Both a bioweapon and a hoax: the curious case of contradictory conspiracy theories about COVID-19

Abstract

Amidst the flow of conspiracy theories (CTs) about the COVID-19 pandemic, many were logically incompatible. We aimed to map the psychological profile of their endorsers. Upon pretesting for familiarity and logical incompatibility, we choose eight pairs of contradictory COVID-19 CTs. Across three studies, a substantial portion of respondents (40%–42%) endorsed at least one pair. In Study 1 (N = 290), conspiracy mentality and doublethink, but not preference for consistency, meaningfully related to endorsement of contradictory CTs; doublethink contributed over and above other predictors. In two following studies we introduced indicators of superficial (Study 2; N = 281) and analytical (Study 3; N = 170) information-processing as predictors. The endorsers of contradictory CTs were more intuitive, prone to ontological confusions and pseudo-profound bullshit, less rational and less actively open-minded; doublethink again added to the prediction. We end by suggesting how the interventions should be tailored to address people with such distinct information-processing style.

Keywords:

• COVID-19 conspiracy theories
• inconsistent beliefs
• doublethink
• superficial information processing
• thinking style

Acknowledgement

This work is a part of Marija Petrović's PhD thesis entitled “Consistently inconsistent: predictivity and validity of doublethink” at the University of Belgrade, supervised by Dr. Iris Žeželj.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 While most of the chosen claims were clear-cut, the two criteria suggested we included a claim that officials were intentionally reporting lower numbers of infected. We decided to leave it in, even though there were indications that the reported numbers were lower than they should have been, because it remains to be seen whether it was due to intent to deceive the public, a consequence of a lack of resources to accurately track them, or of sheer incompetence. More importantly, we decided to keep this particular claim despite its contested conspiratorial nature, because we were not concerned primarily with responses to individual CTs, but rather the conjoint responding to the pair. As such, a person believing that the officials are intentionally reporting lower numbers would not be characterized as prone to contradictory CTs, unless they also believed that the tests are rigged to show positive results at the same time.

Additional information

Funding

This work was funded by Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.