Validity Testing of the Conspiratorial Thinking and Anti-Expert Sentiment Scales during the COVID-19 Pandemic Across 24 Languages from a Large-Scale Global Dataset

In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviors related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12,261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test, and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science, and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research

Mediation Analysis of Conspiratorial Thinking and Anti-Expert Sentiments on Vaccine Willingness

Objective: Vaccines are an effective means to reduce the spread of diseases, but they are sometimes met with hesitancy that needs to be understood.Methods: In this study, we analysed data from a large, cross-country survey conducted between June and August 2021 in 43 countries (N = 15,740) to investigate the roles of trust in government and science in shaping vaccine attitudes and willingness to be vaccinated. Results: We found that, despite significant variability between countries, both forms of institutional trust were associated with a higher willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Further, we found that conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments predicted reduced trust in government and science, respectively, and that trust mediated the relationship between these beliefs and ultimate vaccine attitudes. Although most countries displayed similar relationships between conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments, trust, and vaccine attitudes, we identified three countries (Brazil, Honduras, and Russia) with significantly differing effects of these variables. Conclusions: We discuss and propose various additional local factors that future research should consider to understand how trust and attitudes towards governmental and scientific institutions may shape individuals’ ultimate vaccine attitudes and decisions

The effects of secondary stressors, social identity, and social support on perceived stress and resilience: Findings from the COVID-19 pandemic

Primary stressors are direct outcomes of extreme events (e.g., viruses, floodwater) whereas secondary stressors stem from pre-disaster life circumstances and societal arrangements (e.g., illness, problematic pre-disaster policies) or from inefficient responses to the extreme event. Secondary stressors can cause significant long-term damage to people affected but are also tractable and amenable to change. In this study we explored the association between secondary stressors, social identity processes, social support, and perceived stress and resilience. Pre-registered analyses of data from the COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey Round II (N = 14,600; 43 countries) show that secondary stressors are positively associated with perceived stress and negatively associated with resilience, even when controlling for the effects of primary stressors. Being a woman or having lower socioeconomic status (SES) is associated with higher exposure to secondary stressors, higher perceived stress, and lower resilience. Importantly, social identification is positively associated with expected support and with increased resilience and lower perceived stress. However, neither gender, SES, or social identification moderated the relationship between secondary stressors and perceived stress and resilience. In conclusion, systemic reforms and the availability of social support are paramount to reducing the effects of secondary stressors

Predictors of Compliance with COVID-19 Guidelines Across Countries: The role of social norms, moral values, trust, stress, and demographic factors

Despite the devastating impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, it provided the opportunity to investigate factors associated with compliance with public health measures that could inform responses to future pandemics. We analysed cross-country data (k = 121, N = 15,740) collected one year into the COVID-19 pandemic to investigate factors related to compliance with COVID-19 guidelines. These factors include social norms, moral values, trust, stress, and demographic factors. We found that social norms to follow preventive measures were positively correlated with compliance with local prevention guidelines. Compliance was also predicted by concern about the moral value of harm and care, trust in government and the scientific community, stress, and demographic factors. Finally, we discuss country-level differences in the associations between predictors and compliance. Overall, results indicate that the harm/care dimension of moral foundations and trust are critical to the development of programs and policies aimed at increasing compliance with measures to reduce the spread of disease

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: Relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis

Comparison of multilingual measures within and across diverse contexts: CLiP-Q, SECSE, and language entropy

Language context is a factor thought to shape linguistic and cognitive control systems. The Adaptive Control Hypothesis predicts that cognitive control differs across language contexts and long-term differences in cognitive control may be observed based on language experience. However, there is a need for consensus regarding the methods used to capture language experience. We compare three methods originally characterized in different populations to measure different aspects of language experience. The Contextual Linguistic Profile Questionnaire (CLiP-Q) measures linguistic diversity at the individual and contextual level; the Survey of Code-Switching Experience (SECSE) measures contextual exposure and mixing practices; and language entropy measures the social diversity of language use. In addition to quantitative and qualitative comparison of these methods in the same population (N = 296 ), we aim to extend the ecological validity of each methodology by comparing linguistic diversity, habits, and cognitive performance across linguistically diverse environments: unilingual, bilingual, and multilingual communities

Cross-language Validation of COVID-19 Compliance Scale in 28 Languages

Objective: Although compliance scales have been used to assess compliance with health guidelines to reduce the spread of COVID-19, no scale known to us has shown content validity regarding global guidelines and reliability across a large international sample. Here, we have assessed the validity and reliability of the Compliance Scale developed by the COVIDiSTRESS II Global Consortium, a group of over 150 researchers from across the globe. Methods: We used exploratory factor analysis to determine the most reliable items on the English version of the survey. We conducted a measurement invariance test to determine whether the different language versions of the scale are measuring the same construct with the same measurement structure. Invariance testing indicated that measurement alignment was needed to ensure that the scales are comparable across languages and cultures. After alignment, we employed a novel R code to run MC simulation for alignment validation. Results: We found that alignment of the 6-item Compliance Scale worked well with this method. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed reliability of the six-item scale. Convergent validity was also found; COVID-19 compliance correlated with vaccine willingness. Conclusions: The Compliance Scale can be employed quickly across multiple languages and countries, and our alignment validation method can be conducted freely in R and employed for future cross-language surveys

Validity Testing of the Conspiratorial Thinking and Anti-Expert Sentiment Scales during the COVID-19 Pandemic Across 24 Languages from a Large-Scale Global Dataset

In this study, we tested the validity across two scales addressing conspiratorial thinking that may influence behaviors related to public health and the COVID-19 pandemic. Using the COVIDiSTRESSII Global Survey data from 12,261 participants, we validated the 4-item Conspiratorial Thinking Scale and 3-item Anti-Expert Sentiment Scale across 24 languages and dialects that were used by at least 100 participants per language. We employed confirmatory factor analysis, measurement invariance test, and measurement alignment for internal consistency testing. To test convergent validity of the two scales, we assessed correlations with trust in seven agents related to government, science, and public health. Although scalar invariance was not achieved when measurement invariance test was conducted initially, we found that both scales can be employed in further international studies with measurement alignment. Moreover, both conspiratorial thinking and anti-expert sentiments were significantly and negatively correlated with trust in all agents. Findings from this study provide supporting evidence for the validity of both scales across 24 languages for future large-scale international research