Contemporary trends in psychological research on conspiracy beliefs. A systematic review.

Background: The number of psychological studies on conspiracy beliefs has been systematically growing for about a dozen years, but in recent years, the trend has intensified. We provided a review covering the psychological literature on conspiracy beliefs from 2018 to 2021. Halfway through this period, the COVID-19 pandemic broke out, accompanied by an explosion of movements based on conspiracy theories, intensifying researchers' interest in this issue. Methods: Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, the review systematically searched for relevant journal articles published between 2018 and 2021. A search was done on Scopus and Web of Science (only peer-reviewed journals). A study was included if it contained primary empirical data, if specific or general conspiracy belief(s) were measured and if its correlation with at least one other psychological variable was reported. All the studies were grouped for the descriptive analysis according to the methodology used, the participants' characteristics, the continent of origin, the sample size, and the conspiracy beliefs measurement tools. Due to substantial methodological heterogeneity of the studies, narrative synthesis was performed. The five researchers were assigned specific roles at each stage of the analysis to ensure the highest quality of the research. Results: Following the proposed methodology, 308 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 274 articles (417 studies) meeting the inclusion criteria were identified and included in the review. Almost half of the studies (49.6%) were conducted in European countries. The vast majority of the studies (85.7%) were carried out on samples of adult respondents. The research presents antecedents as well as (potential) consequences of conspiracy beliefs. We grouped the antecedents of conspiracy beliefs into six categories: cognitive (e.g., thinking style) motivational (e.g., uncertainty avoidance), personality (e.g., collective narcissism), psychopathology (e.g., Dark Triad traits), political (e.g., ideological orientation), and sociocultural factors (e.g., collectivism). Conclusion and limitations: The research presents evidence on the links between conspiracy beliefs and a range of attitudes and behaviors considered unfavorable from the point of view of individuals and of the society at large. It turned out that different constructs of conspiracy thinking interact with each other. The limitations of the study are discussed in the last part of the article.

Political beliefs and the acceptance of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic restrictions. The case of Poland.

We investigated the relationships between political beliefs regarding two aspects of the right-left distinction (cultural and economic) and the acceptance of the pandemic restrictions using variable-centred and person-centred approaches. The community sample consisted of 305 participants. Four groups of the restrictions were considered. Religious fundamentalism predicted positively the acceptance of the restrictions associated with the limitations of labour rights and those limiting civil rights without a direct impact on safety. Anti-welfare negatively predicted the acceptance of the restrictions regarding social distancing and those limiting civil rights and increasing safety. These associations were discussed in relation to basic needs and values which motivate persons who endorse right-wing or left-wing political views. The latent profile analysis revealed three profiles of political beliefs, which were termed "Conservative Statists," "Liberal Laissez-fairists," and "Conservative Laissez-fairists." The profiles differed in terms of acceptance of the pandemic restrictions, and the patterns of these relationships were different for particular groups of restrictions.

The predictors of adaptive and maladaptive coping behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic: The Protection Motivation Theory and the Big Five personality traits.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the predictive value of the constructs proposed by two influential theoretical frameworks: the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) and the Big Five (B5) model of personality in predicting health-related coping behavior during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. Both adaptive (i.e., preventive) and maladaptive (i.e., avoidant behavior and wishful thinking) coping behavior was measured. The study was conducted during the first wave of the pandemic. The sample consisted of 397 persons from the general Polish population. The findings provided strong support for the PMT constructs' predictive value, especially with regard to pandemic-related adaptive behavior. The B5 personality traits accounted for a small proportion of the variability of coping behavior, especially when maladaptive behavior was the outcome. The PMT model showed incremental validity over and above demographic variables and personality traits in predicting preventive behavior, avoidant behavior, and wishful thinking; however, the patterns of relationships differ across the types of coping behavior. According to the current results, to increase adherence to preventive measures during an epidemic, all the PMT constructs should be considered while persuasive communication to the public is formulated.

Experiencing fear during the pandemic: validation of the fear of COVID-19 scale in Polish.

BACKGROUND: The Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) is a brief self-report measure developed at the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic. The scale evaluates the emotional responses to COVID-19. To date, the FCV-19S has been translated and validated in about 20 languages and has been used in many published research. The current study aimed to validate the Polish version of the FCV-19S. METHOD: The FCV-19S was translated into Polish using forward- and back-translation. From May 15th to June 15th 2020, a total of 708 community members (Sample 1: 383 persons, 209 females, Sample 2: 325 persons, 198 females) participated in the online study. The participants were recruited using online advertisements in social media. Participation was anonymous, voluntary, and without compensation. A confirmatory factor analysis was performed to test the one-factor structure of the FCV-19S. Then, measurement invariance was analyzed across samples, gender and age groups. To assess the validity of the scale, correlations between the FCV-19S and the remaining scales were computed. RESULTS: Internal consistency of the FCV-19S was good in both samples (Cronbach's alpha 0.89 and 0.85). The CFA showed that the one-factor model fits the data well (RMSEA = 0.067, 90% CI [0.059-0.094], CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.965, GFI = 0.986). The criteria for configural, metric, scalar and strict invariance were met for all models tested. The FCV-19S scores correlated significantly with age, subjective vulnerability to the disease, neuroticism, self-reported compliance with the pandemic measures, and three kinds of preventive behavior (i.e., social distancing, hand hygiene, and disinfecting things). CONCLUSION: The Polish version of the FCV-19S had a unidimensional structure, good reliability, and correlated as predicted with other variables. With the FCV-19S and the obtained results, healthcare professionals, researchers, and the government can gain more valuable information about people who may be at risk for negative psychological outcomes during the pandemic or who are not implementing protective behavior. The tool can be used in hospitals to quickly screen the level of fear in patients and minimize its severe adverse consequences.