Explore the vast range of titles available.

Open science practices such as posting data or code and pre-registering analyses are increasingly prescribed and debated in the applied sciences, but the actual popularity and lifetime usage of these practices remain unknown. This study provides an assessment of attitudes toward, use of, and perceived norms regarding open science practices from a sample of authors published in top-10 (most-cited) journals and PhD students in top-20 ranked North American departments from four major social science disciplines: economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. We observe largely favorable private attitudes toward widespread lifetime usage (meaning that a researcher has used a particular practice at least once) of open science practices. As of 2020, nearly 90% of scholars had ever used at least one such practice. Support for posting data or code online is higher (88% overall support and nearly at the ceiling in some fields) than support for pre-registration (58% overall). With respect to norms, there is evidence that the scholars in our sample appear to underestimate the use of open science practices in their field. We also document that the reported lifetime prevalence of open science practices increased from 49% in 2010 to 87% a decade later. Open science practices are becoming more common in the social sciences, but there is limited data on their popularity and prevalence. Here, using survey data, the authors provide evidence that levels of adoption are relatively high and underestimated by many in the field.

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [−.47, −.11], p -value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [−0.07, −.34], p -value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p -value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during “lean”, pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health.

Why do \"ordinary\" people engage in collective violence, harming others on behalf of their group? In this article, we argue that the violent group itself, and the identity it bestows on participating members, is an often overlooked and yet fundamental source of motivation for an individual's participation in collective violence. Reviewing insights from social and moral psychology, military history, and public health, we outline how the psychology of individual violent behavior presents a puzzle. For an ordinary person, participation in violence is often an aversive and distressing experience, and yet violent behavior leads to more violence in the future. A better understanding of the dynamics of collective violence allows us to make sense of this paradox. Violent groups can promote violent behavior among members by increasing members ' motivation to engage in violence, particularly through group identification and deliberate strategies, and by removing psychological obstacles to violence (i.e., by making violence less aversive). Our synthesis of the literature points to a cycle of individuals' participation in collective violence, in which group identification motivates violent behavior and violent behavior increases identification with violent groups.

The reintegration of former members of violent extremist groups is a pressing policy challenge. Governments and policymakers often have to change minds among reticent populations and shift perceived community norms in order to pave the way for peaceful reintegration. How can they do so on a mass scale? Previous research shows that messages from trusted authorities can be effective in creating attitude change and shifting perceptions of social norms. In this study, we test whether messages from religious leaders—trusted authorities in many communities worldwide—can change minds and shift norms around an issue related to conflict resolution: the reintegration of former members of violent extremist groups. Our study takes place in Maiduguri, Nigeria, the birthplace of the violent extremist group Boko Haram. Participants were randomly assigned to listen to either a placebo radio message or to a treatment message from a religious leader emphasizing the importance of forgiveness, announcing the leader’s forgiveness of repentant fighters, and calling on followers to forgive. Participants were then asked about their attitudes, intended behaviors, and perceptions of social norms surrounding the reintegration of an ex–Boko Haram fighter. The religious leader message significantly increased support for reintegration and willingness to interact with the ex-fighter in social, political, and economic life (8 to 10 percentage points). It also shifted people’s beliefs that others in their community were more supportive of reintegration (6 to 10 percentage points). Our findings suggest that trusted authorities such as religious leaders can be effective messengers for promoting peace.

Background The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated mitigation policies created a global economic and health crisis of unprecedented depth and scale, raising the estimated prevalence of depression by more than a quarter in high-income countries. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) suffered the negative effects on living standards the most severely. However, the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. Therefore, this study assesses the association between the COVID-19 crisis and mental health in 8 LMICs. Methods and findings We conducted a prospective cohort study to examine the correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 10 populations from 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. The analysis included 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64% female) who were interviewed at least once pre- as well as post-pandemic. The total number of survey waves ranged from 2 to 17 (mean 7.1). Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated screening tools for depression and a weighted index of depression questions, dependent on the sample. Sample-specific estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between COVID-19 periods and mental health were estimated using linear regressions with individual fixed effects, controlling for independent time trends and seasonal variation in mental health where possible. In addition, a regression discontinuity design was used for the samples with multiple surveys conducted just before and after the onset of the pandemic. We aggregated sample-specific coefficients using a random-effects model, distinguishing between estimates for the short (0 to 4 months) and longer term (4+ months). The random-effects aggregation showed that depression symptoms are associated with a increase by 0.29 standard deviations (SDs) (95% CI [−.47, −.11], p-value = 0.002) in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic. This change was equivalent to moving from the 50th to the 63rd percentile in our median sample. Although aggregate depression is correlated with a decline to 0.21 SD (95% CI [−0.07, −.34], p-value = 0.003) in the period thereafter, the average recovery of 0.07 SD (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41) was not statistically significant. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative specifications. Two limitations of our study are that not all samples are representative of the national population, and the mental health measures differ across samples. Conclusions Controlling for seasonality, we documented a large, significant, negative association of the pandemic on mental health, especially during the early months of lockdown. The magnitude is comparable (but opposite) to the effects of cash transfers and multifaceted antipoverty programs on mental health in LMICs. Absent policy interventions, the pandemic could be associated with a lasting legacy of depression, particularly in settings with limited mental health support services, such as in many LMICs. We also demonstrated that mental health fluctuates with agricultural crop cycles, deteriorating during “lean”, pre-harvest periods and recovering thereafter. Ignoring such seasonal variations in mental health may lead to unreliable inferences about the association between the pandemic and mental health. Nursena Aksunger and colleagues investigate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in eight low- and middle-income countries. Author summary Why was this study done? The worldwide economic and health crises triggered by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have had a significant influence on mental health, with the estimated prevalence of depression having increased by more than 25% in high-income countries. Although the adverse consequences of the pandemic on living standards have been most severe in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the consequences of the pandemic for mental health in LMICs have received less attention. What did the researchers do and find? The purpose of this research is to investigate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health in 8 LMICs in Asia, Africa, and South America. Before and during the pandemic, the mental health of 21,162 individuals (mean age 38.01 years, 64.0% female) was measured using survey data. Our individual-level primary outcome measure was based on validated depression screening instruments and a sample-specific weighted index of depression questions. We found that depression symptoms were associated with a significant increase in the 4 months following the onset of the pandemic (0.29 standard deviations (SDs), 95% confidence interval (CI) [−.47, −.11], p-value = 0.002) and that the average recovery of 0.07 SD was not statistically significant in the subsequent period (95% CI [−0.09, .22], p-value = 0.41). What do these findings mean? We showed a substantial negative correlation between the COVID-19 pandemic and mental health after adjusting for seasonality, suggesting that the pandemic might induce long-term depression, especially in LMICs with poor mental health support facilities. We also provided evidence for seasonal changes in mental health depending on agricultural crop cycle. This seasonality should be considered when examining changes in mental health over time in order to prevent drawing inaccurate conclusions. The observed trends were consistent across countries and robust to alternative analyses, although the study was limited by the fact that not all samples were representative of the national population and the mental health indicators differed among samples.

