1 of 15Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025; 39:e70117 https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.70117 Applied Cognitive Psychology RESEARCH ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Epistemically Suspect Beliefs About COVID- 19: Results From a Population Survey in Finland Johanna K. Kaakinen1,2 | Ali Moazami Goodarzi1 | Tuomo Häikiö1 | Pasi Kivioja1 | Karl O. Mäki1 | Daria Pritup1 1Department of Psychology and Speech- Language Pathology, University of Turku, Turku, Finland | 2INVEST Research Flagship and Research Center, University of Turku, Turku, Finland Correspondence: Johanna K. Kaakinen (johanna.kaakinen@utu.fi) Received: 15 November 2024 | Revised: 1 September 2025 | Accepted: 9 September 2025 Funding: This work was supported by the Strategic Research Council (335233, 358271). Keywords: conspiracy theory | COVID- 19 | epistemically suspect belief | individual differences | misinformation ABSTRACT We examined the familiarity and popularity of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims and their associations with cognitive, social, and demographic factors in a sample of people living in Finland (N = 1077) during the pandemic (September 2021– January 2022). Endorsement of these claims was associated with pseudoscientific beliefs, less actively open- minded thinking, and preference for anecdotal information. Among social factors, lower trust in governmental institutions, science, and scien- tists, and reliance on alternative media were linked to higher endorsement. Regarding demographic variables, higher education was associated with lower endorsement, though this effect was fully mediated by cognitive and social factors. Men endorsed epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims more than women, and endorsement decreased with age. These findings highlight the importance of education in fostering critical thinking skills and trust in institutions and science to effectively combat health- related misinformation. 1 | Introduction Societal crisis events such as public health threats, natural di- sasters, and war are fertile grounds for misinformation and conspiracy theories (van Prooijen and Douglas  2017). During the COVID- 19 pandemic, misinformation and conspiracy the- ories about the deliberate development, release, or spread of the virus, and the suspected motives behind these deliberate actions, quickly gained traction on different social media plat- forms and news outlets (Cinelli et al. 2020). For example, in a survey conducted in 2020, 71% of Americans reported that they had heard a claim that the coronavirus outbreak was intention- ally planned by powerful people (Mitchell et al. 2020). Thirty- six percent of those who had heard of this claim said that it is either definitely or probably true (see also Uscinski et al. 2022). In another survey (YouGov 2022), 19% of Americans said that it is either definitely or probably true that the U.S. government is using the COVID- 19 vaccine to microchip the population (see also Uscinski et al. 2022). The problem with the spread of COVID- 19 misinformation and conspiracy theories is that they are related to poorer adherence to the safety guidelines meant to slow down the spread of the virus (e.g., Freeman et  al.  2022; Roozenbeek et  al.  2020; van Prooijen et al. 2022, 2023). Understanding what contributes to the susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy theories is important when considering ways to mitigate their potentially adverse effects. In the present study, we examined how differ- ent cognitive, social, and demographic factors (van Mulukom et al. 2022) contribute to the endorsement of COVID- 19 misin- formation and conspiracy theories in a representative popula- tion sample of Finnish adults. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Applied Cognitive Psychology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 2 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 Finland is an interesting context for examining these effects, as Finns have relatively high trust in science and scientists, gov- ernmental institutions, and traditional media (Media- alan tutki- mussäätiö 2022; Tieteen tiedotus ry 2022). During the pandemic, the Finnish government introduced several policies and recom- mendations to limit the spread and transmission of the virus, including school closures, restrictions for public gatherings, and recommendations for distance work (see Tiirinki et  al.  2020). In the global context, these measures were aligned with other European countries but were not among the most stringent (Hale et  al.  2021). Moreover, Finns have high trust toward the public educational system (Välimaa  2021), and education is free from the elementary school to university level. Finnish adults score very high in large- scale global skill assessments such as PIAAC, showing that the public educational system is also effective (OECD 2024). Understanding how different cog- nitive, social, and demographic factors are associated with the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 within the Finnish context provides valuable information on the potential societal and cultural effects on the endorsement of misinformation. 1.1 | Epistemically Suspect Beliefs: Misinformation and Conspiracy Theories About COVID- 19 Misinformation refers to inaccurate information that has been created and/or spread without the intention to cause harm. For example, the claim that the corona vaccine may cause infertil- ity or erectile dysfunction reflects a worry that the vaccine is harmful, and while the claim itself is inaccurate, it may have been created and shared with the good intention of protecting others from its adverse effects. A conspiracy theory, by contrast, refers to a belief that some important events are caused by ma- levolent actors who have coordinated in secret to gain benefit, and that this is not widely known by the public (see Douglas and Sutton 2023). For example, the claim that Bill Gates developed the coronavirus to gain financial benefit is a conspiracy theory. However, there is an overlap between these terms, as this claim can also be regarded as misinformation because it offers an in- accurate account of the origins of the virus. In the present study, we use the term “epistemically suspect claims” when referring to conspiracy theories or other types of misinformation about COVID- 19. What is common to the epis- temically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19 is that they seem to stem from the need to question the official account of events. Previous research shows that believing in one conspiracy theory increases the likelihood of believing other conspiracy theories (e.g., Goertzel  1994). This has been taken as an indication of a monological belief system, where a belief in one conspiracy theory serves as evidence for another conspiracy theory (e.g., Goertzel  1994; Williams et  al.  2022). In other words, if some- one becomes suspicious about the official information about COVID- 19, they are more likely to adopt other beliefs that seem to be supported by the initial suspicions (see Frenken and Imhoff 2021; Miller 2020). A substantial body of research has examined individual differ- ences in how prone people are to adopt epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19 (see van Mulukom et  al.  2022). A re- cent review (van Mulukom et al. 2022) identified three types of antecedents of conspiracy beliefs about COVID- 19: cognitive factors, social factors, and individual differences. First, cogni- tive factors such as other epistemically suspect beliefs, thinking styles, cognitive biases, and negative attitudes toward science have been linked to conspiratorial thinking in general, but also in connection to COVID- 19. Second, social factors, such as the need to maintain group identity, lack of trust in authorities, and social media use seem to predict susceptibility to COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs. Third, individual differences in coping with threat and uncertainty, personality traits, and demographic variables like education have been identified as predictors of COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs. In the present study, we examined how different variables representing the three antecedents iden- tified by van Mulukom et al. (2022) contribute to epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. 1.2 | Cognitive Factors and Epistemically Suspect Beliefs Cognitive factors such as other epistemically suspect beliefs, thinking styles, and cognitive biases have been linked to conspir- atorial thinking in general, but also in connection to COVID- 19 (van Mulukom et al. 2022). Previous research shows that when someone believes in a conspiracy theory, they are more likely to hold also other epistemically suspect beliefs (Bensley et al. 2020; Lobato et  al.  2014; Stasielowicz  2022). Specifically, pseudosci- entific beliefs have been associated with both general and spe- cific conspiracy beliefs (Šrol et  al.  2021; Stasielowicz  2022). Considering pseudoscientific beliefs is thus relevant when ex- amining epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. Actively open- minded thinking refers to a disposition to ap- proach information that contradicts one's prior beliefs with an open mind and readiness to reconsider prior opinions (Rizeq et al. 2021; Stanovich and West 1997). Individuals who are ac- tively open- minded thinkers are less likely to hold pseudosci- entific beliefs or show anti- science attitudes (Rizeq et al. 2021). Interestingly, lower actively open- minded thinking has been linked with higher endorsement of contradictory conspiracy theories (Petrović and Žeželj 2022), such as simultaneous beliefs that COVID- 19 is a hoax and that it was purposefully created and spread. Actively open- minded thinking thus seems to pro- tect against forming a conspiratorial mindset, and it may play a role in how likely an individual is to support general and specific conspiracy theories. However, some studies have failed to find a direct relationship between actively open- minded thinking and conspiracy beliefs (e.g., Rizeq et al. 2021). In the present study, we examined whether actively open- minded thinking is associ- ated with the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. While actively open- minded thinking may reduce epistemically suspect beliefs, a tendency to rely on anecdotal information may increase the likelihood of accepting epistemically suspect claims. Intuitive thinking is associated with a tendency to be simultane- ously skeptical about known facts but open to alternative facts (Newman, Lewandowsky, and Mayo  2022). Moreover, people who endorse conspiracy theories have been shown to rely less on 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 3 of 15 analytical thinking and more on intuitive thinking styles (Barron et al. 2018; Gligorić et al. 2021; Juanchich et al. 2021; Ståhl and van Prooijen 2018; Swami et al. 2014) and to rely less on scientific rea- soning (Čavojová et al. 2020). Considering these findings, it seems plausible that individuals who are likely to hold epistemically sus- pect beliefs would generally prefer anecdotal testimonies over offi- cial statistical reports. A recent study by Mäki et al. (2023) supports this, as they found that the more conspiracy- minded people were, the more they preferred anecdotal testimonies to statistical data. Preferences for anecdotal or statistical health information could, therefore, also be relevant when investigating epistemically sus- pect beliefs about COVID- 19. 