Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: With the increase in conspiracy theory endorsement within the last decade, much research has been dedicated to studying such beliefs. The surge in these beliefs are no longer confined to the online world and led to changes in real-world behaviour. With acts of arson, and civil insurgence as examples, there is a newfound need to help reduce the endorsement of conspiracy beliefs, and in turn to mitigate their real-world consequences. The majority of researchers have observes that merely providing counterarguments to those who believe in conspiracy theories is not sufficient in terms of reducing the support of such beliefs (Nyhan & Reifler 2010). However, little further attention has been given to alternative interventions that may reduce belief in conspiracy theories. The purpose of this review is to compile findings from studies which have investigated the efficacy of certain interventions in terms of their ability to reduce belief in unfounded conspiracy theories. This review will highlight which interventions are most effect in their ability to counteract conspiracy beliefs. The results of this review may be used as a guide to lead future research in the area of combating conspiracy theories. Specific Objectives The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize findings from studies that measure the degree in which various experimental interventions can reduce belief of conspiracy theories. Section 3. Methods All studies included in this review have an version available in English, and have undergone the standard peer-review process. The search strategy will consist of two stages: 1. A search on the exiting literature on electronic databases in accordance to selected keywords that have been identified. 2. Reference list and bibliographies of collected from the papers identified in the first stage of the review. The eligibility criteria for these studies has been determined according to the PICO model (Richardson et al., 2015). There will be note date limitation applied to the inclusion criteria. 3. a) Criteria for including studies in the review (P) Population - Human participants - Adults aged over 18 - Non-clinical populations (I) Intervention - Measurement of belief in conspiracy theories. This includes both specific and general conspiracy theories. Participants are asked whether they believe in a list of given conspiracy theories, be they specific (e.g. medical conspiracies only) or general (e.g. wider range). - Presentation and engagement with an experimental stimuli/condition with the intention of altering the measurement of conspiracy belief. (C) Comparator - An experimental control for post-intervention belief in conspiracy theories. - No restriction on whether the experimental control can be between-subjects or within-subjects. (O) Outcomes of interest - Comparing the change in conspiracy beliefs of those who have had the intervention with those who have not (either with and between-groups). b) Criteria for excluding studies not covered in inclusion criteria (P) Population - Clinical populations - Participants under 18 years. In the case that part of the sample is under 18 years old, the entire study will be excluded (I) Intervention - Observational measures that correlate psychometric traits to reduction in measure of conspiracy belief (C) Comparator - No experimental control for conspiracy beliefs. (O) Outcomes of interest - No outcomes will be excluded from this study. Electronic Databases The following list of electronic databases will be used to search for studies of interest following the criteria listed above: • PsychINFO • Scopus • PubMed Search Strategy The search strategy of this review will use two search categories: Conspiracy Theories, and Reduction intervention. (Depending of database instructions, different truncation operators may be used.) The search will be conducted using the following list of keywords: ( conspirac* OR 'unsubstantiated beliefs' OR 'implausible beliefs' OR 'unsubstantiated claims' OR 'unfounded beliefs' OR truther ) AND ( intervention OR reduc* OR chang* OR alter* OR experiment OR persua* ) No filtering will be applied in the database searches (e.g. subject, publication date) to avoid the scope of the search becoming too narrow and missing potentially eligible articles. Additionally, the reference list of relevant articles will be searched for other eligible articles to be added to the review. Section 4. Methods of Review Data Management Papers found from searches of the electronic databases will be imported and screened using the Covidence systematic review management online software. Data Review and Critical appraisal References of downloaded studies will be catalogued in the Covidence engine. The articles will be screened by two reviewers; the corresponding author (COM) and secondary author (MB). The reviewers will first screen the titles, then will proceed to review the abstracts of the collected articles to ensure that they meet the eligibility criteria outlined above. A second wave review will then commence, by a full-text screening process. With the completion of the second wave review, a final decision will be made on which papers will be included in the final review. If consensus cannot be reached between the two reviewers regarding a papers eligibility in either wave of the selection process, a third reviewer (GM) will be called upon to make a final decision. The inter-reliability rating will be determined using Cohen’s kappa coefficient to assess the consistency of the two reviewers consensus on the eligibility of the selected articles (McHugh, 2012). Data items The data types extracted from eligible studies are as follows: • General Information: Citation, research questions • Procedure: - How conspiracy belief was measure (generic or specific), - Control group, - Was the participant explicitly told that before taking part in study that this was an intervention to change conspiracy belief. - Data collection (online or in-person) - Study design (experimental or quasi-experimental) • Participants: Sample size, gender ratio, age, level of education, geographical location (nationality) • Findings: - Calculated Cohen’s d for each paper, statistical significance. - Attrition Outcome Measures The primary outcome of interest is change in measured conspiracy belief, which will be quantified using Cohen’s d to assess the effect size of each intervention. Possible secondary outcome measures may be attrition, where we shall report any participants that did not complete the experiment in its entirety. Data Synthesis Firstly characteristic data will be reported on the following data points: Publication Characteristics: - Year of publication - Journal of publication Sample Characteristic: - Nationality of Sample (or at least the country of origin. - Sample size Study Characteristics: - Data collection (online or in-person) - Study design (experimental or quasi-experimental) The review will measure the Cohen’s d of each intervention to compare the effect size of each method in its efficiency in changing conspiracy beliefs. The data will reported on the following attributes: - Author/year of paper - Study design (experiment/quasi experiment) - Sample aware of intervention/intervention purpose? - Intervention/technique used - Cohen’s d - Attrition Within this analysis, the study will additionally report characteristics of how studies operationalised their measurement of conspiracy belief, regarding the following attributes: - Questionnaire/assessment used - Does the measure examine specific or generic conspiracy belief If sufficient data is present, the review may examine any relationships and patterns found among the current measures of conspiracy belief. Narrative Synthesis The main goal of the narrative synthesis of this review is to develop an overview of the current state of knowledge regarding existing interventions aimed at changing beliefs in conspiracy theories. The narrative will discuss the general direction and degree of the efficacy of these interventions as a whole, and compared to one another. If possible, where patterns arise the narrative will potentially discuss the measures used to operationalise conspiracy beliefs, and may not any consistencies or trends present among the existing measures. Assessment of risk of bias and data extraction Possible biases may influence the results of the studies included in this review. As a systematic error that may in some circumstances skew the findings of this review, it is necessary to review the compiled studies for any errors within the design, recruitment, or the analysis of the study. The review will focus on identifying any examples of the following: 1. Selection bias 2. Performance bias 3. Measurement bias 4. Reporting bias 5. Attrition bias To assess the review for possible bias the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 [RoB 2] tool will be used to examine each outcome extracted from the studies. This assessment of bias is particularly suited to the review as it has the benefit of examining each experimental measure on as opposed the experiment as a whole. The results of the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment will be presented in a rainbow table among the main results found in the analysis. If a there is a marked presence of bias among a number of the measures used, we will incorporate the findings of the Cochrane test into an additional column of the table where the main findings will be reported. In this case, the certainty of outcome can then be factored into the findings of the main analysis.