories and the likelihood that they would have a fictitious child vaccinated. Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions. This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities. In Study 2, participants were exposed to information that either supported or refuted anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, or a control condition. Results revealed that participants who had been exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or controls. This effect was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1. These findings point to the potentially detrimental consequences of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, and highlight their potential role in shaping health-related behaviors.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Two studies show that anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy material are associated with lower intentions to vaccinate a fictitious child. These effects were mediated by perceived vaccine dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, and mistrust in authorities.
Key findings
- In Study 1, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs significantly negatively predicted vaccination intentions, \(F(1, 87) = 15.97, p < .001, R^2 = .16, \beta = -.63\). Perceived dangers of vaccines, powerlessness, disillusionment, and trust in authorities each significantly mediated this relationship.
- In Study 2, vaccination intentions were significantly lower in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.87, SD = 1.74\)) than in the anti-conspiracy condition (\(M = 5.69, SD = 1.31, p = .003\)) and the control condition (\(M = 5.47, SD = 1.50, p = .028\)), overall \(F(2, 185) = 4.81, p = .009, \eta^2 = .05\).
- The manipulation check showed higher endorsement of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.11, SD = 1.41\)) than the anti-conspiracy condition (\(M = 2.93, SD = 1.14, p < .001\)) and control condition (\(M = 3.56, SD = 1.21, p = .014\)).
- Perceived vaccine dangers consistently mediated the effects; powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the pro- versus anti-conspiracy difference, and trust in authorities mediated the pro-conspiracy versus control difference.
Methods
- Study 1 used a correlational online questionnaire with 89 British parents (\(80\) women, \(9\) men; \(M\) age \(= 38.06, SD = 9.25\)). Participants completed measures of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs, perceived dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, trust in authorities, and intention to vaccinate a fictitious 8-month-old child against a made-up disease, dysomeria.
- Study 2 recruited 246 U.S. MTurk participants, with a final analyzed sample of 188 after screening exclusions. Participants were randomly assigned to pro-conspiracy, anti-conspiracy, or control information, then completed the same mediator measures and vaccination intention measure.
- Both studies used bootstrapping mediation analyses with 5000 bootstrap samples; Study 2 used ANOVA and indicator-coded mediation to compare the three conditions.
Limitations
- The paper states that effect sizes were small (e.g., \(\eta^2 = .05\) in Study 2), conspiracy endorsement was generally around or below the midpoint except in the pro-conspiracy condition (\(M = 4.11\)), the mediation pattern was less clear in Study 2, and findings relied on self-reported intentions for a fictional child and made-up disease rather than actual vaccination behavior.
- The paper notes that future research should examine larger samples, actual vaccination behavior, additional or isolated mediators, and geographical areas with dangerously low vaccination uptake.
- Evident from the text: Study 1 is correlational and cannot establish causality, and both studies use hypothetical vaccination scenarios, which may limit ecological validity.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures
Verification
Claims the paper makes
37 Own result · 21 Not checked yet · 20 Own interpretation · 12 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results revealed a significant negative relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
“As predicted, regression analyses revealed that anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant negative predictor of vaccination intentions, F(1, 87) = 15.97, p<.001, R2 = .16, β = −.63, t = − 3.10, p<. 001.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
“Participants who endorsed anti-vaccine conspiracy theories to a greater extent indicated less intention to vaccinate.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant predictor of perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities, F(5, 83) = 120.37, p<.001, R2 = .58; F(5, 83) = 41.70, p<.001, R2 = .32; F(5, 83) = 74.43, p<.001, R2 = .46; F(5, 83) = 23.00, p<.001, R2 = .20, respectively.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results revealed that participants who had been exposed to material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracy theories showed less intention to vaccinate than those in the anti-conspiracy condition or controls.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect was mediated by the same variables as in Study 1.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect was mediated by the perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and mistrust in authorities.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
“The multiple mediation analysis of the effect of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs on vaccination intentions indicated that perceived dangers of vaccines and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities (controlling for each other) were each significant mediators of this effect.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · plain
“When all factors were taken into account, each was a significant mediator of the relationship between anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs and vaccination intentions.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussion · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant predictor of perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities, F(5, 83) = 120.37, p<.001, R2 = .58; F(5, 83) = 41.70, p<.001, R2 = .32; F(5, 83) = 74.43, p<.001, R2 = .46; F(5, 83) = 23.00, p<.001, R2 = .20, respectively.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 2, anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were a significant predictor of perceived dangers of vaccines, and feelings of powerlessness, disillusionment and trust in authorities, F(5, 83) = 120.37, p<.001, R2 = .58; F(5, 83) = 41.70, p<.001, R2 = .32; F(5, 83) = 74.43, p<.001, R2 = .46; F(5, 83) = 23.00, p<.001, R2 = .20, respectively.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results of this analysis therefore support the use of four separate mediators.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, results revealed no significant difference in trust in authorities between conditions, F(2, 185) = 2.32, p = .10, η2 = .03.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Perceived dangers were higher in the pro-conspiracy condition (M = 4.00, SD = 1.46) than the anti-conspiracy condition (M = 2.97, SD = 1.42, p<.001) and the control condition (M = 2.39, SD = 1.71, p = .021).”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Results and Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 18
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were eight statements (e.g., “Vaccines lead to allergies”, α = .86)”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were asked to read the statements (e.g., “I feel that my actions will not stop the negative outcomes of immunizations”, α = .82)”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“consisted of four statements (e.g., “I am very disappointed with those who are involved in immunizations (e.g., the government, pharmaceutical companies)”, α = .89)”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“and also that feelings of political powerlessness mediate the relationship between exposure to conspiracy theories and voting intentions [22].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Further, polls demonstrate that more than 20% of respondents endorse the idea that there is a link between childhood vaccines and autism [13].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Public Policy Polling (2013) Democrats and Republicans differ on conspiracy theory beliefs. Available: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf. Accessed: 2013 Nov 27.
