Background: The majority of science and healthcare professionals agree with the scientific consensus on issues such as anthropogenic climate change and the safety and efficacy of vaccines. However, a small number of professionals diverge from this consensus and espouse conspiracy theories arguing, for example, that climate change is a hoax and that the dangers of vaccines are being hidden by greedy pharmaceutical companies. What impressions do people make of conspiracy-sharing professionals and, importantly, would people follow their advice? We aimed to answer these questions in a brief report comprising of two preregistered experiments. Methods: In Experiment 1 (N = 296) participants rated their impressions of a scientist who endorsed (vs. refuted) climate change conspiracy theories, and indicated their willingness to follow the scientist’s advice. Experiment 2 (N = 280) followed a similar method but focused on a healthcare professional who endorsed (vs. refuted) mRNA vaccine conspiracy theories. In a control condition, the professional provided neutral information. Results: In both experiments, people formed negative impressions of the conspiracy-sharing professional, perceiving them to be less trustworthy, honest, brave (Experiment 1 only), credible, intelligent, less able to effect change, and more of an outsider and a fraud. They also showed less willingness to follow the professionals’ advice. However, participants’ own conspiracy beliefs shaped these impressions, with stronger negative impressions found among participants with weaker conspiracy beliefs. Notably, higher conspiracy believers perceived the conspiracy-sharing professionals as braver. Conclusions: These findings suggest that scientific and healthcare professionals who share conspiracy theories are perceived negatively, and people are less willing to follow advice. However, this is moderated by participants’ own conspiracy beliefs.
更多
