Bringing Trauma Home: Reflections on Interviewing Survivors of Trauma while Working from Home

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, working from home became the new normal for many professionals. While this was beneficial in managing the rapidly spreading virus, it had varying impacts on the mental health of those previously not accustomed to remote work. This paper provides a critical reflection of the researcher's experience of conducting interviews with survivors of trauma while working from home. The research aimed to understand the experiences of significant others supporting patients with severe burn injury in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). As an experienced ICU nurse, the researcher has well developed personal coping strategies for dealing with complex trauma and in working with significant others of patients with severe burn injury in hospital settings. Due to the pandemic, data collection moved from face-to-face in the hospital, as originally intended, to phone or videoconference interviews. 17 participants were recruited, with all participants given the option of videoconference (n = 3) or telephone interviews (n = 14). Interviews had an average length of 55 minutes. This paper discusses the strategies adopted to cope with the sharing of significant others' experiences of trauma while in the home environment. Careful consideration was needed for the researcher, the participants and those within the homes of both researcher and participant, in terms of psychological safety, ethical considerations and rapport building. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of International Journal of Qualitative Methods is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

The efficacy of interventions in reducing belief in conspiracy theories: A systematic review.

Conspiracy beliefs have become a topic of increasing interest among behavioural researchers. While holding conspiracy beliefs has been associated with several detrimental social, personal, and health consequences, little research has been dedicated to systematically reviewing the methods that could reduce conspiracy beliefs. We conducted a systematic review to identify and assess interventions that have sought to counter conspiracy beliefs. Out of 25 studies (total N = 7179), we found that while the majority of interventions were ineffective in terms of changing conspiracy beliefs, several interventions were particularly effective. Interventions that fostered an analytical mindset or taught critical thinking skills were found to be the most effective in terms of changing conspiracy beliefs. Our findings are important as we develop future research to combat conspiracy beliefs.

Managing the elephant in the room: responding to COVID-19's impact on data collection.

BACKGROUND: The global COVID-19 pandemic has affected data collection for many researchers, in particular research that involves face-to-face interviews. AIM: To share learning about the challenges encountered when face-to-face interviews could not continue as planned in a study and how to adapt data collection so that it can continue despite severe disruption. DISCUSSION: This article examines the considerations and actions taken by the authors to ensure the continuity of data collection. The research aimed to use narrative inquiry to understand the experiences of significant others supporting people in intensive care units with severe burn injuries. But the pandemic meant the researchers could not meet face-to-face with participants as originally intended and so they had to consider new ways to approach data collection. The authors explore the process of adapting the interviews to video conferencing and telephone use while preserving the study's person-centred focus to remain coherent with narrative methodology. CONCLUSION: Adapting data collection is valuable in ensuring the continuity of research. Careful consideration and planning are required to ensure the research remains robust and ethically sound. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Adapting data collection methods can allow for greater flexibility when participants cannot attend face-to-face interviews.

Debriefing works: Successful retraction of misinformation following a fake news study.

In recent years there has been an explosion of research on misinformation, often involving experiments where participants are presented with fake news stories and subsequently debriefed. In order to avoid potential harm to participants or society, it is imperative that we establish whether debriefing procedures remove any lasting influence of misinformation. In the current study, we followed up with 1547 participants one week after they had been exposed to fake news stories about COVID-19 and then provided with a detailed debriefing. False memories and beliefs for previously-seen fake stories declined from the original study, suggesting that the debrief was effective. Moreover, the debriefing resulted in reduced false memories and beliefs for novel fake stories, suggesting a broader impact on participants' willingness to accept misinformation. Small effects of misinformation on planned health behaviours observed in the original study were also eliminated at follow-up. Our findings suggest that when a careful and thorough debriefing procedure is followed, researchers can safely and ethically conduct misinformation research on sensitive topics.

Measuring the effects of misinformation exposure and beliefs on behavioural intentions: a COVID-19 vaccination study.

