[Causes of belief in conspiracy narratives and recommendations for successful risk communication in healthcare]. / Die Ursachen des Glaubens an Verschwörungserzählungen und Empfehlungen für eine gelungene Risikokommunikation im Gesundheitswesen.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the belief in conspiracy narratives within the population strongly influenced the implementation of containment measures and medical recommendations. Conspiracy narratives involve the belief that a group perceived as powerful would pursue secret plans to harm society, which distinguishes them from misinformation or disinformation. This paper presents findings from the research literature on the causes of conspiracy beliefs, their effects on individual health behaviors, and ways to counteract their spread.In situations where people have less capacity and motivation for deeper information processing, they form their opinions more heuristically, which increases vulnerability to cognitive biases. People become particularly susceptible to receiving misinformation or disinformation, which are frequently linked to the emotionalization of facts and simplistic responses. Belief in conspiracy narratives may become more easily established, with additional issues of personal identity and various psychological motives playing a role, among others. A general distrust of people who are perceived as "powerful," such as representatives from science, medicine, and politics, can arise. Digital networks additionally contribute to the spread of conspiracy narratives.There are several ways that healthcare institutions can reduce the emergence and spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy narratives through their risk and crisis communications. The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model (CERC) provides important approaches in this regard.

[Conspiracy narratives in the context of the coronavirus pandemic]. / Verschwörungserzählungen im Kontext der Coronapandemie.

Beliefs in conspiracies have been widely discussed in society since the worldwide outbreak of the pandemic triggered by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since May 2020 there have been demonstrations throughout Germany in which conspiracy ideology played an important role. The number of conspiracy ideology channels and groups rose during the crisis. Many family members were suddenly confronted in a private context with the question of how to deal with the fact that people close to them suddenly sensed conspiracies everywhere. To have a better understanding of conspiracy narratives this article therefore presents psychological insights that attempt to explain why people believe in conspiracies and what consequences this world view might have. Based on these findings the article discusses how misinformation and conspiracy narratives can be dealt with in a therapeutic setting.

A Bioweapon or a Hoax? The Link Between Distinct Conspiracy Beliefs About the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Outbreak and Pandemic Behavior.

During the coronavirus disease pandemic rising in 2020, governments and nongovernmental organizations across the globe have taken great efforts to curb the infection rate by promoting or legally prescribing behavior that can reduce the spread of the virus. At the same time, this pandemic has given rise to speculations and conspiracy theories. Conspiracy worldviews have been connected to refusal to trust science, the biomedical model of disease, and legal means of political engagement in previous research. In three studies from the United States (N = 220; N = 288) and the UK (N = 298), we went beyond this focus on a general conspiracy worldview and tested the idea that different forms of conspiracy beliefs despite being positively correlated have distinct behavioral implications. Whereas conspiracy beliefs describing the pandemic as a hoax were more strongly associated with reduced containment-related behavior, conspiracy beliefs about sinister forces purposefully creating the virus related to an increase in self-centered prepping behavior.

From Sperm to Fatherhood: An Experimental Approach to Determinants of Paternal Responsibility.

During the last decades, there has been a substantial change in family structure in Western societies. The standing of the classical nuclear family has changed from the norm to just one option out of many, and the understanding of family has diversified. Biologically deterministic conceptions of parenthood have thus started to erode. Despite this, the circumstances under which a biological father is perceived as a social father have not been studied so far. Across four experimental studies, we tried to explore the antecedents which explain differences in the ascription of social fatherhood. Study 1 (N = 85) provided strong support for the notion that the level of perceived social fatherhood differs between one-night stands and sperm donation. Three additional experiments empirically tested the plausibility of three potential reasons for this large difference. Study 2 (N = 88) provided no support for the role of the naturalness of the insemination process. Study 3 (N = 341) tested the role of the time of negotiation of fatherhood but did not provide support for the idea that the time of negotiating fatherhood (before vs. after conception) determines attributions of responsibility. A final Study 4 (N = 173), however, supported the notion that a woman's strategy of negotiating sex as a functional means to achieve a pregnancy reduced paternal responsibility. The sex of the rater as an independent variable did not have any effect on the ascriptions of fatherhood. Across all studies, we neither found a main effect of sex of the rater on ascription of fatherhood nor an interaction with the experimental condition. The results of the studies are discussed with respect to changing conceptions of fatherhood.

Support for collective action against refugees: The role of national, European, and global identifications, and autochthony beliefs.

To understand recent anti-refugee protests in Europe, we examined how different levels of inclusiveness of group identities (national, European, and global) are related to intentions to protest among native Europeans. We focused on the mediating role of autochthony (a belief that the first inhabitants of a territory are more entitled) and the moderating role of threat. Survey data from 11 European countries (N = 1,909) showed that national identification was positively associated with autochthony, and therefore, with the intention to protest against refugees. In contrast, global identification was related to lower protest intentions via lower autochthony. These paths were found only among Europeans who perceived refugees as a threat. European identification was not related to the endorsement of autochthony or to collective action. These findings indicate why and when majority members are willing to participate in collective action against refugees, and underscore the importance of global identification in the acceptance of refugees.

Using Power as a Negative Cue: How Conspiracy Mentality Affects Epistemic Trust in Sources of Historical Knowledge.

Classical theories of attitude change point to the positive effect of source expertise on perceived source credibility persuasion, but there is an ongoing societal debate on the increase in anti-elitist sentiments and conspiracy theories regarding the allegedly untrustworthy power elite. In one correlational ( N = 275) and three experimental studies ( N = 195, N = 464, N = 225), we tested the novel idea that people who endorse a conspiratorial mind-set (conspiracy mentality) indeed exhibit markedly different reactions to cues of epistemic authoritativeness than those who do not: Whereas the perceived credibility of powerful sources decreased with the recipients' conspiracy mentality, that of powerless sources increased independent of and incremental to other biases, such as the need to see the ingroup in particularly positive light. The discussion raises the question whether a certain extent of source-based bias is necessary for the social fabric of a highly complex society.