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Previous research has demonstrated that exposure to conspiracy theories increases political disillusionment [22]”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Endorsement of these conspiracy theories amongst African Americans has been found to be associated with negative attitudes towards contraceptive behaviors, which may potentially expose people to the risk of unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted illnesses [23], [24], [25].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] ST Bird, 2003, Birth control conspiracy beliefs, perceived discrimination, and contraception among African Americans, Journal of Health Psychology source
- Not checked yetcites [24] LM Bogart, 2006, Relationship of African Americans’ socio demographic characteristics to belief in conspiracies about HIV/AIDS and birth control, Journal of the National Medical Association
- Not checked yetcites [25] MA Hoyt, 2012, HIV/AIDS-related institutional mistrust among multiethnic men who have sex with men: Effects on HIV testing and risk behaviors, Health Psychology source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The order of measures was counterbalanced.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided their written, informed consent.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were two trust sources (corporations and government; Spearman-Brown Coefficient = .82)”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Also, exposure to conspiracy theories has been found to have detrimental effects in other domains, such as reducing pro-environmental intentions and willingness to engage in politics [21], [22].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [21] LD Butler, 1995, The psychological impact of viewing the film JFK: Emotions, beliefs and political behavioral intentions, Political Psychology source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Jolley D, Douglas KM (2013) The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases the intention to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol: in press. doi:10.1111/bjop.12018. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Study 2, feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that the proportion of variance in vaccine intentions explained by exposure to conspiracy theories was quite modest and there are potentially many other factors that contribute to vaccine intentions.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final sample size used for data analysis was therefore 188 (112 women and 76 men, M age = 36.33, SD = 13.40).”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Methods
plainn = 188- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment mediated the difference between the pro- and anti-conspiracy conditions, and mistrust in authorities mediated the difference between the pro-conspiracy and control conditions.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Results and Discussion
plaindirectn = 188- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were 60 participants in the pro-conspiracy condition, 62 in the anti-conspiracy condition, and 66 in the control condition.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Methods
plainn = 60- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As is well known, intentions do not always translate into behaviors [47], [48], [49].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47] RT LaPiere, 1934, Attitudes vs. actions, Social Forces source
- Not checked yetcites [48] LS Linn, 1965, Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: A study of racial discrimination, Social Forces source
- Not checked yetcites [49] Sheeran P (2002) Intention-behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. In: Stroebe W, Hewstone M, editors. European Review of Social Psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley. Vol. 12, 1–36. source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Similarly, different strategies for successful intervention may apply for people who hold strong anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs than those who do not hold strong beliefs [44].”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] CR Sunstein, 2009, Conspiracy theories: Causes and cures, J Polit Philos source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Psychologists are learning more about the traits and characteristics associated with beliefs in conspiracy theories more generally, such as mistrust, anomie, political cynicism and Machiavellianism [8], [20], [31], [50]”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] T Goertzel, 1994, Belief in conspiracy theories, Polit Psychol source
- Not checked yetcites [20] KM Douglas, 2008, The hidden impact of conspiracy theories: Perceived and actual influence of theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana, Br J Soc Psychol source
- Not checked yetcites [31] M Abalakina-Paap, 1999, Beliefs in conspiracies, Political Psychology source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, they appear to reduce vaccination intentions by inducing undue concern about the dangers of vaccines, and increasing powerlessness, disillusionment, and mistrust.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the participants were not strong endorsers of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, meaning that different patterns of findings may emerge for those who do strongly endorse conspiracy theories.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, overall, anti-vaccine conspiracy theories appear to introduce undue suspicion about vaccine safety, and increase feelings of powerlessness and disillusionment, whilst decreasing trust in authorities, which in turn introduce reluctance to vaccinate.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > General Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 2 > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The study was approved by the Psychology Ethics Committee at the University of Kent and all participants provided their written, informed consent.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Methods
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The measured mediators (perceived vaccine dangers, powerlessness, disillusionment, and trust in authorities) are causally prior to and influence vaccination intentions, as required for the mediation analysis.
