Top

Globalization and Health

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2020 | COVID-19 | Research

Pseudoscientific beliefs and psychopathological risks increase after COVID-19 social quarantine

Authors: Álex Escolà-Gascón, Francesc-Xavier Marín, Jordi Rusiñol, Josep Gallifa

Published in: Globalization and Health | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

The health crisis caused by COVID-19 has led many countries to opt for social quarantine of the population. During this quarantine, communication systems have been characterized by disintermediation, the acceleration of digitization and an infodemic (excess and saturation of information). The following debate arises: Do the levels related to the psychotic phenotype and pseudoscientific beliefs related to the interpretation of information vary before and after social quarantine?

Objectives

This research aims to examine the psychological effects of social quarantine on the psychotic phenotype and pseudoscientific beliefs-experiences of the general nonclinical population. The following hypothesis was posed: social quarantine alters the levels of magical thinking, pseudoscientific beliefs and anomalous perceptions due to quarantine.

Methods

A pre- and posttest analysis design was applied based on the difference in means, and complementary Bayesian estimation was performed. A total of 174 Spanish subjects responded to different questionnaires that evaluated psychopathological risks based on psychotic phenotypes, pseudoscientific beliefs and experiences before and after quarantine.

Results

Significant differences were obtained for the variables positive psychotic symptoms, depressive symptoms, and certain perceptual alterations (e.g., cenesthetic perceptions), and a significant increase in pseudoscientific beliefs was also observed. The perceptual disturbances that increased the most after quarantine were those related to derealization and depersonalization. However, paranoid perceptions showed the highest increase, doubling the initial standard deviation. These high increases could be related to the delimitation of physical space during social quarantine and distrust towards information communicated by the government to the population. Is it possible that social alarmism generated by the excess of information and pseudoscientific information has increased paranoid perceptual alterations?

Conclusions

Measures taken after quarantine indicate that perceptual disturbances, subclinical psychotic symptoms and beliefs in the pseudoscience have increased. We discuss which elements of quarantine coincide with the social marginality theory and its clinical repercussions.

Available only for authorised users

Baker S, Stephenson D. Prediction and control as determinants of behavioural uncertainty: effects on task performance and heart rate reactivity. Integr Physiol Behav Sci. 2000;35(4):235–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02688786.CrossRefPubMed

Eremsoy C, Inozu M. The role of magical thinking, religiosity and thought-control strategies in obsessive-compulsive symptoms in a Turkish adult sample. Behav Chang. 2015;33(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1017/bec.2015.16.CrossRef

Williams L, Irwin H. A study of paranormal belief, magical ideation as an index of schizotypy and cognitive style. Pers Individ Differ. 1991;12(12):1339–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90210-3.CrossRef

Irwin H. The psychology of paranormal belief. Hatfield: University of Hertfordshire Press; 2009.

Matute H, Blanco F, Yarritu I, Díaz-Lago M, Vadillo M, Barberia I. Illusions of causality: how they bias our everyday thinking and how they could be reduced. Front Psychol. 2015;6:888. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00888.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Bedford J, Enria D, Giesecke J, Heymann D, Ihekweazu C, Kobinger G, et al. COVID-19: towards controlling of a pandemic. Lancet. 2020;395(10229):1015–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30673-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Girdhar R, Srivastava V, Sethi S. Managing mental health issues among elderly during COVID-19 pandemic. J Geriatr Care Res. 2020;7(1):29–32.

Barbisch D, Koenig KL, Shih FY. Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;9:547–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/dmp.2015.38.CrossRefPubMed

Saglietto A, D’Ascenzo F, Zoccai G, De Ferrari G. COVID-19 in Europe: the Italian lesson. Lancet. 2020;395(10230):1110–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30690-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

Pagano M, Hess J, Tsang H, Staley E, Gernsheimer T, Sen N, et al. Prepare to adapt: blood supply and transfusion support during the first 2 weeks of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID −19) pandemic affecting Washington State. Transfusion. 2020;9999:1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.15789.CrossRef

11.

Zhou X, Snoswell C, Harding L, Bambling M, Edirippulige S, Bai X, et al. The role of telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-19. Telemed J E Health. 2020;26(4):377–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2020.0068.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Smith J, Judd J. COVID-19: vulnerability and the power of privilege in a pandemic. Health Promot J Austr. 2020;31(2):158–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.333.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Ho CS, Chee CY, Ho RC. Mental health strategies to combat the psychological impact of COVID-19 beyond paranoia and panic. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2020;49(3):155–60 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32200399.PubMed

14.

Howard S. COVID-19, fear and the future: an attachment perspective. Clin Neuropsychiatry. 2020;17(2):97–9. https://doi.org/10.36131/CN20200213.CrossRef

15.

De Sousa A, Mohandas E, Javed A. Psychological interventions during COVID-19: challenges for low and middle income countries. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102128.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Betsch C, Wieler L, Habersaat K. Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID-19. Lancet. 2020;395(10232):1255–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30729-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Chatterjee S, Barikar CM, Mukherjee A. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on pre-existing mental health problems. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102071.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Ward S, King L. Examining the roles of intuition and gender in magical beliefs. J Res Pers. 2020;86:103956. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2020.103956.CrossRef

19.