Whitehouse's model explains when people engage in self-sacrifice, but not who is most likely to do so. We propose incorporating individual differences, such as cognitive style (one's inclination toward intuition versus deliberation), and argue that individuals who rely on intuition may be more likely to (1) develop group identity fusion after an emotional experience and (2) engage in pro-social self-sacrifice.

Numerous empirical studies of the relationship between popular support for Islamism and support for democracy and violence have yielded inconclusive results. We suspect that this is largely because scholars have not operationalized support for Shari`a in ways that capture the concept’s multi-dimensionality. In this paper, we employ data derived from a carefully designed survey instrument that casts unique insights into how Pakistanis imagine a Shari`a-based government. We find that formalizing an Islamic government as one that implements Shari`a by providing services and security for its citizens is positively associated with support for democratic values, whereas conceptualizing it as one that implements Shari`a by imposing hudud punishments and restricting women’s public roles is positively associated with support for militancy. These results suggest that it is important to understand how individuals within a particular context construe a Shari`a-based government, and future empirical work should take this.

Challenging conventional wisdom, previous research in South Asia and the Middle East has shown that poverty and exposure to violence are negatively correlated with support for militant organizations. Existing studies, however, provide evidence consistent with two potential mechanisms underlying these relationships: (1) the direct effects of poverty and violence on attitudes toward militant groups and (2) the psychological effects of perceptions of poverty and violence on attitudes. Isolating whether the psychological mechanism is an important one is critical for building theories of mass responses to political violence. We conducted a series of original, large-scale survey experiments in Pakistan (n=16,279) in which we randomly manipulated perceptions of both poverty and violence before measuring support for militant organizations. We find evidence that psychological perceptions do in part explain why the poor seem to be less supportive of militant political groups.

This study provides a first assessment of awareness of, attitudes toward, perceived norms regarding, and adoption of open science practices within a broadly representative sample of active economics researchers. We observe a steep increase in adoption over the last decade, with an accelerating trend: as of 2017, 93 percent of economists had used at least one such practice—including posting data, sharing study materials, and study pre-registration—rising from 33 percent a decade earlier. We document extensive variation in adoption across economics subfields. Notably, most economists appear to underestimate the trend toward research transparency in the discipline.

Heightened group identification motivates individuals to perpetrate violence, but can perpetrating violence - in and of itself - increase identification with violent groups? I test this question using two methodological approaches. First, I test this proposition in a set of consequential real world cases, using archival data from interviews with former combatants in Liberia and Northern Uganda. In Liberia, where many combatants joined their violent group willingly, the data show a positive association between perpetrating violence and identification with one’s violent group (Study 1). Study 2a replicates and extends this finding with data from ex-combatants in Uganda who were abducted into their group, using a natural experiment in which some abductees were forced to perpetrate violence while others were not. Only perpetrating violence, not exposure to violence more generally (Study 2b), and only violent behaviors that involve a heightened sense of personal responsibility (Study 3) are associated with increased group identification. Additionally, perpetrating violence during conflict does not influence post-conflict attitudes about the use of violence for resolving problems, suggesting that individuals do not re-appraise violence itself (Study 4). These findings support a cycle of violence in which perpetrating violence increases identification with violent groups and heightened identification increases future violent behavior. For the second part of my dissertation, I conduct a series of online and laboratory experiments in the United States in an attempt to establish and explore this phenomenon in a more controlled setting. I find no evidence that engaging in violent behavior increases group identification with this methodological approach. These divergent findings between the field and the laboratory highlight the challenge of studying the causal consequences of violent behavior and of achieving psychological realism in the laboratory.