1.3 | Social Factors and Epistemically Suspect Beliefs Social factors, such as the need to maintain group identity, lack of trust in authorities, and social media use seem to predict suscepti- bility to COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs (van Mulukom et al. 2022). Many epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 reflect dis- trust in governmental institutions and health officials: for exam- ple, the claim that COVID- 19 is a conspiracy to take away citizens' rights for good and establish an authoritarian government reflects deep distrust in the government. Previous research shows that dis- trust in institutions is a crucial factor in conspiratorial thinking (e.g., Jennings et al. 2021), and there is a link between distrust in government officials and COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs (e.g., Pavela Banai et al. 2022). A generally distrusting mindset has also been associated with the tendency to simultaneously discredit known facts and accept alternative facts, indicating potential gullibility to misinformation (Newman, Lewandowsky, and Mayo 2022). Thus, it can be expected that the lack of trust in authorities is associated with endorsing epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. Some of the epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 chal- lenge the generally accepted scientific explanation of its origin, cause, or recommended prevention measures. Some conspiracy theories directly assume that scientists have played a crucial role in the pandemic, like the claim that the virus is a bioweapon developed by scientists (Sternisko et al. 2021). Previous research suggests that the lack of trust toward science and scientists is linked with conspiratorial thinking and science rejection (Rutjen and Većkalov  2022), indicating that individuals who have low trust in science and scientists may assume that scien- tists, as members of the elite, collude to purposefully mislead or control the public. In line with this view, distrust in science and scientists and negative attitudes toward science have been found to be significant predictors of epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19 (Roozenbeek et al. 2020; Tsamakis et al. 2022). Trust and the use of social and alternative media seem to pre- dict the tendency to endorse conspiracy theories (e.g., Schemer et al. 2022), and more specifically, misinformation (e.g., Ahmed and Rasul 2022; Roozenbeek et al. 2020) and conspiracy theories about the COVID- 19 pandemic (e.g., Allen et al. 2023; Hetzel et al. 2022; Xiao et al. 2021; Ziegele et al. 2022). Research suggests that the reliance on social and alternative media sources increases the acceptance of epistemically suspect claims (Allington et al. 2021; de Coninck et al. 2021; Hetzel et al. 2022; Roozenbeek et al. 2020; Tsamakis et al. 2022; Xiao et al. 2021; Ziegele et al. 2022), whereas the use of journalistic media for news decreases susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs (Allen et  al.  2023; de Coninck et al. 2021; Hetzel et al. 2022; but see Ziegele et al. 2022). Using longitudinal data, Romer and Jamieson  (2021) showed that the constant use of social media platforms with false or misleading content was associated with increased COVID- 19 conspiracy be- liefs across time, whereas the use of traditional and mainstream media sources for news protected against conspiracy beliefs. Moreover, changes in conspiracy beliefs associated with media use predicted mask- wearing and vaccination intentions, showing that media use has an important role in shaping people's beliefs and, thus, compliance with official recommendations. 1.4 | Demographic Differences in Epistemically Suspect Beliefs Individual differences in coping with threat and uncertainty, per- sonality traits, and demographic variables are related to the en- dorsement of conspiracy theories about COVID- 19 (van Mulukom et  al.  2022). Previous results on the associations between socio- demographic factors—such as age and gender—and endorsement of COVID- 19 conspiracy theories are mixed (see van Mulukom et  al.  2022). In some studies, younger people were more likely to believe in COVID- 19 conspiracy theories, whereas in others, older people were more likely to endorse them (see van Mulukom et al. 2022, for a review). Regarding gender, some studies report that women are more likely to accept conspiracy claims about COVID- 19, whereas others have found that conspiracy theories are more popular among men (van Mulukom et al. 2022). The results concerning education seem to be more robust, as COVID- 19 conspiracy theories are typically more popu- lar among those with lower levels of education (van Mulukom et  al.  2022). It has been suggested that education has indirect effects on conspiracy beliefs through different cognitive and social variables (van Prooijen  2017; Ballová Mikušková  2023). van Prooijen  (2017) examined mediators between education and general conspiracy beliefs and found that feelings of pow- erlessness or control and analytic thinking mediated the ef- fect of education on conspiracy beliefs. Extending the study of van Prooijen  (2017) to COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs, Ballová Mikušková  (2023) found indirect effects of education through feelings of control and scientific reasoning. These findings sug- gest that the various positive effects associated with education, like better analytic thinking skills and increased feelings of con- trol, decrease the susceptibility to conspiracy beliefs. However, these prior studies have examined only a restricted set of vari- ables, leaving open the question of whether education has in- direct effects via other social or cognitive variables associated with epistemically suspect beliefs. A better understanding of the mediating factors between education and epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs would help in specifying how education could curb the spread of misinformation. As suggested by van Mulukom et al. (2022), the conflicting results regarding the associations between demographic variables and conspiracy beliefs might reflect the complex interplay between psychological and social factors (see also van Prooijen  2017). In the present study, we examined the associations between different cognitive, social, and demographic factors and the 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. We focused on the potential indirect effects of education and extended the previous studies (Ballová Mikušková  2023; van Prooijen 2017) by examining a variety of potential cognitive and social mediators between education and COVID- 19 beliefs. 1.5 | Aims and Research Questions Since the start of the pandemic, beliefs about COVID- 19 have been examined around the world, and the research suggests that the popularity of misinformation and conspiracy theories var- ies between countries (e.g., Roozenbeek et  al.  2020; Sternisko et al. 2021, 2023; Uscinski et al. 2022; van Prooijen et al. 2022). For example, the relatively popular claim in the US about the coronavirus (COVID- 19) vaccine being used to implant a micro- chip received very little support in a Dutch survey (van Prooijen et  al.  2022). Even though previous studies have examined the popularity and endorsement of COVID- 19 misinformation and conspiracy theories across different countries (e.g., Roozenbeek et al. 2020; Sternisko et al. 2021), many have focused only on a few belief statements and/or used convenience samples. The present study used a wide variety of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 to gain a better understanding of what kind of epistemically suspect claims were familiar and popular at the time of the pandemic. Moreover, we aimed at collecting a rep- resentative population sample to examine the endorsement of COVID- 19 misinformation and associated factors among the Finnish population. To ensure a representative Finnish sample, participants were recruited from the national population regis- ter using mail- based invitations, which allowed us to avoid the limitations of convenience sampling. Another limitation of previous studies is that they often have examined only a few factors that could be related to epistem- ically suspect beliefs, and only some studies have tested the unique contribution of different factors when multiple factors are considered simultaneously. In the present study, we exam- ined multiple cognitive, social, and demographic factors and their associations with epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. In particular, we tested whether different social and cognitive variables mediate the effect of education on such beliefs. The research questions were the following: 1. What were some of the most familiar and popular epistem- ically suspect claims about COVID- 19 in Finland during the pandemic? 