The effect of religiosity on violence: Results from a Brazilian population-based representative survey of 4,607 individuals

Juliane Piasseschi de Bernardin Gonçalves; Clarice Sandi Madruga; Giancarlo Lucchetti; Maria do Rosário Dias Latorre; Ronaldo Laranjeira; Homero Vallada

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238020

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionMarch 26, 2020
27 May 2020 Decision Letter - Laura Schwab-Reese, Editor PONE-D-20-08721 The effect of religiosity on violence: results from a nationwide population-based representative survey of 4,607 individuals. PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Gonçalves, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 11 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Laura Schwab-Reese Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide. [Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.] Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This article contributes needed additional findings to the field of violence prevention and religion. I am excited to see this work is being conducted internationally, and I hope that the authors continue to conduct this research. Overall the manuscript is well written with only a few issues with proofreading. There are concerns I have though, related to lack of information provided on the theories mentioned in the discussion as well as some methodological concerns. Additionally, PLOS ONE requires that authors make their data underlying the findings fully available, and from the manuscript at this time, this did not appear to be present. Below are my comments/concerns related to the specifics within the manuscript. Dichotomous Scales: Limitations Need to be Addressed o By doing them as dichotomous the results could be flattened. Those who were perpetrators of violence could be doing so at a higher rate than what was allowed in the variables. This is a limitation of the study. Variables: Limitations Need to be Addressed • Variables asked Domestic Violence only to those who live together: This is a limitation as people are in relationships outside of living together. Therefore, more individual could had been included if this question was asked to any individuals who were in a partnership. Sampling: Limitations Need to be Addressed . Large national studies tend to not include their indigenous populations which can have a negative impact (i.e. lack of awareness of issues they experience, assistance). I know that the Kayapo are a indigenous population native to Brazil. It would be good to explain why the Kayapo and other indigenous people were not sampled. o I am assuming that Brazil has different consent rules for their IRB than other countries, so the inclusion of those under 18 should be expanded upon. How and why they are included is important to indicate especially since the variables being examined might be less significant to a young population such as the domestic violence questions- requiring the individuals to be married or living with a partner. � By this variable being restricted it is possible that those who are younger and potentially perpetrators of DV on their partners were not included in this analysis. Discussion Concerns o You did not measure religious attendance and only measured if they indicated they were religious and it was/was not important. Unsure if this sentence (Page 16; Lines 240-242) can be supported with your measures and findings. o It might be good to look into the literature on costly signaling and religion. This is an area of research in biological anthropology and provides context to this sentence (Page 15; Lines 244-246). At this point, this sentence seems to oversimplify why religion can function as a means to control/limit violent behaviors. Adding literature on costly signaling will help support your argument. o Religious social control theory (Page 16; Line 252). This needs to be introduced as an theory earlier on in the introduction. There is no explanation as to what religious social control theory is, and the reader is expected to know what this theory is from the previous paragraph. There need to be more build up and support as to what specifically this theory is and then use the information above as support. o The explanation of this theory (Human development theory) is confusing and requires more clarity (Page 16; Line 254-257). How dose human development theory connect to religion? What is the theory first- then move into connection to your findings. This theory as the one above should be referenced in some way during the literature review. Reviewer #2: Spelling errors: Line 36- Were used line 121 where lines 125,129, 137, ?". remove the period after the quote marks line 296 uso Other than the spelling/grammatical errors, I found it to be clear, concise, statistically sound, and a nice addition to the previous research. ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?** For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: PONE-D-20-08721_reviewer_LM_04_08_2020.pdf https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238020.r001
Revision 1
3 Aug 2020 Author Response Response to Reviewers: Journal requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements: 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf ANSWER: We have checked the manuscript and it is complying with PLOS ONE's style requirements. 2. You indicated that you had ethical approval for your study. In your Methods section, please ensure you have also stated whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians of the minors included in the study or whether the research ethics committee or IRB specifically waived the need for their consent. ANSWER: We have now included this information in the manuscript: “All subjects provided written informed consent prior to being interviewed and, in the case of minors, consent from parents or guardians were obtained”. See page 5 and 6, lines 113 – 115. 3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts: a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. ANSWERS TO ITEMS 3a AND 3b: We have followed the protocols of different research ethics committees concerning data availability: the Federal University of São Paulo (UNIFESP), Brazilian National Ethics Research Committee (CONEP) and the São Paulo State Drug Policy Committee (CONED), which follows all recommendations regarding the use of the database for partial studies. Therefore, the survey dataset use requests are analyzed by the Brazilian National Alcohol and Drugs Survey (BNADS) technical committee. Data requests may be sent to the survey’s coordinator clarice.madruga@unifesp.br or via our website: www.inpad.org.br/lenad. Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Review Comments to the Author Reviewer #1: This article contributes needed additional findings to the field of violence prevention and religion. I am excited to see this work is being conducted internationally, and I hope that the authors continue to conduct this research. Overall the manuscript is well written with only a few issues with proofreading. There are concerns I have though, related to lack of information provided on the theories mentioned in the discussion as well as some methodological concerns. Additionally, PLOS ONE requires that authors make their data underlying the findings fully available, and from the manuscript at this time, this did not appear to be present. Below are my comments/concerns related to the specifics within the manuscript. ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions in order to improve our manuscript. You will found our responses to your concerns below. Proofreading was also carried out as requested. In relation to the data availability, unfortunately, our Ethics Research Committee does not allow online data sharing due to ethical reasons, since we have included minors (participants with less than 18 years old). Nevertheless, according to the guidelines of Plos One, we have now referred an institutional body to which data requests may be sent. Dichotomous Scales: Limitations Need to be Addressed o By doing them as dichotomous the results could be flattened. Those who were perpetrators of violence could be doing so at a higher rate than what was allowed in the variables. This is a limitation of the study. ANSWER: We agree with your comment and we have now included this limitation as suggested. See page 16, lines 336 – 340. Variables: Limitations Need to be Addressed • Variables asked Domestic Violence only to those who live together: This is a limitation as people are in relationships outside of living together. Therefore, more individual could had been included if this question was asked to any individuals who were in a partnership. ANSWER: We have now included this potential limitation as well. See page 15, lines 331 - 335. Sampling: Limitations Need to be Addressed . Large national studies tend to not include their indigenous populations which can have a negative impact (i.e. lack of awareness of issues they experience, assistance). I know that the Kayapo are a indigenous population native to Brazil. It would be good to explain why the Kayapo and other indigenous people were not sampled. ANSWER: We have now explained why indigenous groups were not included in this large representative study. See page 6, lines 133 – 137. o I am assuming that Brazil has different consent rules for their IRB than other countries, so the inclusion of those under 18 should be expanded upon. How and why they are included is important to indicate especially since the variables being examined might be less significant to a young population such as the domestic violence questions- requiring the individuals to be married or living with a partner. ANSWER: We agree with you that more information is needed concerning the inclusion of minors in the sample. We have now included the consent rules for this sample (consent from guardians or parents were obtained) and we have justified why this group of participants were included. See pages 5 and 6, lines 113 – 115. � By this variable being restricted it is possible that those who are younger and potentially perpetrators of DV on their partners were not included in this analysis. ANSWER: We agree with your comment and decided to include this information as a limitation of the study. See page 6, lines 123 – 126. Discussion Concerns o You did not measure religious attendance and only measured if they indicated they were religious and it was/was not important. Unsure if this sentence (Page 16; Lines 240-242) can be supported with your measures and findings. ANSWER: We agree that the inclusion of “religious attendance” could be misleading to the reader in this sentence. We have modified it accordingly, including only “religious affiliations” in the organizational religiosity. See page 12, lines 259 – 261. o It might be good to look into the literature on costly signaling and religion. This is an area of research in biological anthropology and provides context to this sentence (Page 15; Lines 244-246). At this point, this sentence seems to oversimplify why religion can function as a means to control/limit violent behaviors. Adding literature on costly signaling will help support your argument. ANSWER: Thank you for your important reference. We have now added the costly signing theory as suggested. See page 4, lines 71 – 81; page 13, lines 275 – 279. o Religious social control theory (Page 16; Line 252). This needs to be introduced as an theory earlier on in the introduction. There is no explanation as to what religious social control theory is, and the reader is expected to know what this theory is from the previous paragraph. There need to be more build up and support as to what specifically this theory is and then use the information above as support. ANSWER: We have now included the theories upfront in the Introduction. This will allow the reader to get a closer contact with our hypotheses right in the beginning of the manuscript. See page 3, lines 65 – 70; page 12, lines 262. o The explanation of this theory (Human development theory) is confusing and requires more clarity (Page 16; Line 254-257). How dose human development theory connect to religion? What is the theory first- then move into connection to your findings. This theory as the one above should be referenced in some way during the literature review. ANSWER: We have now clarified the “Human development theory”, introducing it to the reader in the Introduction and further explaining it in the Discussion. See page ; page 13, lines 280 – 282. Grammar corrections: Page 3, Line 54 – Is this really overuse or increased use? ANSWER: We have modified this sentence. Page 3, line 55 – overuse – changed by increased use. Page 18, line 296 – use? ANSWER: We have modified this sentence. Page 15, line 322 – uso – changed for use. Page 18, line 299 – Brazilian context ANSWER: We have modified this sentence. Page 15, line 326 – scenario changed for context. Page 18, line 300 – influence the ANSWER: We have modified this sentence. Page 15, line 326 – interfere changed for “influence the”. Reviewer #2: Spelling errors: Page 2, Line 36- Were used ANSWER: We have modified this sentence. See page 2, line 37 – were changed to we. Page 6, line 121 where ANSWER: We have corrected it as suggested. See page 5, line 149 – where changed to were. Page 6, lines 125,129, 137, ?". remove the period after the quote marks ANSWER: Periods were removed as requested. See page 5, lines 149, 153, 157. Page 16, line 296 – uso ANSWER: We have now corrected it. Page 15, line 322 – uso – changed for use. Other than the spelling/grammatical errors, I found it to be clear, concise, statistically sound, and a nice addition to the previous research. ANSWER: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238020.r002
10 Aug 2020 Decision Letter - Laura Schwab-Reese, Editor The effect of religiosity on violence: results from a Brazilian population-based representative survey of 4,607 individuals. PONE-D-20-08721R1 Dear Dr. Gonçalves, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Laura Schwab-Reese Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments (optional): Reviewers' comments: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238020.r003
Formally Accepted
13 Aug 2020 Acceptance Letter - Laura Schwab-Reese, Editor PONE-D-20-08721R1 The effect of religiosity on violence: results from a Brazilian population-based representative survey of 4,607 individuals. Dear Dr. Gonçalves: I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Laura Schwab-Reese Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238020.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .