Abstract
Background While the NIMH Research Domain Criteria framework stresses understanding how neuropsychiatric phenotypes vary across populations, little is known outside of small clinical cohorts about conspiratorial thoughts as an aspect of cognition.
Methods We conducted a 50-state non-probability internet survey conducted in 6 waves between October 6, 2022 and January 29, 2024, with respondents age 18 and older. Respondents completed the American Conspiratorial Thinking Scale (ACTS) and the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). Survey-weighted regression models were used to examine sociodemographic and clinical associations with ACTS score, and associations with vaccination status.
Results Across the 6 survey waves, there were 123,781 unique individuals. After reweighting, a total of 78.6% of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed with at least one conspiratorial idea; 19.0% agreed with all four of them. More conspiratorial thoughts were reported among those age 25 - 54, males, individuals who finished high school but did not start or complete college, those with household income between $25,000 and $50,000 per year, and those who reside in rural areas, as well as those with greater levels of depressive symptoms. Endorsing more conspiratorial thoughts was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being vaccinated against COVID-19.
Discussion A substantial proportion of US adults endorsed at least some conspiratorial thinking, which varied widely across population subgroups. The extent of correlation with non-vaccination suggests the importance of considering such thinking in designing public health strategies.
Competing Interest Statement
Competing Interests and Declarations: Dr. Perlis has received consulting fees from or served on scientific advisory boards for Burrage Capital, Genomind, Circular Genomics, Psy Therapeutics, Swan AI Studios, Belle Artificial Intelligence, and Alkermes. He holds equity in Psy Therapeutics, Circular Genomics, and Vault Health. Dr. Perlis is a paid Associate Editor for JAMA Network Open and a paid Editor for JAMA Artificial Intelligence. The other authors report no disclosures.
Funding Statement
This study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health (Drs. Perlis and Lazer, RF1MH132335), the National Science Foundation grants (Drs. Ognyanova, Lazer, Druckman, and Baum SES-2029292, SES-2029792, SES2116465, SES-2116189), the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and by Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Rutgers University. The authors had the final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication. The sponsors did not have any role in design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. All authors had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The survey protocol was evaluated and considered to be exempt by the Harvard University Institutional Review Board. We present survey results in accordance with AAPOR guidelines.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability Statement
The survey used for this study is available from the corresponding author for non-commercial use.