“Each of the candidate mediators was then examined in a test of mediation in order to explain the effect of the conspiracy conditions (pro-conspiracy versus anti-conspiracy, versus control) on vaccination intentions.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Consistentχ²(136) = 4544.44reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“X 2 (136) = 4544.44, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1, 87) = 15.97reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1, 87) = 15.97, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(5, 83) = 120.37reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5, 83) = 120.37, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(5, 83) = 41.7reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5, 83) = 41.70, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(5, 83) = 74.43reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5, 83) = 74.43, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(5, 83) = 23reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5, 83) = 23.00, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 185) = 4.81reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .009
“F(2, 185) = 4.81, p = .009”
- ConsistentF(2, 185) = 7.61reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 185) = 7.61, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 185) = 3.44reported p = .034 · recomputed p = .034
“F(2, 185) = 3.44, p = .034”
- ConsistentF(2, 185) = 7.46reported p = .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 185) = 7.46, p = .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 185) = 2.32reported p = .1 · recomputed p = .101
“F(2, 185) = 2.32, p = .10”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“| (2) Immunisation intention | 5.63 (1.42) | −.40*** | – | −.49*** | .29** | −.36*** | .20¥ |”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“| (3) Dangers | 2.97 (1.37) | .76*** | −.48*** | – | .58*** | .60*** | −.48*** |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(1, 87) = 15.97, p<.001, R2 = .16, β = −.63, t = − 3.10, p<. 001.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
Reported 15.97 · recomputed 9.61
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“| (3) Dangers | 2.97 (1.37) | .76*** | −.48*** | – | .58*** | .60*** | −.48*** |”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“| (5) Disillusionment | 2.45 (1.40) | .68*** | −.36*** | .59*** | .59*** | – | −.41*** |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“β = −.63”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“| (1) Anti-vaccine conspiracy belief | 2.00 (.89) | – | −.40*** | .76*** | .57*** | .68*** | −.46*** |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“F(5, 83) = 120.37, p<.001, R2 = .58; F(5, 83) = 41.70, p<.001, R2 = .32; F(5, 83) = 74.43, p<.001, R2 = .46; F(5, 83) = 23.00, p<.001, R2 = .20, respectively.”
§ The Effects of Anti-Vaccine Conspiracy Theories on Vaccination Intentions > Study 1 > Results and Discussion
“Table: Table 2 Four separate regressions examining anti-conspiracy belief as predictor, and four mediator variables as criterions.”
Citations
Cites
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/brm.40.3.879 · Cited by 34,117 · cited 1×
“By repeating this process thousands of times, it builds an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution that constructs the confidence intervals [39].”
Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data?
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691610393980 · Cited by 9,996
Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical Mediation Analysis in the New Millennium
Hayes, A. F. (2009) · Communication Monographs · doi:10.1080/03637750903310360 · Cited by 9,757 · cited 5×
“As argued by Hayes [40], an indirect effect is estimated as being significant if the confidence intervals do not contain a zero, as opposed to significance in the individual paths.”
InfluentialNew Environmental Theories: Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior
Stern, P. C. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00175 · Cited by 8,682
A Second Generation Little Jiffy
Kaiser, H. F. (1970) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291817 · Cited by 4,855
Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010) · Judgment and Decision Making · doi:10.1017/s1930297500002205 · Cited by 3,767
Intention—Behavior Relations: A Conceptual and Empirical Review
Sheeran, P. (2002) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/14792772143000003 · Cited by 3,688 · cited 1×
“As is well known, intentions do not always translate into behaviors [47], [48], [49].”
Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable
Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2014) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/bmsp.12028 · Cited by 3,403 · cited 3×
“This was carried out using Hayes and Preacher’s [38] bootstrapping method for indirect effects, as in Study 1.”
Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing
Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U. K. H., Seifert, C. M., Schwarz, N., & Cook, J. (2012) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100612451018 · Cited by 2,920
A Note on the Multiplying Factors for Various χ2 Approximations
Bartlett, M. S. (1954) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B (Statistical Methodology) · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1954.tb00174.x · Cited by 2,168
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 1,000
Willingness to vaccinate against SARS-CoV-2: The role of reasoning biases and conspiracist ideation
Bronstein, M. V., Kummerfeld, E., MacDonald, A. W., & Vinogradov, S. (2021) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.079 · Cited by 41
Informed Consent to Vaccination: Theoretical, Legal, and Empirical Insights
Reiss, D. R., & Karako-Eyal, N. (2019) · American Journal of Law & Medicine · doi:10.1177/0098858819892745 · Cited by 41
Lackner, C. L., & Wang, C. H. (2021) · Vaccine X · doi:10.1016/j.jvacx.2021.100091 · Cited by 38
“We asked about parental and child past vaccination history, VAEs, and attitudes towards vaccines generally [39].”
Conspiracy beliefs and the impact on health behaviors
Kroke, A. M., & Ruthig, J. C. (2021) · Applied Psychology Health and Well-Being · doi:10.1111/aphw.12304 · Cited by 38
Psychological factors underpinning vaccine willingness in Israel, Japan and Hungary
Goodwin, R. B., Ben‐Ezra, M., Takahashi, M., Luu, L. A. N., Borsfay, K., Kovács, M. E., Hou, W. K., Hamama‐Raz, Y., & Levin, Y. (2022) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-03986-2 · Cited by 39
Belief in COVID-19 related conspiracy theories around the globe: A systematic review
Fotakis, E. A., & Simou, E. (2023) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2023.104903 · Cited by 41
Stojanov, A., Bering, J. M., & Halberstadt, J. B. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237771 · Cited by 42
“Jolley and Douglas [79], for example, found that participants exposed to conspiracy theories about vaccines reported greater feelings of powerlessness compared to participants exposed to anti-conspiracy material, suggesting that conspiracy beliefs threaten rather than satiate one’s sense of control.”
