MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184483441 · doi:10.3390/ijerph18157846

Conspiracy Theories, Psychological Distress, and Sympathy for Violent Radicalization in Young Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

2021· article· en· W3184483441 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna Levinsson, Diana Miconi, Zhiyin Li, Rochelle L. Frounfelker, Cécile Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé
KeywordsPsychologyDistressClinical psychologyPublic healthPsychological interventionCross-sectional studyMental healthSuicide preventionPoison controlSocial psychologyPsychiatryMedicineMedical emergency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has spread uncertainty, promoted psychological distress, and fueled interpersonal conflict. The concomitant upsurge in endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is worrisome because they are associated with both non-adherence to public health guidelines and intention to commit violence. This study investigates associations between endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories, support for violent radicalization (VR) and psychological distress among young adults in Canada. We hypothesized that (a) endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories is positively associated with support for VR, and (b) psychological distress modifies the relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy theories and support for VR. A total of 6003 participants aged 18-35 years old residing in four major Canadian cities completed an online survey between 16 October 2020 and 17 November 2020, that included questions about endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories, support for VR, psychological distress, and socio-economic status. Endorsement of conspiracy theories was associated with support for VR in multivariate regression (β = 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80-0.96). There is a significant interaction effect between endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories and psychological distress (β = 0.49, 95% CI 0.40-0.57). The magnitude of the association was stronger in individuals reporting high psychological distress (β = 1.36, 95% CI 1.26-1.46) compared to those reporting low psychological distress (β = 0.47, 95% CI 0.35-0.59). The association between endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories and VR represents a public health challenge requiring immediate attention. The interaction with psychological distress suggests that policy efforts should combine communication and psychological strategies to mitigate the legitimation of violence.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.490
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207