Misinformation about COVID-19: Evidence for Differential Latent Profiles and a Strong Association with Trust in Science

"[B]elief in misleading narratives about COVID-19 can have substantive, real-world consequences that makes this both an important theoretical and practical area of study."

The global spread of COVID-19 has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins and the motivations of those advocating for preventive measures like vaccination. Misinformation can be difficult to address because it requires that the source of information be trusted, while the very nature of conspiracy theory often entails the belief that experts or authorities are concealing the truth. In an attempt to guide such efforts by understanding the factors associated with belief in misinformation or conspiracy theories, the present study explored belief in misperceptions about COVID-19 among a sample of United States (US) adults, drawing up profiles for believability of COVID-19 narratives and looking at the association of these beliefs with trust in science and scientists.

The study examined 4 core misperceptions about COVID-19 that contributed to short-term adverse consequences, situated alongside a fifth, scientifically accepted statement about the zoonotic source of COVID-19 ("The COVID-19 virus originated in animals (like bats) and spread to humans.") The misperceptions studied were:

• 5G Narrative: Although viruses cannot be spread through wireless technology, theories associating 5G with COVID-19 have led to more than 70 cell towers being burned in Europe and Canada.
• Gates Vaccine Narrative: Between February and April 2020, varied conspiracies linking Microsoft's co-founder Bill Gates to COVID-19 (e.g., as a pretext to embed microchips in large portions of the global population through vaccination) led, for example, to a non-government organisation (NGO) that became linked with this theory being targeted online.
• Laboratory Development Narrative: Officials in both the US and China have accused the other country of purposefully developing COVID-19 in a laboratory, often with the implication of military involvement.
• Liberty Restriction Narratives: There has been debate about the seriousness of COVID-19 and the appropriate set of public health responses, including the assertion that the true threat from COVID-19 relates to liberty (e.g., mask requirements) rather than the virus itself. These disagreements have led to incidents such as the hanging in effigy of a US governor during a protest. Also, individuals who have publicly derided proposed protective measures have subsequently died from COVID-19.

Data were obtained on May 22 2020 from a sample of 660 US-based Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) users. Participants were asked to rate the believability of different statements, based on the above-outlined narratives, about COVID-19 using a Likert-type scale from 1 (extremely unbelievable) to 7 (extremely believable). Other questions probed their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographics. The researchers assessed the data descriptively and then used latent profile analysis (LPA) to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. They ran bivariate (ANOVA) analyses and then used multivariable, multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles.

Believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (standard deviation (SD) = 1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with 70% of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation but, rather, believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. For example, the highest believability in the zoonotic explanation was observed for Profile 2, which reported the highest believability for all explanations. The researchers suggest that "one reason providing factual information has not always reduced endorsement of misinformation is that latent groups of people exist for whom belief in a scientifically-accepted explanation is not a mutually exclusive alternative to belief in misinformation (e.g., Profiles 2 and 4). For people belonging to these subgroups, convincing them of the validity of the scientifically-accepted explanation may simply increase their belief in that explanation, without concomitant reductions in belief in alternative narratives."

Controlling for sociodemographics, the study found that political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4. In other words, "trusting science and scientists appears to be associated with lower likelihood of expressing a belief pattern that endorses narratives that are definitively, or likely to be, misinformed. In this sense, trust in science was conceptually less related to what narrative to believe, and more related to what narrative(s) are more appropriate to disbelieve."

In considering practical implications of the study, the researchers note that, "Given that trust in science and scientists was the most meaningful factor predicting profile membership,...systematically building trust in science and scientists might be an effective way to inoculate populations against misinformation related to COVID-19, and potentially other misinformation. Based on this study's findings, this would specifically not take the form of repeatedly articulating factual explanations....Rather, to improve trust in science, we might consider demonstrating - honestly and openly - how science works, and then articulating why it can be trusted..." They also recommend supporting open science initiatives.

In conclusion, this study reveals that belief in COVID-19 misinformation may not be mutually exclusive from belief in a scientifically accepted explanation, and that most individuals who believe misinformation believe multiple narratives. The researchers propose further research, such as the conduct of this study among a larger, nationally representative sample of individuals in the US, potentially also including common misinformation about relevant topics such as vaccination. Also, in light of the findings on the importance of trust in science, they envision randomised experiments to "determine whether brief interventions can improve trust in science, and thereby affect latent profile membership - or even preventive behavioral intentions" to support efforts to address misinformation not only during the COVID-19 pandemic but in future health crises.