BackgroundDetection of conspiracy propagators using psycho-linguistic characteristics
Giachanou, A., Ghanem, B., & Rosso, P. (2021) · Journal of Information Science · doi:10.1177/0165551520985486 · Cited by 40
Chan, H., Chiu, C. P., Zuo, S., Wang, X., Liu, L., & Hong, Y. (2021) · Humanities and Social Sciences Communications · doi:10.1057/s41599-021-00781-2 · Cited by 38
“Past studies have offered initial support to these assumptions with experimental design (e.g., Jolley and Douglas, 2014; Sheeran et al., 2014).”
BackgroundResultOleksy, T., Wnuk, A., Gambin, M., Łyś, A., Bargiel-Matusiewicz, K., & Pisuła, E. (2022) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111524 · Cited by 30
Normativity in studying conspiracy theory belief: Seven guidelines
Peels, R., Kindermann, N., & Ranalli, C. (2023) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2023.2191644 · Cited by 37
Jabkowski, P., Domaradzki, J., & Baranowski, M. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-44752-w · Cited by 37
Reducing conspiracy theory beliefs
Stojanov, A. (2015) · Psihologija · doi:10.2298/psi1503251s · Cited by 30
“For example, Jolley and Douglas (2014a) researched the effects of presenting counterarguments to conspiracy theorising.”
BackgroundEmpowerment as a Tool to Reduce Belief in Conspiracy Theories
van Prooijen, J. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0030 · Cited by 37
How conspiracy theories can stimulate political engagement
Kim, Y. (2019) · Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties · doi:10.1080/17457289.2019.1651321 · Cited by 32
“The former has been demonstrated by findings that exposure to antivaccine conspiracy theories reduces vaccination intentions (Jolley and Douglas 2014b, 2017), exposure to climate change conspiracy theories reduces willingness to engage in climate-friendly behaviors (Jolley and Douglas 2014a; Van…”
BackgroundInfluentialRevised and short versions of the pseudoscientific belief scale
Fasce, A., Avendaño, D., & Adrián‐Ventura, J. (2021) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3811 · Cited by 37
The effects of scientific messages and narratives about vaccination
Kuru, O., Stecula, D. A., Lu, H., Ophir, Y., Chan, M. S., Winneg, K., Jamieson, K. H., & Albarracín, D. (2021) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0248328 · Cited by 40
“Most experimental research on vaccine attitudes and misinformation has relied on small convenience samples [12, 14, 23, 41], online convenience samples such as Amazon Mechanical Turk [42, 43], other online non-probability panels [37], or in few cases, probability samples of specialized populations…”
Psychological profiles of anti-vaccination argument endorsement
Holford, D. L., Fasce, A., Costello, T. H., & Lewandowsky, S. (2023) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-023-30883-7 · Cited by 34
Can Media Literacy Intervention Improve Fake News Credibility Assessment? A Meta-Analysis
Lu, C. F., Hu, B., Bao, M.-M., Wang, C., Bi, C., & Ju, X. (2024) · Cyberpsychology Behavior and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2023.0324 · Cited by 58
The Postmodern Medical Paradigm: A Case Study of Anti-MMR Vaccine Arguments
Bricker, B. J., & Justice, J. W. (2018) · Western Journal of Communication · doi:10.1080/10570314.2018.1510136 · Cited by 36
“Conspiracy theory is a central element of antivaccination discourse, as vaccine opponents frequently allege that “large pharmaceutical companies and governments are covering up information about vaccines to meet their own sinister objectives” (Jolley & Douglas, 2014, p. 1).”
BackgroundConspiracy Theories and Philosophy
Dentith, M. R. X. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0006 · Cited by 38
Du, J., Preston, S. M., Sun, H., Shegog, R., Cunningham, R. M., Boom, J. A., Savas, L. S., Amith, M. “., & Tao, C. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/26478 · Cited by 39
“…to beliefs that the government and pharmaceutical companies gain or profit from mass vaccination through deception or at the consumers’ expense, has strong negative effects on attitudes about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, consequently affecting choices about whether to vaccinate [56].”
de Sousa, Á. F. L., Teixeira, J. R. B., Lua, I., Souza, F. D. O., Ferreira, A. J. F., Schneider, G., de Carvalho, H. E. F., de Oliveira, L. B., Lima, S. V. M. A., de Sousa, A. R., et al. (2021) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines9101167 · Cited by 40
“This construct involves ideas intended to diminish trust in vaccines, governments, healthcare professionals, and the pharmaceutical industry [28], such as the notion that pharmaceutical companies and governments falsify vaccine data to their benefit [29] and falsify data on the effectiveness of vaccines or omit eviden…”
BackgroundZarbo, C., Candini, V., Ferrari, C., D'Addazio, M., Calamandrei, G., Starace, F., Caserotti, M., Gavaruzzi, T., Lotto, L., Tasso, A., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.873098 · Cited by 35
“Furthermore, past research has revealed that conspiracy theories can harm trust in authorities and institutions (49, 50), as well as act as barriers to health protective behavior, including unwillingness to vaccinate (14, 48, 50–53).”
