The COVID-19 pandemic saw a surge in diverse theories about its origin, ranging from the scientifically supported zoonotic transmission to conspiracy theories involving intentional creation or accidental lab leaks. Existing research often attributes belief in conspiracy theories to psychological factors like anxiety, cognitive biases, or irrationality, focusing on individual attributes rather than sociocultural contexts. The "deficit model", which posits that opposition to science stems from ignorance, has been criticized for neglecting the role of social and political beliefs in shaping attitudes. This study adopts a cultural approach, arguing that public attitudes towards scientific issues are shaped by broader social frameworks, including trust, credibility, and values. The research investigates the styles of thought underlying different attitudes towards the pandemic, employing a quantitative analysis of Argentine citizens' attitudes explained through a cultural theory of expertise.

The concept of "styles of thought," central to the sociology of knowledge, emphasizes that individual attitudes are conditioned by a social group's worldview. Authors like Mannheim, Mills, Fleck, Harwood, and Hacking have explored this concept, focusing on identifying cultural patterns underlying intellectual expressions. Mary Douglas's cultural theory highlights the role of cultural frameworks in shaping individual choices and risk perception. This theory posits that individual choices reflect adherence to a specific worldview and protest against others, emphasizing the non-random nature of preferences within cultural types. The present study builds on this framework, focusing on how different conceptions of expertise underpin various attitudes towards the pandemic.

Two online surveys were conducted in Argentina in 2021. The first survey (n=5990) used Facebook and Instagram advertisements to recruit a nationally representative sample across various demographics. The second survey (n=1943) involved a subset of respondents from the first survey contacted via email. The surveys assessed beliefs about the virus's origin, trust in institutions and experts, attitudes toward science and vaccines, and responses to restriction measures. Ideology and sociodemographic characteristics were also collected. Chi-squared tests and Cramer's V were used to analyze associations between variables. Three distinct response profiles were identified based on strong correlations (Cramer's V > 0.25) between beliefs about the virus's origin and other attitudes.

The surveys revealed a near-equal distribution across three belief categories regarding the virus's origin: natural origin (zoonosis or agricultural frontier advances), accidental escape (unintentional lab leak), and intentional release (deliberate release or non-existence of the virus). Strong correlations were found between these beliefs and other attitudes. Regarding vaccine representations, those believing in a natural origin showed the highest expectations, while those believing in intentional release displayed the highest distrust, associating vaccines with business interests. The belief in the virus's origin significantly correlated with trust in the official COVID-19 death tolls; 70% of those believing in a natural origin trusted the official numbers, compared to 50% and 30% for those believing in accidental and intentional origins, respectively. Perceptions of experts' role in government decisions also varied significantly across the three groups, with those believing in a natural origin showing the highest trust in experts' advice. Attitudes toward science also reflected the three styles of thought, with beliefs in a natural origin indicating higher trust in science's ability to solve the pandemic. Regarding future pandemic prevention measures, those who believed in an intentional origin favored banning virus experiments, while those believing in an accidental origin favored increased scientific funding. Ideological self-perception further differentiated the three groups, with those believing in a natural origin leaning left and those believing in an intentional origin leaning right. Perceptions of isolation measures also varied, with those believing in intentional release reporting feeling more deprived of freedoms.

The study reveals that the Argentine population's attitudes toward the pandemic aren't random but reflect three distinct styles of thought rooted in differing conceptions of expertise. The "open-to-expertise" style trusts experts and science, embracing collective welfare and leftist ideologies. The "self-expertise-only" style distrusts experts and science, prioritizing individual freedom and right-wing ideologies. The "nihilist" style expresses low expectations of experts but doesn't subscribe to conspiracy theories. These findings challenge the deficit model by demonstrating that diverse attitudes are not merely due to lack of information but reflect deeper cultural patterns shaped by views on expertise. The study highlights the importance of considering these cultural patterns in addressing public conflicts around scientific issues and communicating information effectively.

This research identified three distinct styles of thought regarding the COVID-19 pandemic in Argentina, linked to differing perceptions of expertise: open-to-expertise, self-expertise-only, and nihilist. The study underscores the crucial role of cultural contexts in shaping public attitudes toward science and suggests that understanding these styles of thought is vital for effective science communication and policymaking. Future research could explore these styles in other contexts and examine additional attitudinal correlations within these cultural tendencies.

The study's findings are based on online surveys in Argentina and might not generalize to other contexts or populations. The cross-sectional nature of the data limits causal inferences. Future longitudinal studies are needed to explore the stability and evolution of these styles of thought over time.