2. Which cognitive, social, and demographic factors predict the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 in a population sample? 2 | Methods 2.1 | Participants A random sample (N = 5000) of 18–75- year- old persons living in mainland Finland was contacted to participate in the sur- vey. The sample was provided by the Digital and Population Data Services Agency (the Finnish Digital Agency), and it was representative of the Finnish population in terms of age, gender, and geographical distribution. By January 3, 2022, 1126 partici- pants (22.5%) had answered the survey. The demographic data reported in this paper is based on the participants' self- reported information. The mean age of the participants was 51.45 years (SD 16.58). Of the participants, 550 (51.1%) identified as women, 503 (46.7%) as men, 9 (0.8%) as non- binary, and 15 (1.4%) did not report their gender. As for home language, 90.0% reported Finnish, with other major languages being Swedish (5.4%) and English (2.3%). Russian, Estonian, German, Persian, Vietnamese, Arabic, Chinese, or Turkish were reported in total by 1.7%. Finally, 0.6% reported their home language as some other, less frequently spoken language. The majority of participants were born in Finland (93.0%) and re- ported that their parents were also born in Finland (92.5% of mothers, 92.7% of fathers). As for education, 8.6% had completed basic or primary education (elementary or grade school), 10.5% had graduated from a secondary school (baccalaureate), 27.9% had a vocational or professional training degree, 26.3% had a bachelor's degree, 24.1% had a master's or higher degree, and 1.8% reported “none of the above/no formal education.” Most of the participants were currently working (employed 43.6%, self- employed 7.1%) or retired (29.6%). As for the households, most participants were married or cohabiting (21.6% with children living at home, 44.7% without children). The mode of income was 2500–3499€ per month. 2.2 | Belief Survey The data reported here originates from a survey study, which examined beliefs and attitudes toward science. The survey in- cluded items on different types of epistemically suspect beliefs and several other scales. In this study, we report the results regarding COVID- 19 misinformation and conspiracy beliefs, pseudoscientific beliefs, use of media, trust in institutions, trust in science and scientists, actively open- minded thinking, and preference for anecdotal information. The English version of the full survey questionnaire, including the scales not reported here, is available in the Open Science Framework (https:// osf. io/ 9k3b5/ ). All scales included in the present study and the ratio- nale for selecting items to be included in the analyses presented here are provided in Appendix 1. 2.2.1 | COVID- 19 Beliefs Items related to COVID- 19 beliefs were created based on con- spiracy and pseudoscience discussions in different social media outlets popular in Finland. The scale contained 17 items (e.g., “The virus causing the corona disease (COVID- 19) was delib- erately released from a Chinese laboratory.”), tapping into dif- ferent themes related to the deliberate development, release, or spread of the virus, and beliefs about corona vaccines. For each item, participants first stated whether they had heard the claim before (1 = yes, 0 = no). Then, they marked on a seven- point Likert scale how much they agreed with the claim (1 = com- pletely disagree, 7 = completely agree). The internal consistency coefficient Cronbach's alpha for the COVID- 19 belief items was 0.92. 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 5 of 15 2.2.2 | Pseudoscientific Beliefs The pseudoscientific belief items (e.g., “Telepathy is a real phe- nomenon, although it has not been scientifically verified.”) were taken from a survey on supernatural beliefs (four items; Ervasti  2006) and from discussions on popular social media platforms (six items). For each item, participants first indicated whether they had heard the claim before, and then marked on a seven- point Likert scale how much they agreed with it (1 = com- pletely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Cronbach's alpha for pseudoscientific belief items was 0.86. 2.2.3 | Media Use Participants were queried about their frequency of engagement with specific media outlets and online services, encompassing both traditional (e.g., television and newspapers; five items) and digital media platforms (e.g., news media websites, mo- bile applications, social media, discussion forums; eight items) (Matikainen et  al.  2020). The participants answered on a six- point scale how often they used the media (1 = not at all, 2 = very rarely, 3 = once a month, 4 = every week, 5 = every day, 6 = sev- eral times a day). Cronbach's alphas were 0.71 for traditional media and 0.79 for digital media use. Use of alternative and counter media had a low item- total correlation with other items in the digital media scale and it was treated as a separate vari- able in the subsequent analyses. As it was extremely skewed, we created a dichotomous variable where 1 = once a month or more often and 0 = not at all or very rarely. 2.2.4 | Trust in Institutions Trust in institutions was measured by asking participants “How much do you trust the following institutions or actors in soci- ety?” (e.g., parliament, health care system; Metelinen  2021). Participants evaluated 10 items on a five- point Likert scale (1 = fully distrust, 5 = trust a lot) with a response option “I don't know”. Cronbach's alpha was 0.85. 2.2.5 | Trust in Science and Scientists Trust in science and scientists was measured by four items from the Trust in Science and Scientists Inventory (Nadelson et  al.  2014). The statements probed topics such as “Scientists ignore evidence that contradicts their work”. The participants responded to the statements on a five- point scale (1 = completely disagree, 5 = completely agree). Three items were reverse- coded so that higher sum scores reflect higher trust. Cronbach's alpha was 0.69. 2.2.6 | Actively Open- Minded Thinking The short form of the Actively Open- Minded Thinking scale (Haran et  al.  2013; Svedholm- Häkkinen and Lindeman  2018) includes seven statements such as “A mature person changes their mind if presented with better arguments for an opposing opinion.” Participants answered how much they agreed with the statements on a five- point scale (1 = completely disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, 4 = some- what agree, 5 = completely agree). Four items were worded in the opposite direction and reverse coded so that higher values indicate more actively open- minded thinking. Cronbach's alpha was 0.77. 2.2.7 | Anecdotal Preference The Format Preference Scale (Mäki et  al.  2023) includes six statements such as “When I make decisions related to my health, I usually base them on available statistical information” and “People's personal experiences have a big impact on my health decisions”. The participants responded to the statements on a seven- point Likert scale (1 = completely disagree, 7 = completely agree). Two items were reverse- coded so that higher scores indi- cated a stronger preference for anecdotal information. One item was deleted to improve internal consistency; Cronbach's alpha for the five items was 0.88. 2.2.8 | Background Information The background information included questions about gender, age, postal code, home language, education, current occupa- tion, income, whether the participant was born in Finland, and whether the participant's parents were born in Finland. 2.3 | Procedure The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Sciences of the University of Turku and followed the Declaration of Helsinki. The first batch of questionnaires was mailed in September 2021. Reminder letters to those who had not an- swered by the first week of October were sent in October 2021. Participants received the materials in their native language as indicated by the Population Information System data if it was Finnish, Swedish, or English. If their native language was some- thing else, the participants received the materials in English. Participants could respond to the questionnaire either on paper or via the internet; 859 participants (76.3%) answered on paper and 267 (23.7%) responded to the online questionnaire on the Webropol survey platform. Participants had a chance to participate in a draw of four gift certificates (á 50€) to retail stores. 2.3.1 | Data Pre- Processing Four responses did not contain correct ID codes used to iden- tify responders, and these cases were excluded from the data. Careless responding was identified in two steps. First, we checked whether the participant had responded to at least 11 of the 17 COVID- 19 belief items, and 17 participants were ex- cluded based on this criterion (1.51% of the data). Second, there were two control statements with the same content but oppo- site wording (“People will be unwillingly microchipped along with coronavirus vaccinations.” and “There are no microchips 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 6 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 in corona vaccines.”). Thirty- two participants failed to respond similarly to the control questions, and their data were removed from the analysis (2.89%). The final sample used in the analyses was N = 1077. Because there were very few participants who reported their gender as other than male or female (n = 9), gender was con- verted to a dummy- coded variable (1 = female, 0 = male), and “other” as well as missing responses were excluded from the sta- tistical models. Education level was coded on a scale from one to five, one denoting the basic level of education and five a master's or higher degree. Education level was recoded as missing if the reported education level was “other”. 