BackgroundInoculation against conspiracy theories: A consumer side approach to India's fake news problem
Iyengar, A., Gupta, P., & Priya, N. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3995 · Cited by 37
Making an impression: The effects of sharing conspiracy theories
Green, R., Toribio‐Flórez, D., Douglas, K. M., Brunkow, J. W., & Sutton, R. M. (2022) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104398 · Cited by 40
Self-citationCoelho, P., Foster, K., Nedri, M., & Marques, M. D. (2022) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115522 · Cited by 36
DiFonzo, N. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0017 · Cited by 34
Health misinformation: what it is, why people believe it, how to counter it
Nan, X., Thier, K., & Wang, Y. (2023) · Annals of the International Communication Association · doi:10.1080/23808985.2023.2225489 · Cited by 42
“Experimental research shows that exposure to misinformation indeed can have detrimental e ff ects on more consequential outcomes such as attitudes (Featherstone & Zhang, 2020) and intentions to uptake a health behavior (Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Loomba et al., 2021).”
BackgroundPalmer, A., & Gorman, S. E. (2025) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118272 · Cited by 36
LaCour, M., & Davis, T. H. (2020) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2020.02.052 · Cited by 37
Natural Stings: Selling Distrust About Vaccines on Brazilian YouTube
Machado, D. F. T., de Siqueira, A. F., & Gitahy, L. (2020) · Frontiers in Communication · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.577941 · Cited by 41
““Disease’s industry” is a reference to one of the most reiterated arguments of antivaccination conspiracy theories, where governments, scientists and physicians would be involved in a conspiracy with pharmaceutical companies to cause suffering and to profit (Jolley and Douglas, 2014a).”
BackgroundConspiracy beliefs and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccinations
Pivetti, M., Battista, S. D., Paleari, F. G., & Hakoköngäs, E. J. (2021) · Journal of Pacific Rim Psychology · doi:10.1177/18344909211039893 · Cited by 39
“…beliefs have been associated with the rejection of scientific consensus around topics of health (Douglas et al., 2019) and with both vaccination hesitancy and negative attitudes toward vaccinations (Dunn et al., 2017; Hornsey et al., 2020; Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Tomljenovic et al., 2020).”
BackgroundJamieson, K. H., Romer, D., Jamieson, P. E., Winneg, K. M., & Josh Pasek, B. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2112266118 · Cited by 36
Do Conspiracy Theories Shape or Rationalize Vaccination Hesitancy Over Time?
van Prooijen, J., & Böhm, N. (2023) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/19485506231181659 · Cited by 34
“Although these findings do not warrant a rejection of the idea that conspiracy beliefs shape increased vaccination hesitancy (see also Jolley & Douglas, 2014), they do indicate that the relationship between these two variables is for an important part due to vaccination hesi-tancy shaping increased…”
ResultFactors associated with the myth about 5G network during COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa
Ovenseri-Ogbomo, G. O., Ishaya, T., Osuagwu, U. L., Abu, E. K., Nwaeze, O., Oloruntoba, R., Ekpenyong, B. N., Mashige, K. P., Timothy, C. G., Langsi, R., et al. (2020) · Journal of Global Health Reports · doi:10.29392/001c.17606 · Cited by 31
Röchert, D., Shahi, G. K., Neubaum, G., Roß, B., & Stieglitz, S. (2021) · Online Social Networks and Media · doi:10.1016/j.osnem.2021.100164 · Cited by 39
“Misinformation related to global health issues, for instance, in the form of conspiracy theories about vaccines, has serious consequences such as reducing people’s vaccination intentions and increasing distrust on this issue [36].”
Fadhel, F. H. (2021) · Health Promotion International · doi:10.1093/heapro/daab209 · Cited by 36
“The VCBS is a validated scale (Jolley and Douglas, 2014; Shapiro et al., 2016).”
InfluentialSocial Bots’ Involvement in the COVID-19 Vaccine Discussions on Twitter
Zhang, M., Qi, X., Chen, Z., & Liu, J. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph19031651 · Cited by 34
Caught in a networked collusion? Homogeneity in conspiracy-related discussion networks on YouTube
Röchert, D., Neubaum, G., Roß, B., & Stieglitz, S. (2021) · Information Systems · doi:10.1016/j.is.2021.101866 · Cited by 38
Emergence of knowledge communities and information centralization during the COVID-19 pandemic
Sacco, P. L., Gallotti, R., Pilati, F., Castaldo, N., & Domenico, M. D. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114215 · Cited by 35
“…observed in vaccination-related information campaigns, such digital niches, in which false medical information freely circulated and was largely acknowledged as ‘evidence ’ , had a significant impact on the behavior of users who subscribed to such conspiracy theories (Jolley and Douglas, 2014).”
The polio vaccination story of Pakistan
Rahim, S., Ahmad, Z., & Abdul‐Ghafar, J. (2021) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.095 · Cited by 33
Caycho‐Rodríguez, T., Ventura‐León, J., Valencia, P. D., Vilca, L. W., Carbajal‐León, C., Reyes-Bossio, M. A., White, M., Rojas-Jara, C., Polanco-Carrasco, R., Gallegos, M., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.855713 · Cited by 36
Conspiratorial Thinking and Dueling Fact Perceptions
Marietta, M., & Barker, D. C. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0014 · Cited by 32
Science through a tribal lens: A group-based account of polarization over scientific facts
Fasce, A., Adrián‐Ventura, J., Lewandowsky, S., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302211050323 · Cited by 32
“…al., 2018), the prototypical form of intergroup representation that lies at the root of conspiracy theories also provides perceived epistemic justification for antiscientific conceptions of climate change, vaccination, AIDS, and GMOs (Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Nattrass, 2013; Uscinski et al., 2017).”
