Browsing by Author "Fox N"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Do stress and anxiety lead to belief in conspiracy theories? [version 1; peer review: 5 approved].
    (F1000 Research Limited on behalf of Taylor and Francis Ltd., 2023-09-05) Fox N; Williams M
    Conspiracies happen, and some conspiracy theories are warranted by evidence. Nevertheless, a non-trivial proportion of the public express belief in conspiracy theories that are not warranted by evidence. Psychological research has therefore investigated the motives that might lead someone to believe a conspiracy theory even where the available evidence for the theory is weak. Two potential causes that have been proposed in the literature and embedded in theorising are psychological stress and anxiety. Prior studies have provided some evidence that stress and anxiety are positively correlated with belief in conspiracy theories, but it remains unclear whether this apparent effect might be accounted for by plausible confounding variables. Furthermore, there have been few preregistered examinations of the proposed effects of stress and anxiety, rendering it unclear to what degree this proposition has yet been subjected to a severe test. In two preregistered cross-sectional survey studies, we tested whether higher perceived stress and anxiety significantly predicted belief in conspiracy theories while controlling for plausible confounding variables (age, education, subjective social status, and political orientation). We analysed data using structural equation models, allowing measurement error to be explicitly modelled and accounted for. In Study 1 (N =502), a cross-sectional survey of Australasian participants indicated that perceived stress and anxiety did not have significant estimated effects on belief in conspiracy theories. In Study 2 (N =1020), a cross-sectional survey of US participants showed a small significant positive effect of perceived stress, but not anxiety, on belief in conspiracy theories. The present results provide very tentative evidence for an effect of perceived stress on belief in conspiracy theories. However, it is increasingly evident that this effect, if it exists at all, is not large. [version 1; peer review: 5 approved]
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Predicting the replicability of social and behavioural science claims in COVID-19 preprints
    (Springer Nature Limited, 2024-12-20) Marcoci A; Wilkinson DP; Vercammen A; Wintle BC; Abatayo AL; Baskin E; Berkman H; Buchanan EM; Capitán S; Capitán T; Chan G; Cheng KJG; Coupé T; Dryhurst S; Duan J; Edlund JE; Errington TM; Fedor A; Fidler F; Field JG; Fox N; Fraser H; Freeman ALJ; Hanea A; Holzmeister F; Hong S; Huggins R; Huntington-Klein N; Johannesson M; Jones AM; Kapoor H; Kerr J; Kline Struhl M; Kołczyńska M; Liu Y; Loomas Z; Luis B; Méndez E; Miske O; Mody F; Nast C; Nosek BA; Simon Parsons E; Pfeiffer T; Reed WR; Roozenbeek J; Schlyfestone AR; Schneider CR; Soh A; Song Z; Tagat A; Tutor M; Tyner AH; Urbanska K; van der Linden S
    Replications are important for assessing the reliability of published findings. However, they are costly, and it is infeasible to replicate everything. Accurate, fast, lower-cost alternatives such as eliciting predictions could accelerate assessment for rapid policy implementation in a crisis and help guide a more efficient allocation of scarce replication resources. We elicited judgements from participants on 100 claims from preprints about an emerging area of research (COVID-19 pandemic) using an interactive structured elicitation protocol, and we conducted 29 new high-powered replications. After interacting with their peers, participant groups with lower task expertise ('beginners') updated their estimates and confidence in their judgements significantly more than groups with greater task expertise ('experienced'). For experienced individuals, the average accuracy was 0.57 (95% CI: [0.53, 0.61]) after interaction, and they correctly classified 61% of claims; beginners' average accuracy was 0.58 (95% CI: [0.54, 0.62]), correctly classifying 69% of claims. The difference in accuracy between groups was not statistically significant and their judgements on the full set of claims were correlated (r(98) = 0.48, P < 0.001). These results suggest that both beginners and more-experienced participants using a structured process have some ability to make better-than-chance predictions about the reliability of 'fast science' under conditions of high uncertainty. However, given the importance of such assessments for making evidence-based critical decisions in a crisis, more research is required to understand who the right experts in forecasting replicability are and how their judgements ought to be elicited.