Delineating between scientism and science enthusiasm: Challenges in measuring scientism and the development of novel scale.

Scientism proposes science to be an all-powerful human enterprise, able to answer not only all practical but also philosophical or moral questions. We are taking a psychological approach to scientism, studying uncritical trust in science and uncritical trust in scientists as a part of a unique attitudinal tendency. Our novel measure assesses both kinds of trust through short Thurstone scales allowing us to establish a clear threshold for endorsing scientism, thus effectively delineating it from science enthusiasm, which previous instruments were unable to do. We built and refined a novel scale through five stages in which we consulted relevant literature, experts, and laypeople. We demonstrated that uncritical trust in science and scientists are interrelated, yet distinct constructs. As expected, these two subscales positively correlated with dogmatism, scientific knowledge, and overclaiming, but not with knowledge overestimation. The results suggest the new instrument is reliable, valid, and suitable for the lay public.

What drives us to be (ir)responsible for our health during the COVID-19 pandemic? The role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality.

The study aimed to investigate the role of personality, thinking styles, and conspiracy mentality in health-related behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., recommended health behaviors according to COVID-19 guidelines and engagement in pseudoscientific practices related to COVID-19. Basic personality space was defined by the HEXACO model complemented by Disintegration, which represents psychotic-like experiences and behaviors reconceptualized as a personality trait. Mediation analyses conducted on a convenient sample from the general population recruited via social media and by snowballing (N = 417) showed that engagement in pseudoscientific behaviors was predicted by high Disintegration. However, this relationship was entirely mediated by high experiential and low rational thinking styles. Adherence to health practices recommended by COVID-19 guidelines was predicted by high Honesty traits, while low Disintegration had both direct and indirect effects through conspiracy mentality.

Irrational beliefs differentially predict adherence to guidelines and pseudoscientific practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the coronavirus "infodemic," people are exposed to official recommendations but also to potentially dangerous pseudoscientific advice claimed to protect against COVID-19. We examined whether irrational beliefs predict adherence to COVID-19 guidelines as well as susceptibility to such misinformation. Irrational beliefs were indexed by belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, COVID-19 knowledge overestimation, type I error cognitive biases, and cognitive intuition. Participants (N = 407) reported (1) how often they followed guidelines (e.g., handwashing, physical distancing), (2) how often they engaged in pseudoscientific practices (e.g., consuming garlic, colloidal silver), and (3) their intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Conspiratorial beliefs predicted all three outcomes in line with our expectations. Cognitive intuition and knowledge overestimation predicted lesser adherence to guidelines, while cognitive biases predicted greater adherence, but also greater use of pseudoscientific practices. Our results suggest an important relation between irrational beliefs and health behaviors, with conspiracy theories being the most detrimental.

How (Ir)rational Is it to Believe in Contradictory Conspiracy Theories?

There is evidence that not only believing in one conspiracy theory (CT) makes a person more probable to believe in others, however unrelated their content is, but that people can even believe in contradictory CTs about a single event. After piloting locally relevant conspiracy theories on a convenient Serbian speaking sample (N = 152), we sought to replicate this finding on a larger sample (N = 252), but introduced several changes. We differentiated necessarily and probably mutually exclusive CTs, and interviewed the participants who answered contradictory to understand the reasoning behind it. The participants were more prone to endorse probably than necessarily exclusive items (we registered positive correlations in former and no correlation or negative correlation in later). Two strategies enabled them to overcome the contradiction: (a) distilling the crucial content and downplaying other information and (b) treating the contradictory scenarios as possible versions of events. Taken together, these results indicate that participants are not as irrational as sometimes portrayed.

Efficacy, Acceptability, and Tolerability of Lisdexamfetamine, Mixed Amphetamine Salts, Methylphenidate, and Modafinil in the Treatment of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Psychostimulants are the first-line treatment in adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy, acceptability, and tolerability of lisdexamfetamine (LDX), mixed amphetamine salts (MASs), modafinil (MDF), and methylphenidate (MPH) in comparison with placebo. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Clinicaltrials.gov in May 2016, along with CENTRAL and EU Clinical Trials Register in February 2016, for the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group clinical trials conducted on adults diagnosed with ADHD. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Substantial comorbidity, substance abuse or dependence, and nonpharmacological interventions represented grounds for exclusion. Published reports were the sole source for data extraction. Improvement in ADHD symptoms was the primary outcome. Random-effects model meta-analysis was applied to calculate the standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CIs. DATA SYNTHESIS: The search retrieved 701 records, of which 20 studies were eligible for analysis. High effect size (expressed as SMD) in reducing ADHD symptoms was observed for LDX (-0.89; 95% CI = -1.09, -0.70), whereas MASs (-0.64; 95% CI = -0.83, -0.45) and MPH (-0.50; 95% CI = -0.58, -0.41) reduced symptoms moderately compared with placebo. No efficacy was shown for MDF (0.08; 95% CI; -0.18, 0.34). Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice: In this meta-analysis, the efficacy, tolerability, and acceptability of psychostimulants were compared with that for placebo. Five of the included trials have not been evaluated in any of the previously published meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that LDX has the largest effect size and has a promising potential for treating adults with ADHD.