BackgroundStrömbäck, J., Broda, E., Bouchafra, S., Johansson, S., Rettenegger, G., & Lindgren, E. (2022) · European Journal of Communication · doi:10.1177/02673231221122951 · Cited by 47
“Research has also found that media use might impact beliefs in specific CTs (Enders et al., 2021a; Jolley and Douglas, 2014; Mancosu and Vegetti, 2021; Walter and Drochon, 2020).”
BackgroundImpact of disease risk on the narrative bias in vaccination risk perceptions
Haase, N., Schmid, P., & Betsch, C. (2019) · Psychology and Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2019.1630561 · Cited by 32
“…safety and effectiveness of vaccines is reduced, leading to low confidence, for example, due to poor health communication (Nyhan, Reifler, Richey, & Freed, 2014) or the propagation of myths about severe alleged vaccine adverse events (VAE) by the anti-vaccination movement (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundThe shadows know me: Exploring the dark side of social media in the healthcare field
Smaldone, F., Ippolito, A., & Ruberto, M. (2019) · European Management Journal · doi:10.1016/j.emj.2019.12.001 · Cited by 34
Thinking Style and Paranormal Belief: The Role of Cognitive Biases
Williams, C., Denovan, A., Drinkwater, K. G., & Dagnall, N. (2021) · Imagination Cognition and Personality · doi:10.1177/02762366211036435 · Cited by 34
“…is typically benign, other scientifically unsubstantiated beliefs (i.e., pseudoscience and conspiracies) can have profound social effects such as weakening political involvement and public health messages (e.g., vaccination campaigns) (Jolley & Douglas, 2014a, 2014b; Teovanovi c et al., 2021).”
BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 Threat Perception and Willingness to Vaccinate: The Mediating Role of Conspiracy Beliefs
Maftei, A., & Holman, A. C. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.672634 · Cited by 34
Cultural Evolution and Digital Media: Diffusion of Fake News About COVID-19 on Twitter
de Oliveira, D. V. B., & Albuquerque, U. P. (2021) · SN Computer Science · doi:10.1007/s42979-021-00836-w · Cited by 36
LOCO: The 88-million-word language of conspiracy corpus
Miani, A., Hills, T. T., & Bangerter, A. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-021-01698-z · Cited by 36
“CT belief is also related to general distrust and political alienation along with endorsement of nonnormative (vs. normative) political intentions (Einstein & Glick, 2015; Imhoff et al., 2021; Jolley & Douglas, 2014a).”
Is the label ‘conspiracy theory’ a cause or a consequence of disbelief in alternative narratives?
Douglas, K. M., van Prooijen, J., & Sutton, R. M. (2021) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12548 · Cited by 32
Self-citationKing-Kizito, K., Wang, B., Escobari, D., & Oraby, T. F. (2021) · Journal of Management Information Systems · doi:10.1080/07421222.2021.1990611 · Cited by 32
“However, this solution is mostly used in the retail domain, where users rate credible buyers and sellers and may be vulnerable to manipulations that are difficult to detect [27, 29, 58, 37].”
Don't trust anybody: Conspiracy mentality and the detection of facial trustworthiness cues
Frenken, M., & Imhoff, R. (2022) · Applied Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1002/acp.3955 · Cited by 33
Ittefaq, M., Abwao, M., & Rafique, S. (2021) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2021.1894897 · Cited by 32
Correcting What’s True: Testing Competing Claims About Health Misinformation on Social Media
Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2022) · American Behavioral Scientist · doi:10.1177/00027642221118252 · Cited by 31
Chaidez, V., y García, E. F., Wang, L. W., Angkustsiri, K., Krakowiak, P., Hertz‐Picciotto, I., & Hansen, R. L. (2018) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.12612 · Cited by 32
“Another study demonstrated the potential role of anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs in shaping health-related behaviors (vaccination intention), where mediating variables include perceived dangers of vaccines, feelings of powerlessness and mistrust in authorities (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundPiltch-Loeb, R. N., Zikmund‐Fisher, B. J., Shaffer, V. A., Scherer, L. D., Knaus, M., Fagerlin, A., Abramson, D. M., & Scherer, A. M. (2019) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.13369 · Cited by 31
“There is some evidence that women and older adults are less likely to endorse infectiousdisease-related conspiracies (Galliford & Furnham, 2017; Hogg et al., 2017), but other research has found no associations with age and gender (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundChayinska, M., Uluğ, Ö. M., Ayanian, A. H., Gratzel, J. C., Brik, T., Kende, A., & McGarty, C. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430220978278 · Cited by 34
COVID-19 Vaccine Misinformation Campaigns and Social Media Narratives
Sharma, K., Zhang, Y., & Liu, Y. (2022) · Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media · doi:10.1609/icwsm.v16i1.19346 · Cited by 42
“An earlier study found that participants shown material supporting anti-vaccine conspiracies exhibited lower vaccination intent than those in anticonspiracy conditions or controls (Jolley and Douglas 2014).”
BackgroundTowards a fruitful concept of radicalisation: a synthesis
Peels, R. (2023) · Journal of Contemporary European Studies · doi:10.1080/14782804.2023.2185594 · Cited by 30
“Here, we can think of radicalization into religious nationalism (Kinnvall 2004) or radicalization into conspiracy theorizing (e.g. Daniel and Douglas, 2014; Erisen 2022).”
