The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

The Psychological Science Accelerator’s COVID-19 rapid-response dataset

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated three large-scale psychological studies to examine the effects of loss-gain framing, cognitive reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and affective measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specific measures for each experimental study, a general questionnaire examining health prevention behaviors and COVID-19 experience, geographical and cultural context characterization, and demographic information for each participant. Each participant started the study with the same general questions and then was randomized to complete either one longer experiment or two shorter experiments. Data were provided by 73,223 participants with varying completion rates. Participants completed the survey from 111 geopolitical regions in 44 unique languages/dialects. The anonymized dataset described here is provided in both raw and processed formats to facilitate re-use and further analyses. The dataset offers secondary analytic opportunities to explore coping, framing, and self-determination across a diverse, global sample obtained at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which can be merged with other time-sampled or geographic data

How well do covariates perform when adjusting for sampling bias in online COVID-19 research? Insights from multiverse analyses

COVID-19 research has relied heavily on convenience-based samples, which—though often necessary—are susceptible to important sampling biases. We begin with a theoretical overview and introduction to the dynamics that underlie sampling bias. We then empirically examine sampling bias in online COVID-19 surveys and evaluate the degree to which common statistical adjustments for demographic covariates successfully attenuate such bias. This registered study analysed responses to identical questions from three convenience and three largely representative samples (total N = 13,731) collected online in Canada within the International COVID-19 Awareness and Responses Evaluation Study (www.icarestudy.com). We compared samples on 11 behavioural and psychological outcomes (e.g., adherence to COVID-19 prevention measures, vaccine intentions) across three time points and employed multiverse-style analyses to examine how 512 combinations of demographic covariates (e.g., sex, age, education, income, ethnicity) impacted sampling discrepancies on these outcomes. Significant discrepancies emerged between samples on 73% of outcomes. Participants in the convenience samples held more positive thoughts towards and engaged in more COVID-19 prevention behaviours. Covariates attenuated sampling differences in only 55% of cases and increased differences in 45%. No covariate performed reliably well. Our results suggest that online convenience samples may display more positive dispositions towards COVID-19 prevention behaviours being studied than would samples drawn using more representative means. Adjusting results for demographic covariates frequently increased rather than decreased bias, suggesting that researchers should be cautious when interpreting adjusted findings. Using multiverse-style analyses as extended sensitivity analyses is recommended