Misinformation about COVID-19: evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science.

Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 100968562 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1471-2458 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 14712458 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Public Health Subsets: MEDLINE

Original Publication: London : BioMed Central, [2001-

Attitude to Health* ; COVID-19* ; Communicable Disease Control* ; Communication* ; Politics* ; Religion* ; Trust*; Adolescent ; Adult ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Female ; Freedom ; Humans ; Internet ; Latent Class Analysis ; Logistic Models ; Male ; Masks ; Multivariate Analysis ; Physical Distancing ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Science ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; United States ; Vaccination ; Young Adult

Background: The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles.
Results: For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4.
Conclusions: Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.

Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(S3):S269. (PMID: 33001725)
Psychol Methods. 2001 Mar;6(1):18-34. (PMID: 11285809)
Int J Obes (Lond). 2010 Jan;34(1):84-8; discussion 83. (PMID: 19949416)
Nat Med. 2020 Apr;26(4):450-452. (PMID: 32284615)
Clin Med (Lond). 2020 Mar;20(2):124-127. (PMID: 32139372)
JAMA Intern Med. 2014 May;174(5):817-8. (PMID: 24638266)
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017 May;52(5):595-604. (PMID: 28352955)
J Med Internet Res. 2020 May 6;22(5):e19458. (PMID: 32352383)
Lancet Infect Dis. 2020 Aug;20(8):875. (PMID: 32687807)
BMC Med. 2020 Mar 18;18(1):89. (PMID: 32188445)
Mem Stud. 2017 Jul;10(3):323-333. (PMID: 29081831)
J Affect Disord. 2019 Aug 1;255:116-126. (PMID: 31150941)
Sci Adv. 2019 Jan 09;5(1):eaau4586. (PMID: 30662946)
Nature. 2020 Mar;579(7798):270-273. (PMID: 32015507)
Psychol Assess. 2012 Dec;24(4):877-91. (PMID: 22486595)
Addiction. 2020 Oct;115(10):1969-1971. (PMID: 32309892)
J Pediatr Psychol. 2014 Mar;39(2):188-203. (PMID: 24277770)
AIDS Behav. 2020 Oct;24(10):2776-2780. (PMID: 32440972)
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2020;75:e1953. (PMID: 32428114)
Br J Soc Psychol. 2019 Oct;58(4):938-954. (PMID: 30706498)
J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Dec;35(12):3627-3634. (PMID: 33021717)
Biometrics. 1999 Jun;55(2):463-9. (PMID: 11318201)
Front Psychol. 2017 Aug 08;8:1359. (PMID: 28848474)
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 20;9(2):e89177. (PMID: 24586574)
N Engl J Med. 2020 Nov 19;383(21):2030-2040. (PMID: 33031652)
Nature. 2008 Jun 19;453(7198):980-2. (PMID: 18563131)
Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2016;12:53-81. (PMID: 26772208)
Cureus. 2020 Mar 13;12(3):e7255. (PMID: 32292669)
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2011 Jan;6(1):3-5. (PMID: 26162106)
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 24;12(7):e0181821. (PMID: 28742163)
Public Health. 2020 Jun;183:122-125. (PMID: 32405095)
BMJ. 2011 Jan 05;342:c7452. (PMID: 21209060)
J Pers. 2020 Apr;88(2):185-200. (PMID: 30929263)
Science. 2015 Jun 26;348(6242):1420-2. (PMID: 26113701)
Lancet. 2020 Jun 13;395(10240):1820. (PMID: 32511943)
Scand J Psychol. 2017 Oct;58(5):422-428. (PMID: 28782805)

Keywords: COVID-19; Conspiracy theories; Coronavirus; Misinformation; Trust

Date Created: 20210108 Date Completed: 20210118 Latest Revision: 20210118

20240829

PMC7789893

10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x

33413219