BackgroundRäikkä, J., & Basham, L. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0011 · Cited by 32
Diagnosing Pseudoscience – by Getting Rid of the Demarcation Problem
Boudry, M. (2021) · Journal for General Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1007/s10838-021-09572-4 · Cited by 34
“…of children in religious communities (Scott 2004); climate denialism obstructs necessary political action to reduce human carbon emissions (Jolley & Douglas 2014a, b; Oreskes & Conway 2011); and people in developing countries are stricken with blindness because of myths about genetically…”
BackgroundAbdulmuhsin, A. A., Değirmenci, B., Efendioğlu, İ. H., & Durmaz, Y. (2021) · International Journal of Emerging Markets · doi:10.1108/ijoem-11-2020-1308 · Cited by 33
Factors associated with the belief in COVID-19 related conspiracy theories in Pakistan
Ejaz, W., Ittefaq, M., Seo, H., & Naz, F. (2021) · Health Risk & Society · doi:10.1080/13698575.2021.1929865 · Cited by 30
“efforts (Morrish, 2020), including hesitancy or unwillingness to get vaccinated (Jolley et al., 2014).”
BackgroundRudert, S. C., Gleibs, I. H., Gollwitzer, M., Häfner, M., Hajek, K. V., Harth, N. S., Häusser, J. A., Imhoff, R., & Schneider, D. (2021) · European Psychologist · doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000457 · Cited by 34
Doing your own research and other impossible acts of epistemic superheroism
Buzzell, A., & Rini, R. A. (2022) · Philosophical Psychology · doi:10.1080/09515089.2022.2138019 · Cited by 30
“If you are someone with a deep distrust in existing experts – as many conspiracy theorists tend to be (Harris, 2022; Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2016) - then the prospect of carving out a new intellectual niche, where no one has done more research than you, must…”
BackgroundThe need for a multi-disciplinary perspective on vaccine hesitancy and acceptance
Poland, C. M., & Brunson, E. K. (2014) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.022 · Cited by 30
Krings, V. C., Steeden, B., Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430220986673 · Cited by 30
“As mistrust of vaccines has been associated with lower willingness to receive a vaccine (Jolley & Douglas, 2014), endorsement of such beliefs could severely impede efforts to control the virus.”
BackgroundCognitive Biases in Chronic Illness and Their Impact on Patients' Commitment
Savioni, L., & Triberti, S. (2020) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579455 · Cited by 31
“The well-known example of anti-vaccine groups and related studies (Jolley and Douglas, 2014) show that the exposure to conspiracy theories within groups may sensitively affect the patients’ health decisions.”
BackgroundMisinformation can prevent the suppression of epidemics
Sontag, A., Rogers, T., & Yates, C. A. (2022) · Journal of The Royal Society Interface · doi:10.1098/rsif.2021.0668 · Cited by 29
Disinformation: A Bibliometric Review
Wang, S., Su, F., Ye, L., & Jing, Y. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192416849 · Cited by 45
“highlighted the potentially detrimental consequences of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories in 2014 [80].”
BackgroundConspiracy Theories in Post-Soviet Russia
Yablokov, I. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0024 · Cited by 33
Polls, Plots, and Party Politics
Enders, A. M., & Smallpage, S. M. (2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0020 · Cited by 28
A call to action for librarians: Countering conspiracy theories in the age of QAnon
Beene, S., & Greer, K. (2021) · The Journal of Academic Librarianship · doi:10.1016/j.acalib.2020.102292 · Cited by 28
Discrimination, HIV conspiracy theories and pre-exposure prophylaxis acceptability in gay men
Jolley, D., & Jaspal, R. (2020) · Sexual Health · doi:10.1071/sh20154 · Cited by 28
Self-citationNaveed, M. A., Malik, A., & Mahmood, K. (2021) · Library Hi Tech · doi:10.1108/lht-12-2020-0322 · Cited by 30
Sun, Y., & Lu, F. (2022) · Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/10776990221084606 · Cited by 28
“Moreover, belief in anti-vaccination misinformation has been shown to have a negative impact on people’s attitudes toward vaccination and intention to get vaccinated (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundCan News Literacy Help Reduce Belief in COVID Misinformation?
Ashley, S., Craft, S., Maksl, A., Tully, M., & Vraga, E. K. (2022) · Mass Communication & Society · doi:10.1080/15205436.2022.2137040 · Cited by 28
Vaccine hesitancy: A vade mecum v1.0
Thomson, A., & Watson, M. (2016) · Vaccine · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.12.049 · Cited by 28
van der Linden, S., Albarracín, D., Fazio, L. K., Freelon, D., Roozenbeek, J., Swire‐Thompson, B., & Bavel, J. J. V. (2023) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e506432023-001 · Cited by 34
(2018) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190844073.003.0001 · Cited by 29
Conspiracy-Beliefs and Receptivity to Disconfirmatory Information: A Study Using the BADE Task
Georgiou, N., Delfabbro, P., & Balzan, R. P. (2021) · SAGE Open · doi:10.1177/21582440211006131 · Cited by 27
“…there are individuals who are particularly prone to conspiracy style beliefs and that beliefs of this nature often tend to be correlated and clustered, which suggests the existence of CT style thinking as well as common CT preoccupations and constructs (Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Wood et al., 2012).”