Cella M, Vellante M, Preti A. How psychotic-like are paranormal beliefs? J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2012;43(3):897–900. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2012.01.003.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Schofield K, Claridge G. Paranormal experiences and mental health: Schizotypy as an underlying factor. Pers Individ Differ. 2007;43(7):1908–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.06.014.CrossRef

21.

van Os J, Verdoux H, Maurice-Tison S, Gay B, Liraud F, Salamon R, et al. Self-reported psychosis-like symptoms and the continuum of psychosis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 1999;34(9):459–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001270050220.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Hinterbuchinger B, Litvan Z, Meyer E, Friedrich F, Kaltenboeck A, Gruber M, et al. Psychotic-like experiences in esoterism: a twilight zone? Schizophr Res. 2018;193:240–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.schres.2017.08.009.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Zou Y, Yang H, Zhang R, Lui S, Cheung E, Chan R. Validation of the Chinese version of the Multidimensional Schizotypy Scale (MSS): convergent evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Asian J Psychiatr. 2020;51:102057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102057.CrossRefPubMed

24.

van Os J, Linscott RJ, Myin-Germeys I, Delespaul P, Krabbendam LA. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the psychosis continuum: evidence for a psychosis proneness-persistence-impairment model of psychotic disorder. Psychol Med. 2009;39(2):179–95. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708003814.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Stefanis NC, Smyrnis N, Avramopoulos D, Evdokimidis I, Ntzoufras I, Stefanis CN. Factorial composition of self-rated schizotypal traits among young males undergoing military training. Schizophr Bull. 2004;30(2):335–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007083.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Goreis A, Voracek M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological research on conspiracy beliefs: field characteristics, measurement instruments, and associations with personality traits. Front Psychol. 2019;10:205. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Yung A. At-risk mental states. In: Thompson A, Broome M, editors. Risk factors for psychosis paradigms, mechanisms, and prevention [internet]. London: Elsevier, Inc.; 2020 [cited 8 May 2020]. p. 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-813201-2.00003-X.CrossRef

28.

Laloyaux J, Larøi F, Nuyens F, Billieux J. Subtyping attenuated psychotic symptoms: a cluster analytic approach. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74(12):2117–33. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22658.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Fusar-Poli P, Raballo A, Parnas J. What is an attenuated psychotic symptom? On the importance of the context. Schizophr Bull. 2017;43(4):687–92. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw182.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Cameron R. The paranormal as an unhelpful concept in psychotherapy and counselling research. Eur J Psychother Couns. 2016;18(2):142–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642537.2016.1170060.CrossRef

31.

David AS. Why we need more debate on whether psychotic symptoms lie on a continuum with normality. Psychol Med. 2010;40(12):1935–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291710000188.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Pasricha S. Relevance of parapsychology in psychiatric practice. Indian J Psychiatry. 2011;53(1):4–8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0019-5545.75544.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Lawrence T. The client, the therapist and the paranormal: a response to the special edition on psychotherapy and the paranormal. Eur J Psychother Couns. 2016;18(2):179–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642537.2016.1172099.CrossRef

34.

Feldman F. The naturalistic fallacy: what it is, and what it isn’t. In: Sinclair N, editor. The naturalistic fallacy [internet]. London: Cambridge University Press; 2019 [cited 8 May 2020]. p. 30–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316717578.CrossRef

35.

Rogers P, Fisk J, Lowrie E. Paranormal belief and errors of probabilistic reasoning: the role of constituent conditional relatedness in believers’ susceptibility to the conjunction fallacy. Conscious Cogn. 2017;56:13–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2017.09.010.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Ross R, Hartig B, McKay R. Analytic cognitive style predicts paranormal explanations of anomalous experiences but not the experiences themselves: implications for cognitive theories of delusions. J Behav Ther Exp Psychiatry. 2017;56:90–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbtep.2016.08.018.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo M. Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience. Br J Psychol. 2011;102(3):392–405. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610x532210.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006;15(6):322–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x.CrossRef

39.

Zhou L, Meng M. Do you see the “face”? Individual differences in face pareidolia. J Pac Rim Psychol. 2020;14:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/prp.2019.27.CrossRef

40.

Nees M, Phillips C. Auditory Pareidolia: effects of contextual priming on perceptions of purportedly paranormal and ambiguous auditory stimuli. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2014;29(1):129–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3068.CrossRef

41.

Wuthnow R. Astrology and marginality. J Sci Study Relig. 1976;15(2):157–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1385359.CrossRef

42.

Pirttilä-Backman A-M, Tobacyk JJ. Paranormal beliefs and their implications in university students from Finland and the United States. J Cross-Cult Psychol. 1992;23(1):59–71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022192231004.CrossRef

43.

Emmons C, Sobal J. Paranormal beliefs: testing the marginality hypothesis. Sociol Focus. 1981;14(1):49–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/00380237.1981.10570381.CrossRef

44.