2.3.2 | Statistical Analyses Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on all measures to confirm the expected factor structures before pro- ceeding with the main analyses (see Appendix 2). To address the research questions, we conducted linear regres- sion and mediation analyses. Linear regression was conducted in two steps. In the first step, we fitted a regression model pre- dicting COVID- 19 beliefs with demographic variables (gender, age, and education level) (Model 1). In the second step, cognitive variables (pseudoscientific beliefs, actively open- minded think- ing, and anecdotal preference) and social variables (trust in in- stitutions, trust in science and scientists, and media use) were added as predictors (Model 2). Mediation analyses were conducted to examine the indirect ef- fects of education on COVID- 19 beliefs via social and cognitive factors. Standardized path coefficients were estimated using maximum likelihood estimation (ML). Indirect effects were es- timated using percentile bootstrap confidence intervals based on 5000 resamples. We verified the normality and homoscedasticity assumptions for the regression models by visually inspecting the residual plots and other residual diagnostics including Cook's distance and large studentized residuals. Based on these diagnostics, we found eight cases that displayed a potentially excessive influ- ence on the regression model. The removal of these cases did not result in significant changes in the main findings or the overall explanatory power of the model, and we decided to keep these cases in the model. Multicollinearity was assessed by variance inflation factors (VIF). All VIFs < 2.10, indicating that the pre- dictor variables were not highly correlated. The percentage of missing values in our sample was < 1% (n = 41). The patterns of missing data were assessed and determined to be completely at random. Accordingly, listwise deletion was used to handle miss- ing data. All analyses were conducted using the R statistical software (v4.3.0; R Core Team 2023). Data preprocessing was performed using functions from the tidyverse (Wickham et al. 2019), regres- sion models were standardized using lm.beta (Behrendt 2023), and structural equation modeling and mediation were carried out using the lavaan package (Rosseel 2012). The data and anal- ysis code are available via OSF (https:// osf. io/ 9k3b5/ ). 3 | Results 3.1 | Description of the Sample Characteristics We first examined whether the final sample corresponded with the population sample (N = 5000) by comparing the distribu- tions of the background variables (gender, age, home language, and geographical region) between the samples. The descriptive statistics of the background variables in the final sample are presented in Table 1. The distributions of gender (χ2(1) = 0.66, p = 0.416) and geographical region (χ2(17) = 14.15, p = 0.561) did not differ between the final sample and the population sample. However, there were differences in age (χ2(12) = 86.51, p < 0.001) and home language (χ2(1) = 12.92, p < 0.001), indicating that the sample slightly overrepresented older age groups (> 65 years) and Finnish speakers. 3.2 | Familiarity and Popularity of Epistemically Suspect COVID- 19 Claims Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics of the familiarity and endorsement of the COVID- 19 belief items. Some of the most familiar claims were that the virus was deliberately developed (78% of the participants responded they were familiar with this claim) and released from a Chinese laboratory (86%). Eighty- one percent of the participants had also heard the claim that corona vaccines are used to microchip people, and 72% had heard the claim that corona vaccines are harmful and that this fact is being covered up. Furthermore, 70% of the participants reported they had heard the claim that the pandemic does not exist, and 65% that the news media have exaggerated the existence of the pandemic. Clearly less familiar were claims about presidents of different countries who conspire against citizens (13%), and that ethylene oxide used in the corona swabs can cause cancer (9%). TABLE 1 | Descriptive statistics of the background variables (N = 1077). Variable M SD Age 51.45 16.56 N % Gender Man 503 46.70 Woman 550 51.10 Non- binary 9 0.80 Missing 15 1.40 Education Basic 93 8.60 Vocational 301 27.90 Secondary 113 10.50 Bachelor 283 26.30 Master's/PhD 260 24.10 Missing 27 2.50 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 7 of 15 TA BL E 2 | F am ili ar ity a nd en do rs em en t o f d iff er en t C O V ID - 1 9 cl ai m s. It em s Fa m ili ar ity a En do rs em en tb N % N M SD M dn % 1. 5 G n et w or ks sp re ad th e c or on av iru s. 91 8 62 .5 3 10 64 1. 22 0. 69 1 0. 94 2. T he au th or iti es h av e d el ib er at el y ex ag ge ra te d th e n um be r o f p eo pl e w ho h av e d ie d fr om th e co ro na vi ru s. 91 8 53 .3 8 10 66 1. 92 1. 43 1 8. 72 3. E th yl en e o xi de , c om m on ly u se d to st er ili ze co ro na vi ru s s am pl in g st ic ks , c an ca us e c an ce r. 79 7 9. 28 10 56 2. 57 1. 46 2 4. 36 4. T he v iru s t ha t c au se s t he co ro na d ise as e ( CO V ID - 1 9) w as d el ib er at el y re le as ed fr om a C hi ne se la bo ra to ry . 85 3 86 .17 10 58 2. 83 1. 60 2 17 .2 0 5. W ith co ro na v ac ci ne s, pe op le a re im pl an te d w ith a m ic ro ch ip a ga in st th ei r w ill . 82 9 81 .0 6 10 71 1. 27 0. 74 1 0. 75 6. C or on a- va cc in at ed p eo pl e s pr ea d th e s pi ke p ro te in s o f t he co ro na vi ru s a ro un d th em se lv es . 81 3 27 .6 8 10 69 1. 90 1. 25 1 2. 81 7. Th e c or on a pa nd em ic is p ar t o f a g lo ba l e ffo rt to fo rc e e ve ry on e t o ge t v ac ci na te d. 81 3 50 .3 1 10 68 1.7 7 1. 33 1 6. 46 8. B ill G at es h as d ev el op ed th e c or on av iru s t o pr of it fr om it . 81 3 26 .9 4 10 64 1. 44 0. 96 1 1. 60 9. T he re re al ly is n o co ro na p an de m ic . 81 3 69 .74 10 73 1. 37 0. 95 1 2. 52 10 . T he n ew s m ed ia h as ex ag ge ra te d th e e xi st en ce o f t he co ro na p an de m ic . 81 3 65 .3 1 10 68 2. 18 1. 51 2 12 .17 11 . C or on a va cc in es d o no t h av e a m ic ro ch ip . ( R) 79 2 59 .0 9 10 69 1. 32 0. 75 1 0. 84 12 . C or on a va cc in es ca n ca us e, e. g. , i nf er til ity o r e re ct ile p ro bl em s. 79 2 44 .8 2 10 70 2. 60 1. 47 2 8. 04 13 . T he p re sid en ts o f d iff er en t c ou nt rie s a re co ns pi rin g w ith e ac h ot he r t o ke ep p eo pl e a t h om e i n or de r t o m ak e d ec isi on s a ga in st th e w ill o f t he v ot er s. 79 2 13 .1 3 10 65 1.7 8 1. 18 1 2. 82 14 . S om eo ne is sp re ad in g th e c or on av iru s o n pu rp os e. 79 2 45 .3 3 10 65 2. 17 1. 47 2 9. 86 15 . T he co ro na vi ru s ( SA RS - C oV - 2 ) w as o rig in al ly d ev el op ed in a la bo ra to ry . 79 2 77 .6 5 10 61 3. 41 1. 67 4 24 .0 3 16 . T he g lo ba l e lit e i s t ak in g ad va nt ag e o f t he co ro na p an de m ic to cr ea te a n ew to ta lit ar ia n w or ld go ve rn m en t. 79 2 23 .3 6 10 69 2 1. 35 1 5. 24 17 . Th e h ar m fu ln es s o f c or on a va cc in es is co ve re d up . 79 2 71 .9 7 10 69 2. 51 1. 59 2 14 .5 9 N ot e: Th e t ab le p re se nt s d es cr ip tiv e s ta tis tic s f or th e 1 7 CO V ID - 1 9 cl ai m s, ea ch m ea su re d on a sc al e f ro m 1 (c om pl et el y di sa gr ee ) t o 7 (c om pl et el y ag re e) . ( R) R ev er se d ite m . a F am ili ar ity in di ca te s t he p er ce nt ag e o f p ar tic ip an ts w ho h ad h ea rd th e c la im b ef or e. b E nd or se m en t i nd ic at es th e m ea n, st an da rd d ev ia tio n, a nd m ed ia n of th e r es po ns es g iv en o n a sc al e f ro m 1 to 7, a nd th e p er ce nt ag e o f p ar tic ip an ts w ho re sp on de d “s lig ht ly a gr ee ,” “a gr ee ,” or “c om pl et el y a gr ee ” t o th e i te m . 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 8 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 Looking at the percentages of participants who responded that they at least slightly agreed with the claims, 24% agreed with the claim that the coronavirus was originally developed in a labo- ratory, and 17% that it was deliberately released from a Chinese laboratory. About 15% agreed with the claim that the harmful- ness of the corona vaccine is covered up, and 12% with the claim that the news media has exaggerated the existence of the corona pandemic. Other claims received little support, indicating that most participants either had no clear opinion or did not agree with them. For example, less than 1% of the respondents agreed with the claims regarding corona vaccines containing micro- chips or 5G networks spreading the coronavirus. Overall, the endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims was very low (medians ranged from 1 to 2 on a scale from 1 to 7). Looking at the means of the responses, the two most endorsed claims were that the virus was originally developed (M = 3.42, SD = 1.67) and deliberately released from a Chinese laboratory (M = 2.83, SD = 1.60). The third most endorsed claim was that corona vaccines can cause infertility or erectile dys- function (M = 2.59, SD = 1.47). The fourth most endorsed claim regarded the potential harmful effects of the ethylene oxide used in the swab sticks (M = 2.58, SD = 1.46), and the fifth most en- dorsed claim was that the news media has exaggerated the ex- istence of the corona pandemic (M = 2.17, SD = 1.51). The least endorsed claims were that 5G networks spread coronavirus (M = 1.21, SD = 0.68), people will be unwillingly microchipped with corona vaccination (M = 1.27, SD = 0.74), and that the coro- navirus pandemic does not exist (M = 1.37, SD = 0.95). 3.3 | Factors Predicting Epistemically Suspect COVID- 19 Beliefs The descriptive statistics and correlations between variables used in the analyses are presented in Table 3. We first examined how demographic variables (age, gender, and education level) predicted epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs (Model 1; see Table 4). The model was significant, F (3, 999) = 45.86, p < 0.001, and explained 12% of the variance. Age and education were sig- nificant predictors, indicating that higher education and older age were associated with fewer epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. Next, cognitive and social variables were added to the model (Model 2; see Table  4). The model was significant, F (11, 991) = 130.39, p < 0.001, and explained an additional 47% of the variance, for a total of 59% of variance explained. All cognitive and social predictors, except for traditional and digital media use, showed statistically significant associations with epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. Looking at the standardized regres- sion coefficients (see Table 4), pseudoscientific beliefs emerged as the strongest predictor of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs (β = 0.55), while trust in institutions (β = −0.21) and pref- erence for anecdotal information (β = 0.20) were the next most important predictors. Although other predictors were statisti- cally significant, their associations with COVID- 19 beliefs were modest in magnitude. Regarding demographic variables, the endorsement of epistem- ically suspect COVID- 19 claims decreased with age, and after controlling for the cognitive and social variables in Model 2, women reported less epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs than men. Finally, the effect of education was not statistically significant in Model 2, suggesting that the association between education and COVID- 19 beliefs observed in Model 1 may be mediated by the social and/or cognitive variables. We then tested whether the effect of education on epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs was mediated by cognitive (actively open- minded thinking, anecdotal preference, and pseudoscien- tific beliefs) and social variables (trust in institutions, trust in sci- ence and scientists, traditional media use, digital media use, and alternative media use), while controlling for gender and age (see Table 5). The total effect of education on epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs was statistically significant (β = −0.40, 95% CI [−0.46, −0.33]). However, the direct effect was not (β = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.09, 0.02]), indicating full mediation. Significant indirect effects of education were observed through multiple mediators (see Figure 1). As for cognitive factors, in- direct effects were significant through actively open- minded thinking (β = −0.03, 95% CI [−0.05, −0.01]), anecdotal preference (β = −0.06, 95% CI [−0.08, −0.03]), and pseudoscientific beliefs (β = −0.15, 95% CI [−0.18, −0.12]). Of the social factors, the path- way through trust in institutions was significant (β = −0.08, 95% CI [−0.10, −0.06]), as was the pathway through trust in science and scientists (β = −0.04, 95% CI [−0.07, −0.02]). These findings indicate that education is associated with lower endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs through its influence on thinking style, pseudoscientific beliefs, information preference (anecdotal vs. statistical), and trust in institutions and science. In contrast, the indirect effects through traditional media use (β = 0.00, 95% CI [0.00, 0.00]), digital media use (β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.01]), and alternative media use (β = −0.01, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.00]) were not significant, as the confidence intervals included zero. 4 | Discussion and Conclusions The present study explored the familiarity and popularity of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 as well as demo- graphic, cognitive, and social factors that predict beliefs in a rep- resentative population sample of people living in Finland during the pandemic. 4.1 | Familiarity and Popularity of Epistemically Suspect COVID- 19 Claims Even though the COVID- 19 misinformation and conspiracy theories scoped in this study were familiar to the participants, the overall endorsement of them was very low. The results showed that the most popular epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 were related to the deliberate development and release of the virus, which were also among the most fa- miliar. While familiar claims may sound more plausible, these claims also touch upon the causes of the pandemic, which still are under debate. Their high endorsement rates may reflect that epistemically suspect claims, such as conspiracy theories, offer explanations for significant, inexplicable events and thus 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 9 of 15 TA BL E 3 | M ea ns , s ta nd ar d de vi at io ns , r el ia bi lit y co ef fic ie nt s, an d in te rc or re la tio ns o f v ar ia bl es . Va ri ab le M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1. C O V ID - 1 9 be lie fs 2. 01 0. 86 0. 92 2. P se ud os ci en tif ic b el ie fs 3. 08 1. 12 0. 63 0. 86 3. T ra di tio na l m ed ia u se 3. 41 0. 88 −0 .0 5 0. 13 0. 71 4. D ig ita l m ed ia u se 3. 53 0. 96 −0 .1 2 −0 .2 2 −0 .3 2 0. 79 5. A lte rn at iv e m ed ia u se 1. 03 0. 16 0. 18 0. 09 0. 05 0. 04 — 6. T ru st in in st itu tio ns 3. 82 0. 70 −0 .5 2 −0 .3 2 0. 12 0. 12 −0 .1 2 0. 85 7. TS SI 3. 61 0. 70 −0 .4 7 −0 .4 4 −0 .1 8 0. 30 −0 .10 0. 42 0. 69 8. A O T 4. 08 0. 59 −0 .4 5 −0 .4 8 −0 .1 2 0. 24 −0 .0 2 0. 22 0. 49 0. 77 9. A ne cd ot al p re fe re nc e 2. 87 1. 21 0. 52 0. 51 0. 04 −0 .1 8 0. 04 −0 .3 0 −0 .4 5 −0 .4 6 0. 88 10 . A ge 51 .5 9 16 .5 3 −0 .0 1 0. 23 0. 50 −0 .6 1 −0 .0 2 −0 .0 5 −0 .3 1 −0 .1 2 0. 08 — 11 . G en de ra 1. 52 0. 50 −0 .0 2 0. 10 −0 .0 2 0. 07 −0 .0 8 0. 12 0. 04 −0 .0 9 0. 02 −0 .0 6 — 12 . E du ca tio n 3. 29 1. 35 −0 .3 4 −0 .3 3 −0 .0 8 0. 31 −0 .0 6 0. 28 0. 39 0. 36 −0 .3 5 −0 .16 0. 09 — N ot e: Cr on ba ch 's α on th e d ia go na l. A bb re vi at io ns : A O T = ac tiv el y op en - m in de d th in ki ng , T SS I = tr us t i n sc ie nc e a nd sc ie nt ist s. a 0 = m an , 1 = w om an . 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 10 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 fulfill epistemic needs (e.g., van Prooijen and Douglas 2017). It is noteworthy that the claim about the coronavirus vaccine se- cretly containing a microchip was very familiar to our partici- pants—81% had heard this before. However, it had an extremely low endorsement rate, indicating that high familiarity alone does not increase the endorsement of a claim. Combined with the previous studies, the present results in- dicate that although misinformation and conspiracy theories spread globally, their endorsement may vary across countries (e.g., Roozenbeek et al. 2020; Sternisko et al. 2023; Uscinski et al. 2022; van Prooijen et al. 2022). For example, the claim about the coronavirus containing a microchip showed a very low endorsement rate in our sample, in line with data from the Netherlands (van Prooijen et al. 2022) but in contrast to the re- sults reported in the USA (Uscinski et al. 2022; YouGov 2022). Previous national surveys show that Finns have relatively high trust in science and scientists, governmental institutions, and traditional media (Media- alan tutkimussäätiö, 2023; Tieteen tiedotus ry 2022). Trust in media increased during the COVID- 19 pandemic in Finland: in 2020, 56% of Finns said they trusted most news, whereas in 2022 this number was 69% (Media- alan tutkimussäätiö  2022). These are high numbers compared to, for example, the United States, where only 26% said they trusted most news (Newman, Fletcher, et al. 2022). While several methodological factors may impact the compa- rability of the results across countries and studies, the present study suggests that socio- cultural differences such as trust in institutions, including media, may influence the popularity of misinformation. 4.2 | Cognitive and Social Factors Associated With Epistemically Suspect COVID- 19 Beliefs In addition to examining the familiarity and popularity of epis- temically suspect claims regarding COVID- 19, we were interested in the demographic, cognitive, and social factors that are associ- ated with their endorsement. Of cognitive factors, pseudoscien- tific beliefs, actively open- minded thinking, and a preference for anecdotal information over statistical facts were all related to the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. Participants who reported more pseudoscientific beliefs were also more likely to endorse epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. These results support recent findings showing that epistemically suspect beliefs, like pseudoscientific beliefs, in- crease the likelihood of endorsing conspiracy theories (e.g., Šrol et  al.  2021; Stasielowicz  2022). The finding that actively open- minded thinking was related to a lower endorsement of epistemi- cally suspect claims is in line with research showing that thinking styles are associated with endorsing conspiracy theories (Petrović and Žeželj 2022; but see Rizeq et al. 2021). Also, the preference for anecdotal information over statistical facts when considering health- related information was associated with higher endorse- ment of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims, in line with pre- vious findings by Mäki et al. (2023). As for the social factors, our results showed that lower trust in institutions and science and scientists predicted the endorse- ment of COVID- 19 misinformation and conspiracy theories. These findings are in line with those of previous research showing that distrust in institutions (Newman, Lewandowsky, TABLE 4 | Hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. Model Predictor B SE β t p 95% CI Model 1 (Constant) 2.927 0.136 21.592 < 0.001 [2.66, 3.19] Age −0.004 0.002 −1.512 −2.603 0.009 [−0.01, 0.00] Gender 0.014 0.051 0.005 0.269 0.788 [−0.09, 0.11] Education level −0.224 0.019 −0.553 −11.679 < 0.001 [−0.26, −0.19] Model 2 (Constant) 3.197 0.286 11.166 < 0.001 [2.64, 3.76] Age −0.010 0.002 −3.560 −6.306 < 0.001 [−0.01, −0.01] Gender −0.072 0.036 −0.024 −1.989 0.047 [−0.14, 0.00] Education level −0.019 0.015 −0.046 −1.244 0.214 [−0.05, 0.01] Pseudoscientific beliefs 0.325 0.020 0.552 16.091 < 0.001 [0.28, 0.36] Anecdotal preference 0.101 0.018 0.200 5.529 < 0.001 [0.07, 0.14] Actively open- minded thinking −0.103 0.038 −0.047 −2.704 0.007 [−0.18, −0.03] Trust in science and scientists −0.135 0.034 −0.089 −3.965 < 0.001 [−0.20, −0.07] Trust in institutions −0.316 0.030 −0.207 −10.702 < 0.001 [−0.37, −0.26] Traditional media use −0.031 0.023 −0.033 −1.317 0.188 [−0.08, 0.02] Digital media use −0.023 0.025 −0.028 −0.922 0.357 [−0.07, 0.03] Alternative media use 0.475 0.108 0.018 4.418 < 0.001 [0.26, 0.69] Note: Gender was a binary variable where 0 = man and 1 = woman. 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 11 of 15 and Mayo 2022; Jennings et al. 2021; Pavela Banai et al. 2022) and science and scientists (Roozenbeek et  al.  2020; Tsamakis et al. 2022) is associated with epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. Many COVID- 19 conspiracy theories reflect the assumption that the governmental institutions or media plot against the citizens to gain control, or that the scientists have played a role in the development and release of the virus. If one has low trust in governmental actors and scientists, these claims probably seem more plausible. Moreover, the use of alternative media was associated with the endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims. Our findings align with recent research showing that the constant use of media platforms with false or misleading content is associ- ated with increased endorsement of epistemically suspect claims (Allington et al. 2021; de Coninck et al. 2021; Hetzel et al. 2022; Romer and Jamieson  2021; Roozenbeek et  al.  2020; Tsamakis et  al.  2022; Xiao et  al.  2021; Ziegele et  al.  2022), whereas the use of traditional and mainstream media sources may protect against misinformation (Allen et al. 2023; de Coninck et al. 2021; Hetzel et al. 2022; Romer and Jamieson 2021). However, we did not find associations between digital or traditional media use and endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims, re- flecting that the quality of the content in the media is probably more important than whether the outlet is digital or not. Of cognitive and social variables, pseudoscientific beliefs showed the strongest association with epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs, followed by trust in institutions and prefer- ence for anecdotal information. The strength of the other pre- dictor variables was more modest. These findings indicate that when several predictors are considered simultaneously, pseu- doscientific beliefs that often concern health- related informa- tion, trust in institutions that had a central role in the society TABLE 5 | Mediation model between education and epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. Effect Path β SE LL UL p Direct effects Education → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.03 0.03 −0.09 0.02 0.208 Education → Trust in institutions 0.27 0.03 0.21 0.33 < 0.001 Education → Trust in science and scientists 0.35 0.03 0.29 0.41 < 0.001 Education → Actively open- minded thinking 0.36 0.03 0.31 0.41 < 0.001 Education → Anecdotal preference −0.35 0.03 −0.40 −0.29 < 0.001 Education → Pseudoscientific beliefs −0.31 0.03 −0.36 −0.25 < 0.001 Education → Analog media use 0.01 0.03 −0.05 0.06 0.858 Education → Digital media use 0.23 0.02 0.18 0.28 < 0.001 Education → Alternative media use −0.05 0.03 −0.11 0.01 0.072 Trust in institutions → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.29 0.03 −0.36 −0.22 < 0.001 Trust in science and scientists → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.12 0.04 −0.20 −0.05 0.001 Actively open- minded thinking → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.08 0.03 −0.15 −0.01 0.018 Anecdotal preference → COVID- 19 beliefs 0.16 0.03 0.10 0.22 < 0.001 Pseudoscientific beliefs → COVID- 19 beliefs 0.48 0.03 0.42 0.54 < 0.001 Analog media use → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.04 0.03 −0.10 0.03 0.249 Digital media use → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.03 0.03 −0.09 0.03 0.349 Alternative media use → COVID- 19 beliefs 0.10 0.04 0.03 0.18 0.009 Indirect effects Education → Trust in institutions → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.08 0.01 −0.10 −0.06 < 0.001 Education → Trust in science and scientists → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.04 0.01 −0.07 −0.02 0.001 Education → Actively open- minded thinking → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.03 0.01 −0.05 −0.01 0.021 Education → Anecdotal preference → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.06 0.01 −0.08 −0.03 < 0.001 Education → Pseudoscientific beliefs → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.15 0.02 −0.18 −0.12 < 0.001 Education → Analog media use → COVID- 19 beliefs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.860 Education → Digital media use → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.01 0.01 −0.02 0.01 0.349 Education → Alternative media use → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.01 0.00 −0.02 0.00 0.155 Total effect Education → COVID- 19 beliefs −0.40 0.03 −0.46 −0.33 < 0.001 Abbreviations: LL = lower limit of the 95% confidence interval, UL = upper limit of the 95% confidence interval. 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 12 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 during the pandemic, and preference for anecdotal information when making health- related decisions are stronger predictors of COVID- 19 beliefs than more general factors like actively open- minded thinking style, trust in science in general, or alternative media use. 4.3 | Demographic Variables Associated With Epistemically Suspect COVID- 19 Beliefs As for the effects of demographic variables, gender and age were related to endorsing epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. Men were more likely than women to endorse COVID- 19 misin- formation and conspiracy theories. However, the gender effect was small, and it was statistically significant only in the model where social and cognitive factors were included. Previous results on the effect of gender on COVID- 19 conspiracy beliefs are mixed (van Mulukom et al. 2022), and our research adds to this previous lit- erature by demonstrating that when various cognitive and social factors are considered, there seems to be a small gender difference in susceptibility to epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. Our results also showed that the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 decreased with age. This find- ing aligns with the results of a recent meta- analysis (Bordeleau and Stockemer 2024) showing that age has a small but robust ef- fect on conspiracy beliefs. While there are many potential expla- nations for the age effect (see Bordeleau and Stockemer 2024), our data suggest that one explanation for the age effect may be related to media use. We observed relatively high correlations between digital and traditional media use and age: older people are more likely to use traditional media, whereas younger adults prefer digital media outlets. As younger people are more likely to use digital media outlets where the COVID- 19 misinforma- tion and conspiracies may be prevalent, they may become more exposed to misinformation than older people, who mainly rely on traditional media. Of particular interest here was the effect of education on epis- temically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. Our results showed that the effect of education was fully mediated by cognitive and social factors. In addition to being more actively open- minded thinkers than individuals with lower levels of education, highly educated individuals also rely less on anecdotal information when making health- related decisions, hold fewer pseudosci- entific beliefs, and exhibit greater trust in institutions, science, and scientists—factors that reduce the endorsement of epis- temically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. Interestingly, there was no evidence for a mediation via media use, showing that the protective effect of education is not related to what kind of media is followed. Previous studies have systematically found that higher education protects from COVID- 19 conspir- acy beliefs (see van Mulukom et al. 2022), and the education effects on conspiracy beliefs have been linked to better ana- lytic thinking skills and increased feelings of control (Ballová Mikušková 2023; van Prooijen 2017). The present study adds to this literature by suggesting that education has indirect effects on susceptibility to misinformation via various cognitive and social factors. 4.4 | Limitations The present study investigated the associations between differ- ent cognitive, social, and demographic factors and epistemically suspect beliefs about COVID- 19. While the present results sug- gest factors that may contribute to the susceptibility to adopt- ing such beliefs, our data are correlational, so we cannot make strong claims about causal effects. However, the contribution of our study lies in its simultaneous assessment of several cog- nitive, social, and demographic factors, providing information about the unique role of each factor when controlling for the others. For example, although our results suggest that various cognitive factors may make people more susceptible to misinfor- mation, social factors such as trust in institutions and science, as FIGURE 1 | Mediation model of education on epistemically suspect COVID- 19 beliefs. Solid lines indicate statistically significant positive path coefficients, dashed lines represent significant negative coefficients, and grey lines denote non- significant paths. 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 13 of 15 well as media use, also play a role. Moreover, our results show that the effect of education is mediated by several cognitive and social factors. Another limitation is that, despite including several different measures in our study, we may have missed some important fac- tors that are associated with the endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims. In addition to using longitudinal data, future studies should further examine potential moderat- ing and mediating effects between different social and cognitive factors on the endorsement of misinformation and conspiracy theories. Finally, these results were obtained in a sample of Finnish adults and may not generalize to other populations. Non- Finnish speakers and younger age groups were underrepresented in our sample. Finns generally show high trust in governmental institutions, media, and science and scientists (Media- alan tut- kimussäätiö 2022; Tieteen tiedotus ry 2022). Even though sev- eral of the COVID- 19 claims included in the present study were relatively familiar to the respondents, their overall endorsement was very low. Our results demonstrate that many cognitive, so- cial, and demographic factors that have been found to be import- ant in the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19 in previous studies (see van Mulukom et  al.  2022) are also important in the Finnish social and cultural context. However, future studies should target younger age groups and language minorities to get a fully representative view of these effects. 4.5 | Conclusions In summary, the present results show that various cognitive and social factors are associated with the endorsement of epistem- ically suspect COVID- 19 claims. Pseudoscientific beliefs, low actively open- minded thinking style, and preference for anec- dotal information seem to increase the likelihood of endors- ing epistemically suspect claims about COVID- 19. In addition, social factors, like low trust in institutions, science, and scien- tists increase susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs about COVID- 19. Moreover, exposure to alternative or counter media increases the endorsement of epistemically suspect claims. The effect of education on the endorsement of epistemically suspect COVID- 19 claims was fully mediated by cognitive and social factors. These findings highlight the impor- tance of education in fostering critical thinking skills and trust in institutions and science to effectively combat health- related misinformation. Author Contributions Johanna K. Kaakinen: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing – original draft, methodology, supervision. Ali Moazami Goodarzi: writing – original draft, formal analysis, data curation, writ- ing – review and editing. Tuomo Häikiö: conceptualization, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, data cura- tion. Pasi Kivioja: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing. Karl O. Mäki: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing. Daria Pritup: conceptualization, methodology, writing – review and editing, project administration. Acknowledgments This research was supported by the Strategic Research Council and National Research Council of Finland grant numbers 335233 and 358271. Open access publishing facilitated by Turun yliopisto, as part of the Wiley - FinELib agreement. Ethics Statement The study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Human Sciences of University of Turku and followed the Declaration of Helsinki. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data Availability Statement The materials, data, and analysis code are available via Open Science Framework (https:// osf. io/ 9k3b5/ ). References Ahmed, S., and M. E. Rasul. 2022. “Social Media News Use and COVID- 19 Misinformation Engagement: Survey Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 24, no. 9: e38944. Allen, J. D., Q. Fu, K. H. Nguyen, R. Rose, D. Silva, and L. Corlin. 2023. “Parents' Willingness to Vaccinate Children for COVID- 19: Conspiracy Theories, Information Sources, and Perceived Responsibility.” Journal of Health Communication 28, no. 1: 15–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10810 730. 2023. 2172107. Allington, D., B. Duffy, S. Wessely, N. Dhavan, and J. Rubin. 2021. “Health- Protective Behaviour, Social Media Usage and Conspiracy Belief During the COVID- 19 Public Health Emergency.” Psychological Medicine 51, no. 10: 1763–1769. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ s0033 29172 000224x. Ballová Mikušková, E. 2023. “Education and Conspiracy Beliefs: The Mediating Role of Feelings of Control and Scientific Reasoning.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 37: 174–188. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 4037. Barron, D., A. Furnham, L. Weis, K. D. Morgan, T. Towell, and V. Swami. 2018. “The Relationship Between Schizotypal Facets and Conspiracist Beliefs via Cognitive Processes.” Psychiatry Research 259: 15–20. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. psych res. 2017. 10. 001. Behrendt, S. 2023. lm.beta: Add Standardized Regression Coefficients to Linear- Model- Objects. R Package Version 1.7- 2. https:// CRAN. R- proje ct. org/ packa ge= lm. beta. Bensley, D. A., S. O. Lilienfeld, K. A. Rowan, C. M. Masciocchi, and F. Grain. 2020. “The Generality of Belief in Unsubstantiated Claims.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 34, no. 1: 16–28. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3581. Bordeleau, J.- N., and D. Stockemer. 2024. “On the Relationship Between Age and Conspiracy Beliefs.” Political Psychology. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ pops. 13044 . Čavojová, V., J. Šrol, and M. Jurkovič. 2020. “Why Should We Try to Think Like Scientists? Scientific Reasoning and Susceptibility to Epistemically Suspect Beliefs and Cognitive Biases.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 34, no. 1: 85–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3595. Cinelli, M., W. Quattrociocchi, A. Galeazzi, et al. 2020. “The COVID- 19 Social Media Infodemic.” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1: 1–10. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4159 8- 020- 73510 - 5. de Coninck, D., T. Frissen, K. Matthijs, et al. 2021. “Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories and Misinformation About COVID- 19: Comparative Perspectives on the Role of Anxiety, Depression and Exposure to and Trust in Information Sources.” Frontiers in Psychology 12: 646394. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 646394. 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 14 of 15 Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2025 Douglas, K. M., and R. M. Sutton. 2023. “What Are Conspiracy Theories? A Definitional Approach to Their Correlates, Consequences, and Communication.” Annual Review of Psychology 74, no. 1: 271–298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur ev- psych - 03242 0- 031329. Ervasti, H. 2006. “Suomalaisten Yliluonnolliset Uskomukset [The Supernatural Beliefs of Finns.].” Yhteiskuntapolitiikka- Lehti 71, no. 3: 259–269. https:// www. julka ri. fi/ bitst ream/ handle/ 10024/ 100142/ 063er vasti. pdf? seque nce= l. Freeman, D., F. Waite, L. Rosebrock, et  al. 2022. “Coronavirus Conspiracy Beliefs, Mistrust, and Compliance With Government Guidelines in England.” Psychological Medicine 52, no. 2: 251–263. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0033 29172 0001890. Frenken, M., and R. Imhoff. 2021. “A Uniform Conspiracy Mindset or Differentiated Reactions to Specific Conspiracy Beliefs? Evidence From Latent Profile Analyses.” International Review of Social Psychology 34, no. 1: 15–27. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5334/ irsp. 590. Gligorić, V., M. M. da Silva, S. Eker, et al. 2021. “The Usual Suspects: How Psychological Motives and Thinking Styles Predict the Endorsement of Well- Known and COVID- 19 Conspiracy Beliefs.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 35, no. 5: 1171–1181. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3844. Goertzel, T. 1994. “Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Political Psychology 15, no. 4: 731–742. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2307/ 3791630. Hale, T., N. Angrist, R. Goldszmidt, et  al. 2021. “A Global Panel Database of Pandemic Policies (Oxford COVID- 19 Government Response Tracker).” Nature Human Behaviour 5: 529–538. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1038/ s4156 2- 021- 01079 - 8. Haran, U., I. Ritov, and B. A. Mellers. 2013. “The Role of Actively Open- Minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration.” Judgment and Decision Making 8, no. 3: 188–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S1930 29750 0005921. Hetzel, N., T. Klawier, F. Prochazka, and W. Schweiger. 2022. “How Do COVID- 19 Conspiracy Beliefs, Exposure to Alternative Sources and Social Media Correlate in Germany?” SCM Studies in Communication and Media 11, no. 4: 508–535. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5771/ 2192- 4007- 2022- 4- 508. Jennings, W., G. Stoker, H. Bunting, et  al. 2021. “Lack of Trust, Conspiracy Beliefs, and Social Media Use Predict COVID- 19 Vaccine Hesitancy.” Vaccine 9, no. 6: 593. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3390/ vacci nes90 60593 . Juanchich, M., M. Sirota, D. Jolles, and L. A. Whiley. 2021. “Are COVID- 19 Conspiracies a Threat to Public Health? Psychological Characteristics and Health Protective Behaviours of Believers.” European Journal of Social Psychology 51, no. 6: 969–989. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ejsp. 2796. Lobato, E., J. Mendoza, V. Sims, and M. Chin. 2014. “Examining the Relationship Between Conspiracy Theories, Paranormal Beliefs, and Pseudoscience Acceptance Among a University Population.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 28, no. 5: 617–625. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3042. Mäki, K. O., L. C. Karlsson, J. K. Kaakinen, et  al. 2023. “Tailoring Interventions to Suit Self- Reported Format Preference Does Not Decrease Vaccine Hesitancy.” PLoS One 18, no. 3: e0283030. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 0283030. Matikainen, J., M. Ojala, M. Aslama, and J. Jääsaari. 2020. Media ja Yleisön Luottamuksen Ulottuvuudet: Instituutiot, Journalismi ja Mediasuhde. [Media and Dimensions of Public Trust: Institutions, Journalism and Relationship With Media] Valtiotieteellisen Tiedekunnan Julkaisusarja, 171. Helsingin Yliopisto, Valtiotieteellinen Tiedekunta. http:// hdl. handle. net/ 10138/ 319153. Media- alan tutkimussäätiö. 2022. Uutismedia Verkossa 2022. Reuters- Instituutin Digital News Report. Suomen Maaraportti [Media Industry Research Foundation of Finland: News Media Online 2022. The Digital News Report of the Reuters Institute. Country Report for Finland]. https:// urn. fi/ URN: ISBN: 978- 952- 03- 2483- 4. Metelinen, S. 2021. Kansakunnan Kivijalka. Pandemiassakin Suomalainen Luottaa Presidenttiin, Poliisiin ja Puolustusvoimiin [The Stone Foundation of a Nation – Even During a Pandemic a Finn Trusts the President, Police, and Armed Forces]. EVA analyysi, 95. https:// www. eva. fi/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ 2021/ 06/ no_ 95. pdf. Miller, J. M. 2020. “Do Covid- 19 Conspiracy Theory Beliefs Form a Monological Belief System?” Canadian Journal of Political Science 53, no. 2: 319–326. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0008 42392 0000517. Mitchell, A., J. B. Oliphant, and H. Klein. 2020. Three Months in, Many Americans See Exaggeration, Conspiracy Theories and Partisanship in COVID- 19 News. Pew Research Center. https:// www. pewre search. org/ journ alism/ wp- conte nt/ uploa ds/ sites/ 8/ 2020/ 06/ PJ_ 2020. 06. 29_ COVID - 19- News- Cover age_ FINAL. pdf. Nadelson, L., C. Jorcyk, D. Yang, et al. 2014. “I Just Don't Trust Them: The Development and Validation of an Assessment Instrument to Measure Trust in Science and Scientists.” School Science and Mathematics 114, no. 2: 76–86. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ ssm. 12051 . Newman, D., S. Lewandowsky, and R. Mayo. 2022. “Believing in Nothing and Believing in Everything: The Underlying Cognitive Paradox of Anti- COVID- 19 Vaccine Attitudes.” Personality and Individual Differences 189: 111522. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2022. 111522. Newman, N., R. Fletcher, C. Robertson, K. Eddy, and R. Nielsen. 2022. Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2022. https:// reute rsins titute. polit ics. ox. ac. uk/ digit al- news- report/ 2022. OECD. 2024. Do Adults Have the Skills They Need to Thrive in a Changing World?: Survey of Adult Skills 2023. OECD Skills Studies, OECD Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1787/ b263d c5d- en. Pavela Banai, I., B. Banai, and I. Mikloušić. 2022. “Beliefs in COVID- 19 Conspiracy Theories, Compliance With the Preventive Measures, and Trust in Government Medical Officials.” Current Psychology 41, no. 10: 7448–7458. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1214 4- 021- 01898 - y. Petrović, M., and I. Žeželj. 2022. “Both a Bioweapon and a Hoax: The Curious Case of Contradictory Conspiracy Theories About COVID- 19.” Thinking & Reasoning 29, no. 4: 1–32. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13546 783. 2022. 2088618. R Core Team. 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https:// www. R- proje ct. org/ . Rizeq, J., D. B. Flora, and M. E. Toplak. 2021. “An Examination of the Underlying Dimensional Structure of Three Domains of Contaminated Mindware: Paranormal Beliefs, Conspiracy Beliefs, and Anti- Science Attitudes.” Thinking & Reasoning 27, no. 2: 187–211. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13546 783. 2020. 1759688. Romer, D., and K. H. Jamieson. 2021. “Patterns of Media Use, Strength of Belief in COVID- 19 Conspiracy Theories, and the Prevention of COVID- 19 From March to July 2020 in the United States: Survey Study.” Journal of Medical Internet Research 23, no. 4: e25215. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2196/ 25215 . Roozenbeek, J., C. R. Schneider, S. Dryhurst, et al. 2020. “Susceptibility to Misinformation About COVID- 19 Around the World.” Royal Society Open Science 7, no. 10: 201199. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1098/ rsos. 201199. Rosseel, Y. 2012. “Lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling.” Journal of Statistical Software 48, no. 2: 1–36. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v048. i02. Rutjen, B. T., and B. Većkalov. 2022. “Conspiracy Beliefs and Science Rejection.” Current Opinion in Psychology 46: 101392. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. copsyc. 2022. 101392. Schemer, C., M. Ziegele, T. Schultz, O. Quiring, N. Jackob, and I. Jakobs. 2022. “Political Information Use and Its Relationship to Beliefs in 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 15 of 15 Conspiracy Theories Among the German Public.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 99, no. 4: 908–929. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10776 99021 1063527. Šrol, J., E. Ballová Ballová Mikušková, and V. Čavojová. 2021. “When We Are Worried, What Are We Thinking? Anxiety, Lack of Control, and Conspiracy Beliefs Amidst the COVID- 19 Pandemic.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 35, no. 3: 720–729. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3798. Ståhl, T., and J. W. van Prooijen. 2018. “Epistemic Rationality: Skepticism Toward Unfounded Beliefs Requires Sufficient Cognitive Ability and Motivation to Be Rational.” Personality and Individual Differences 122: 155–163. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2017. 10. 026. Stanovich, K. E., and R. F. West. 1997. “Reasoning Independently of Prior Belief and Individual Differences in Actively Open- Minded Thinking.” Journal of Educational Psychology 89, no. 2: 342–357. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 89.2. 342. Stasielowicz, L. 2022. “Who Believes in Conspiracy Theories? A Meta- Analysis on Personality Correlates.” Journal of Research in Personality 98: 104229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jrp. 2022. 104229. Sternisko, A., A. Cichocka, A. Cislak, and J. J. van Bavel. 2023. “National Narcissism Predicts the Belief in and the Dissemination of Conspiracy Theories During the COVID- 19 Pandemic: Evidence From 56 Countries.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 49, no. 1: 48– 65. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01461 67221 1054947. Sternisko, A., J. J. van Bavel, A. Cichocka, and F. Azevedo. 2021. National Identity Predicts Public Health Support During a Global Pandemic. [Dataset]. https:// osf. io/ y7ckt/ . Svedholm- Häkkinen, A. M., and M. Lindeman. 2018. “Actively Open- Minded Thinking: Development of a Shortened Scale and Disentangling Attitudes Towards Knowledge and People.” Thinking & Reasoning 24, no. 1: 21–40. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13546 783. 2017. 1378723. Swami, V., M. Voracek, S. Stieger, U. S. Tran, and A. Furnham. 2014. “Analytic Thinking Reduces Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Cognition 133, no. 3: 572–585. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cogni tion. 2014. 08. 006. Tieteen tiedotus ry. 2022. Tiedebarometri. Tutkimus Suomalaisten Suhteesta Tieteeseen ja Tieteellis- Tekniseen Kehitykseen [The Science Barometer. A Study of Public Opinion and Attitudes Towards Science and Technology in Finland]. https:// digip lus. fi/ www/ Tiede barom etri/ 2022/ index. html# p= 1. Tiirinki, H., L. K. Tynkkynen, M. Sovala, et  al. 2020. “COVID- 19 Pandemic in Finland–Preliminary Analysis on Health System Response and Economic Consequences.” Health Policy and Technology 9, no. 4: 649–662. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. hlpt. 2020. 08. 005. Tsamakis, K., D. Tsiptsios, B. Stubbs, et al. 2022. “Summarising Data and Factors Associated With COVID- 19 Related Conspiracy Theories in the First Year of the Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis.” BMC Psychology 10, no. 1: 244. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1186/ s4035 9- 022- 00959 - 6. Uscinski, J., A. Enders, C. Klofstad, et  al. 2022. “Have Beliefs in Conspiracy Theories Increased Over Time?” PLoS One 17, no. 7: e0270429. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 0270429. Välimaa, J. 2021. “Trust in Finnish Education: A Historical Perspective.” European Education 53, no. 3–4: 168–180. van Mulukom, V., L. J. Pummerer, S. Alper, et al. 2022. “Antecedents and Consequences of COVID- 19 Conspiracy Beliefs: A Systematic Review.” Social Science & Medicine 301: 114912. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. socsc imed. 2022. 114912. van Prooijen, J., D. Amodio, A. Boot, et  al. 2022. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Conspiracy Beliefs and Covid- 19 Health Responses.” Psychological Medicine 53, no. 12: 5709–5716. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0033 29172 2002938. van Prooijen, J., T. Etienne, Y. Kutiyski, and A. Krouwel. 2023. “Conspiracy Beliefs Prospectively Predict Health Behavior and Well- Being During a Pandemic.” Psychological Medicine 53, no. 6: 2514– 2521. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1017/ S0033 29172 1004438. van Prooijen, J. W. 2017. “Why Education Predicts Decreased Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 31: 50–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ acp. 3301. van Prooijen, J. W., and K. M. Douglas. 2017. “Conspiracy Theories as Part of History: The Role of Societal Crisis Situations.” Memory Studies 10, no. 3: 323–333. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17506 98017 701615. Wickham, H., M. Averick, J. Bryan, et  al. 2019. “Welcome to the Tidyverse.” Journal of Open Source Software 4, no. 43: 1686. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21105/ joss. 01686 . Williams, M. N., M. D. Marques, S. R. Hill, J. R. Kerr, and M. Ling. 2022. “Why Are Beliefs in Different Conspiracy Theories Positively Correlated Across Individuals? Testing Monological Network Versus Unidimensional Factor Model Explanations.” British Journal of Social Psychology 61, no. 3: 1011–1031. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjso. 12518 . Xiao, X., B. Borah, and Y. Su. 2021. “The Dangers of Blind Trust: Examining the Interplay Among Social Media News Use, Misinformation Identification, and News Trust on Conspiracy Beliefs.” Public Understanding of Science 30, no. 8: 977–992. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09636 62521 998025. YouGov. 2022. Conspiracy Theories, Economist/YouGov Poll, August 7–9, 2022. YouGov. https:// today. yougov. com/ topics/ polit ics/ artic les- repor ts/ 2022/ 08/ 10/ consp iracy - theor y- econo mist- yougo v- poll- augus t- 7. Ziegele, M., M. Resing, K. Frehmann, et al. 2022. “Deprived, Radical, Alternatively Informed: Factors Associated With People's Belief in Covid- 19 Related Conspiracy Theories and Their Vaccination Intentions in Germany.” European Journal of Health Communication 3, no. 2: 97– 130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 47368/ ejhc. 2022. 205. Supporting Information Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section. Appendix  1: acp70117- sup- 0001- Appendix_1.docx Appendix 2: acp70117- sup- 0002- Appendix_2.docx 10990720, 2025, 5, D ow nloaded from https://onlinelibrary.w iley.com /doi/10.1002/acp.70117 by U niversity O f Turku, W iley O nline Library on [06/10/2025]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on W iley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License