This N=173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a crosscultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 44 countries worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 49 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.
This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available. ; publishedVersion ; Fil: Yamada, Yuki. Kyushu University; Japón. ; Fil: Ćepulić, Dominik Borna. Catholic University of Croatia; Croacia. ; Fil: Coll Martín, Tao. Universidad de Granada; España. ; Fil: Debove, Stéphane. Independent Researcher; Francia. ; Fil: Gautreau, Guillaume. Universite Paris Saclay; Francia. ; Fil: Han, Hyemin. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Rasmussen, Jesper. University Aarhus; Dinamarca. ; Fil: Tran, Thao P. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Travaglino, Giovanni A. University Of Kent; Reino Unido. ; Fil: Blackburn, Angélique M. Texas A&M University; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Boullu, Loïs. Independent Researcher; Francia. ; Fil: Bujić, Mila. Universidad de Tampere; Finlandia. ; Fil: Byrne, Grace. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países Bajos. ; Fil: Caniëls, Marjolein C. J. Open University of The Netherlands; Países Bajos. ; Fil: Flis, Ivan. Catholic University of Croatia; Croacia. ; Fil: Kowal, Marta. University of Wroclaw; Polonia. ; Fil: Rachev, Nikolay R. Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski; Bulgaria. ; Fil: Reynoso Alcántara, Vicenta. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México. ; Fil: Zerhouni, Oulmann. Université Paris Nanterre; Francia. ; Fil: Ahmed, Oli. University of Chittagong; Bangladesh. ; Fil: Amin, Rizwana. Bahria University; Pakistán. ; Fil: Aquino, Sibele. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. ; Fil: Areias, João Carlos. Universidad de Porto; Portugal. ; Fil: Aruta, John Jamir Benzon R. de la Salle University; Filipinas. ; Fil: Bamwesigye, Dastan. Mendel University in Brno; República Checa. ; Fil: Bavolar, Jozef. Pavol Jozef Safarik University; Eslovaquia. ; Fil: Bender, Andrew R. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Bhandari, Pratik. Universitat Saarland; Alemania. ; Fil: Bircan, Tuba. Vrije Unviversiteit Brussel; Bélgica. ; Fil: Reyna, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina. ; Fil: Reyna Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.
Funder: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONCYT); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100007350 ; Funder: Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) postdoctoral fellowship ; Funder: The HSE University Basic Research Program ; Funder: JSPS KAKENHI Grant JP20K14222 ; Abstract: This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.
The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis. ; Peer reviewed
This study explores how researchers' analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers' expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each team's workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers' results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.
Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated selfreported factors associated with public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the COVID-19 pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = −0.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.
