RESUMEN
ABSTRACT: The present study examines the moderating role of total, intrinsic, and extrinsic religiosity in the relation between perceived discrimination and sympathy for violent radicalization (VR) among college students in Quebec, Canada. A total of 931 students responded to an online questionnaire and were included in this study. Linear mixed-effects models were conducted to account for the clustered nature of the data, and moderation was assessed via interaction analysis using cross-product terms in the models. Findings indicated that both intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity had a protective role in the link between perceived discrimination and sympathy for VR and buffered the effects of sadness in response to discrimination on sympathy for VR, but not the effects of anger in response to discrimination. These results provide evidence of the protective role of religiosity in Canada, a social context characterized by an increase in religious discrimination, but which also supports religious diversity.
Asunto(s)
Religión y Psicología , Discriminación Social/psicología , Estudiantes/psicología , Terrorismo/psicología , Adolescente , Adulto , Actitud , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Factores Protectores , Quebec , Universidades , Adulto JovenRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Outbreaks of infectious diseases generate outbreaks of scientific evidence. In 2016 epidemics of Zika virus emerged, and in 2020, a novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) caused a pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We compared patterns of scientific publications for the two infections to analyse the evolution of the evidence. METHODS: We annotated publications on Zika virus and SARS-CoV-2 that we collected using living evidence databases according to study design. We used descriptive statistics to categorise and compare study designs over time. RESULTS: We found 2286 publications about Zika virus in 2016 and 21,990 about SARS-CoV-2 up to 24 May 2020, of which we analysed a random sample of 5294 (24%). For both infections, there were more epidemiological than laboratory science studies. Amongst epidemiological studies for both infections, case reports, case series and cross-sectional studies emerged first, cohort and case-control studies were published later. Trials were the last to emerge. The number of preprints was much higher for SARS-CoV-2 than for Zika virus. CONCLUSIONS: Similarities in the overall pattern of publications might be generalizable, whereas differences are compatible with differences in the characteristics of a disease. Understanding how evidence accumulates during disease outbreaks helps us understand which types of public health questions we can answer and when.