Misinformation has been a pressing issue since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, threatening our ability to effectively act on the crisis. Nevertheless, little is known about the actual effects of fake news on behavioural intentions. Does exposure to or belief in misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines affect people's intentions to receive such a vaccine? This paper attempts to address this question via three preregistered experiments (N = 3463). In Study 1, participants (n = 1269) were exposed to fabricated pro- or anti-vaccine information or to neutral true information, and then asked about their intentions to get vaccinated. In Study 2, participants (n = 646) were exposed to true pro- and anti-vaccine information, while Study 3 (n = 1548) experimentally manipulated beliefs in novel misinformation about COVID-19 vaccines by increasing exposure to the information. The results of these three studies showed that exposure to false information about the vaccines had little effect on participants' intentions to get vaccinated, even when multiple exposures led them to believe the headlines to be more accurate. An exploratory meta-analysis of studies 1 and 3, with a combined sample size of 2683, showed that exposure to false information both supporting and opposing COVID-19 vaccines actually increased vaccination intentions, though the effect size was very small. We conclude by cautioning researchers against equating exposure to misinformation or perceived accuracy of false news with actual behaviours.

False memories for true and false vaccination information form in line with pre-existing vaccine opinions.

Misinformation continually threatens efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic, with vaccine misinformation now a key concern. False memories for misinformation can influence behavioural intentions, yet little is known about the factors affecting (false) memories for vaccine-related news items. Across two experiments (total n = 1481), this paper explores the effects of pre-existing vaccine opinions on reported memories for true and false news items. In Study 1, participants (n = 817) were exposed to fabricated pro- or anti-vaccine news items, and then asked if they have a memory of this news event having occurred. In Study 2, participants (n = 646) viewed true pro- or anti-vaccine news items. News items were more likely to be remembered when they aligned with participants' pre-existing vaccine beliefs, with stronger effects for pro-vaccine information. We conclude by encouraging researchers to consider the role of attitudinal bias when developing interventions to reduce susceptibility to misinformation.

Quantifying the effects of fake news on behavior: Evidence from a study of COVID-19 misinformation.

Previous research has argued that fake news may have grave consequences for health behavior, but surprisingly, no empirical data have been provided to support this assumption. This issue takes on new urgency in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, and the accompanying wave of online misinformation. In this large preregistered study (N = 3,746), we investigated the effect of a single exposure to fabricated news stories about COVID-19 on related behavioral intentions. We observed small but measurable effects on some behavioral intentions but not others-for example, participants who read a story about problems with a forthcoming contact-tracing app reported a 5% reduction in willingness to download the app. These data suggest that one-off fake news exposure may have behavioral consequences, though the effects are not large. We also found no effects of providing a general warning about the dangers of online misinformation on response to the fake stories, regardless of the framing of the warning in positive or negative terms. This suggests that generic warnings about online misinformation, such as those used by governments and social media companies, are unlikely to be effective. We conclude with a call for more empirical research on the real-world consequences of fake news. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Individual differences in susceptibility to false memories for COVID-19 fake news.

Exposure to 'fake news' can result in false memories, with possible consequences for downstream behaviour. Given the sharp rise in online misinformation during the coronavirus pandemic, it is important to understand the factors that influence the development of false memories. The present study measured susceptibility to false memories following exposure to fabricated news stories about the pandemic in a sample of 3746 participants. We investigated the effect of individual differences in (1) knowledge about COVID-19, (2) engagement with media or discussion about the coronavirus, (3) anxiety about COVID-19 and (4) analytical reasoning. Notably, objectively and subjectively assessed knowledge about COVID-19 were not significantly correlated. Objectively assessed knowledge was associated with fewer false memories but more true memories, suggesting a true discrimination between true and fake news. In contrast, participants who merely believed themselves to be very knowledgeable were more likely to report a memory for true stories, but showed no reduction in false memories. Similarly, individuals who reported high levels of media engagement or anxiety about COVID-19 reported an increase in true (but not false) memories. Finally, higher levels of analytical reasoning were associated with fewer memories for both true and fabricated stories, suggesting a stricter threshold for reporting a memory for any story. These data indicate that false memories can form in response to fake COVID-19 news and that susceptibility to this misinformation is affected by the individual's knowledge about and interaction with COVID-19 information, as well as their tendency to think critically.