Transnational evaluation of the Sympathy for Violent Radicalization Scale: Measuring population attitudes toward violent radicalization in two countries

Countering violent radicalization is a priority in many countries, prompting research that assesses attitudes and beliefs about violent radicalization in the general population. The majority of violent radicalization assessments have been developed among specific populations, with limited investigation into the generalizability and cross-cultural applicability of measurement tools. A transcultural investigation raises questions about the implicit assumptions and norms that inform instrument development. This research examined the psychometric properties of the Sympathy for Violent Radicalization Scale (SyfoR), a measure developed for use with Pakistani and Bangladeshi immigrant groups in the UK, in two convenience samples of youth and young adults in North America and Western Europe. We investigated the factor structure, reliability, and construct validity of adapted versions of the SyfoR among convenience samples of youth and young adults living in Belgium (N = 2014) and in Quebec, Canada (N = 1364) via online surveys administered to students engaged in secondary and post-secondary education. Results indicate that, in both samples, a reduced, 8-item version of the SyfoR has a 3-factor structure with good model fit statistics using confirmatory factor analysis and good internal consistency reliability. More studies are needed to assess the appropriateness of the SyfoR for use in diverse contexts and among diverse populations. The potential usefulness and harmfulness of measures of violent radicalization should balance the benefits of obtaining local data with the risks associated with pathologizing social dissent.

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

While COVID-19 spreads aggressively and rapidly across the globe, many societies have also witnessed the spread of other viral phenomena like misinformation, conspiracy theories, and general mass suspicions about what is really going on. This study investigates how exposure to and trust in information sources, and anxiety and depression, are associated with conspiracy and misinformation beliefs in eight countries/regions (Belgium, Canada, England, Philippines, Hong Kong, New Zealand, United States, Switzerland) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data were collected in an online survey fielded from May 29, 2020 to June 12, 2020, resulting in a multinational representative sample of 8,806 adult respondents. Results indicate that greater exposure to traditional media (television, radio, newspapers) is associated with lower conspiracy and misinformation beliefs, while exposure to politicians and digital media and personal contacts are associated with greater conspiracy and misinformation beliefs. Exposure to health experts is associated with lower conspiracy beliefs only. Higher feelings of depression are also associated with greater conspiracy and misinformation beliefs. We also found relevant group- and country differences. We discuss the implications of these results.

Longitudinal Evidence of How Media Audiences Differ in Public Health Perceptions and Behaviors During a Global Pandemic

The current study investigates how public attitudes and perceptions about the COVID-19 pandemic evolve over time and influence self-reported health behaviors (e. g., social distancing). Specific attention was paid to respondents' exposure to different news media channels (public vs. commercial). We used data from a two-wave panel study with a 3-week interval (W1 at the start and W2 at the peak of the pandemic) and a large sample of the adult population in Flanders, Belgium (n = 870). The results of mixed ANOVAs indicate that besides a time-effect there was also a significant effect of the different types of news media exposure and respondents' support for protective health measures and behaviors. Whereas, perceived vulnerability to disease, feelings of loneliness, and solidarity were mostly determined by respondents' overall frequency of media exposure, support of governmental measures and self-reported health behaviors were mostly determined by the type of news media exposure. Respondents with a predominantly public/quality news media diet had the highest scores on these variables. A stepwise linear regression analysis with individual's change scores demonstrated that (self-)protective behavior was positively determined by respondents' age, solidarity, and the belief that the measures are necessary, but negatively determined by one's cumulative exposure to commercial/tabloid news media. This longitudinal study provides a new perspective on the role of news media in times of a public health crisis. It offers support for (A) the "double bind hypothesis" (i.e., while news media consumption encourages (self-)isolation, it fosters feelings of loneliness); and (B) the "dual effects hypothesis" (i.e., exposure to commercial/tabloid news media generates different outcomes than exposure to public/quality news media). Affective responses and socio-psychological perceptions are influenced by overall news media exposure, whereas support for the government and its handling of the crisis are mainly determined by one's selection of media channels, whereby audiences of public news media evaluate these outcomes more positively than the audiences of commercial news media channels.