BackgroundTomaszewski, T., Morales, A., Lourentzou, I., Caskey, R. N., Liu, B., Schwartz, A., & Chin, J. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/30451 · Cited by 29
Nah, S., Williamson, L. D., Kahlor, L. A., Atkinson, L., Upshaw, S. J., & Ntang-Beb, J.-L. (2023) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2023.2244169 · Cited by 29
“As noted earlier, the negative relationship between belief in misinformation and pro-health behaviors has been well documented (Jolley et al., 2014; Tan et al., 2015).”
People do change their beliefs about conspiracy theories—but not often
Williams, M. N., Ling, M., Kerr, J. R., Hill, S., Marques, M. D., Mawson, H., & Clarke, E. J. R. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-51653-z · Cited by 27
Conspiratorial Thinking and Political Constraint
Enders, A. M. (2019) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfz032 · Cited by 27
How believing in brand conspiracies shapes relationships with brands
Lunardo, R., Oliver, M. A., & Shepherd, S. (2023) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.113729 · Cited by 26
Axelsson, A., Nygren, T., Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2024) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2338451 · Cited by 34
“For teenagers, misinformation may lead to disengagement from politics (Gunther et al., 2019), foster vaccine hesitancy (Loomba et al., 2021), or potentially increase engagement in violent behavior (Jolley & Douglas, 2014a, 2014b; Jolley & Paterson, 2020).”
Stephens, A. B., Wynn, C. S., & Stockwell, M. S. (2019) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2019.1611158 · Cited by 27
“Exposure to antivaccination information has also been shown to reduce intention to vaccinate.(104,105,140,141) One effective strategy for HPV vaccine social media campaigns could be to target individuals”
BackgroundCitizen participation in Twitter: Anti-vaccine controversies in times of COVID-19
Polaino, R. C., Cárdaba, M. Á. M., & Cirujano, E. V. (2021) · Comunicar · doi:10.3916/c69-2021-02 · Cited by 26
“…no científicas que tengan consecuencias sanitarias, económicas y sociales reales para la población en su conjunto (Kouzy et al., 2020) puesto que cada vez es mayor el número de personas que acuden a Internet buscando información sobre la conveniencia o no de vacunarse (Jolley & Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundKnobel, P., Zhao, X., & White, K. M. (2021) · Journal of Community Psychology · doi:10.1002/jcop.22714 · Cited by 26
“Previous research suggests that general vaccination confidence (Kalimeri et al., 2019), populist political inclination (Peretti‐Watel et al., 2020), trust in political institutions (Kennedy, 2020), and exposure to conspiracy beliefs (Goldberg & Richey, 2020; Jolley & Douglas, 2014; Romer &…”
BackgroundPisl, V., Volavka, J., Chvojková, E., Cechová, K., Kavalirova, G., & Vevera, J. (2021) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2021.717960 · Cited by 17
“The intentions to vaccinate may be negatively affected by the conspiracy theories (Jolley and Douglas, 2014).”
BackgroundBolsen, T., Palm, R. I., & Kingsland, J. T. (2021) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2021.1991967 · Cited by 27
“Conspiracy rhetoric surrounding matters related to scientific issues can increase belief in a conspiracy theory (e.g. Jolley & Douglas, 2014b; Swami et al., 2013; Uscinski et al., 2016).”
BackgroundGeniole, S. N., Bird, B. M., Witzel, A., McEvoy, J. T., & Proietti, V. M. (2022) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2022.107218 · Cited by 26
Ma, J., Tojib, D., & Tsarenko, Y. (2022) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-022-05059-4 · Cited by 30
“…beliefs about climate change (Hmielowski et al., 2014; Nisbet & Myers, 2007), genetic technology (Barnett et al., 2007; Liu & Priest, 2009; Sturgis et al., 2005), vaccine skepticism (Dubé et al., 2015; Jolley & Douglas, 2014), and nuclear technology (He et al., 2013; Hendriks et al., 2016).”
Who falls for fake news? Psychological and clinical profiling evidence of fake news consumers
Escolà‐Gascón, Á., Dagnall, N., Denovan, A., Drinkwater, K. G., & Bosch, M. D. (2022) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2022.111893 · Cited by 34
Žeželj, I. L., Petrović, M., Ivanović, A., & Kurčubić, P. (2023) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0279122 · Cited by 26
“Exposure to anti-vaccine conspiracy theories has been shown to decrease vaccination intentions [20].”
BackgroundKowalska-Duplaga, K., & Duplaga, M. (2023) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-023-15603-0 · Cited by 27
“Jolley and Douglas reported that anti-vaccine conspiracy beliefs were negatively associated with vaccination intentions [10].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Jolley, D., & Douglas, K. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Kent (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Jolley, Daniel
- Douglas, Karen M.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-02-20
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e89177
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC3930676
- OpenAlex
- W2016520072
- Cited by
- 1,232
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 92 · 2024: 116 · 2023: 147 · 2022: 225 · 2021: 232 · 2020: 147 · 2019: 51 · 2018: 72 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 18 · 2014: 6
- FWCI
- 89.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Staffordshire Online Repository (Staffordshire University) (acceptedVersion)
- Northumbria Research Link (Northumbria University) (acceptedVersion)
- Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (submittedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Repository@Nottingham (University of Nottingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
- Social Sciences › Health › Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Keywords
- vaccination intention, vaccine hesitancy, powerlessness, misinformation exposure, health behavior, parents
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Child, Preschool, Culture, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vaccination, Vaccines, Intention
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