Irwin HJ, Dagnall N, Drinkwater K. Parapsychological experience as anomalous experience plus paranormal attribution: a questionnaire based on a new approach to measurement. J Parapsychol. 2013;77:39–53.

45.

Lange R, Ross R, Dagnall N, Irwin H, Houran J, Drinkwater K. Anomalous experiences and paranormal attributions: psychometric challenges in studying their measurement and relationship. Psychol Conscious. 2019;6(4):346–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/cns0000187.CrossRef

46.

Innerarity D, Colomina C. Truth in algorithmic democracies. Revista CIDOB d’Afers. 2020;124:11–24. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2020.124.1.11.

47.

García Morales V. Where lies live: freedom of expression and information in times of hate and hyperinformation. Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals. 2020;124:25–48. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2020.124.1.25.

48.

Innerarity D, Colomina C. Introducción: desinformación y poder, la crisis de los intermediarios. Revista CIDOB d'Afers Internacionals. 2020;124:7–10. https://doi.org/10.24241/rcai.2020.124.1.7.

49.

Shapiro DI, Li H, Kline ER, Niznikiewicz MA. Assessment of risk for psychosis. In: Li H, Shapiro D, Seidman L, editors. Handbook of attenuated psychosis syndrome across cultures. Cham: Springer Nature; 2019. p. 7–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17336-4_2.CrossRef

50.

Dawes G. Identifying pseudoscience: a social process criterion. J Gen Philos Sci. 2018;49(3):283–98. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10838-017-9388-6.CrossRef

51.

Escolà-Gascón A, Gallifa J. Psychology of anomalous experiences: psychometric properties of the multivariable multiaxial suggestibility inventory −2 reduced (MMSI-2-R). Anu Psicol/UB J Psychol. In press;2020:28189.

52.

Thalbourne MA. Extraversion and the sheep-goat variable: a conceptual replication. J Am Soc Psych Res. 1981;75:105–19 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1981-26932-001.

53.

Drinkwater K, Denovan A, Dagnall N, Parker A. The Australian sheep-goat scale: an evaluation of factor structure and convergent validity. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1594. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01594.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Fonseca-Pedrero E, Paino M, Lemos-Giráldez S, Muñiz J. Validación de la escala para la evaluación comunitaria de las experiencias psíquicas-42 (CAPE-42) en universitarios y pacientes con psicosis. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2012;40(4):169–76 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2012-25432-001.PubMed

55.

Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado. Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de marzo, por el que se declara el estado de alarma para la gestión de la situación de crisis sanitaria ocasionada por el COVID-19. https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3692; 2020 [Accessed 17 May 2020].

56.

The Jamovi Project. Developer’s hub. https://dev.jamovi.org/; 2019 [Accessed 21 May 2020].

57.

Valdés-Florido M, López-Díaz Á, Palermo-Zeballos F, Martínez-Molina I, Martín-Gil V, Crespo-Facorro B, et al. Reactive psychoses in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: clinical perspectives from a case series. Rev Psiquiatr Salud Ment Forthcoming. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpsm.2020.04.009.

58.

Riva G, Wiederhold B. How cyberpsychology and virtual reality can help us to overcome the psychological burden of coronavirus. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2020;23(5):277–9. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2020.29183.gri.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Consell de l’Audiovisual de Catalunya, Boletín de Información sobre el Audiovisual en Cataluña [Audiovisual Council of Catalonia] (CAC). https://www.cac.cat/sites/default/files/2020-04/BIAC_Coronavirus_ES.pdf; 2020 [Accessed 21 May 2020].

60.

Tsai C, Shein P, Jack B, Wu K, Chou C, Wu Y, et al. Effects of exposure to pseudoscientific television programs upon Taiwanese citizens’ pseudoscientific beliefs. Int J Sci Educ B. 2012;2(2):175–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2011.610132.CrossRef

61.

Escolà-Gascón Á. Researching unexplained phenomena: empirical-statistical validity and reliability of the multivariable multiaxial suggestibility inventory-2 (MMSI-2). Heliyon. 2020;6(7):e04291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04291.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

62.

Schiele A. Pseudoscience as media effect. J Sci Commun. 2020;19(2):L01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.19020101.CrossRef

Title: Pseudoscientific beliefs and psychopathological risks increase after COVID-19 social quarantine
Authors: Álex Escolà-Gascón
Francesc-Xavier Marín
Jordi Rusiñol
Josep Gallifa
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: COVID-19
Published in: Globalization and Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1744-8603
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00603-1

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Pseudoscientific beliefs and psychopathological risks increase after COVID-19 social quarantine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Incorporating operational research in programmes funded by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in four sub-Saharan African countries

Diasporic medical tourism: a scoping review of quantitative and qualitative evidence

Lessons learned from COVID-19 for the post-antibiotic future

Methods to promote equity in health resource allocation in low- and middle-income countries: an overview

Rural development and shifts in household dietary practices from 1999 to 2010 in the Tapajós River region, Brazilian Amazon: empirical evidence from dietary surveys

‘I know those people will be approachable and not mistreat us’: a qualitative study of inspectors and private drug sellers’ views on peer supervision in rural Uganda