Content uploaded by Siu Kit Yeung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Siu Kit Yeung on Sep 27, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety
with Little-to-No Concomitant Benefits: Experimental Evidence
from 84 Countries
Charles A. Dorison &Jennifer S. Lerner &Blake H. Heller &Alexander J. Rothman &Ichiro I. Kawachi &Ke Wang, et al. [full
author details at the end of the article]
Received: 8 September 2021 /Accepted: 29 May 2022
#The Society for Affective Science 2022
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the
global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science
research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g.,
“If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps,
you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimen-
tally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed
messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behav-
ioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three
variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical
answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work
demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions.
Keywords Message framing .Anxiety .Nudges .COVID-19
Managing the COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) hinges in
part on effectively communicating health messages to the global
public. One critical question is how to frame such messages,
given widespread evidence from psychology and related fields
that the way in which information is framed can have meaningful
effects on behavior, even when the core information is essentially
the same across distinct frames (for reviews, see Gallagher &
Updegraff, 2012; Rothman et al., 2020). Indeed, in their widely
cited review recommending social and behavioral science appli-
cations for reducing the spread of COVID-19, Van Bavel et al.
(2020) highlighted this very question: “Research is needed to
determine whether a more positive [vs. negative] frame could
educate the public and relieve negative emotions while increas-
ing public health behaviors”(p. 462). More generally, Sunstein
and Thaler (2003, p. 1182) have long argued that “In order to be
effective, any effort to inform people must be rooted in an un-
derstanding of how people actually think. Presentation makes a
great deal of difference: The behavioral consequences of other-
wise identical pieces of information depend on how they are
framed.”In their view, framing constitutes a potentially powerful
nudge—i.e., a way of altering people’s behavior in a predictable
way without changing the underlying incentives (Thaler &
Sunstein, 2009; see also de Bruin & Bostrom, 2013; Downs,
2014).
In the case of COVID-19 health messaging, communica-
tors could emphasize either (a) the benefits of compliance (i.e.,
gain framing) or (b) the costs of non-compliance (i.e., loss
framing) with recommended actions. For example, as
depicted in Fig. 1, the United States Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) website (perhaps unintention-
ally) framed messages in terms of gains, asking the public to:
“Wear a mask. Save lives”(CDC, 2021). However, an alter-
native loss framing might have said: “If you do not wear a
mask, lives may be lost.”
Handling Editor: Phoebe Ellsworth
Erin M. Buchanan and Nicholas A. Coles contributed equally to this
work.
Affective Science
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3
Given the ability of news media, national and international
health organizations, and political leaders to reach wide audi-
ences, message framing effects could save a substantial num-
ber of lives with limited implementation costs. With this pos-
sibility in mind, we conducted an experiment to test the effect
of loss- versus gain-framing of COVID-19-related public
health messages on behavioral intentions, policy attitudes,
and information seeking among participants in 84 countries
during the pandemic. Moreover, we sought to assess the po-
tential benefit of changes on those outcomes against the po-
tential emotional costs that loss (vs. gain) framing might elic-
it.
1
Prior studies suggest that loss frames (versus gain frames)
areassociatedwithrelativelymoreglobalnegativethanpos-
itive affect (Nabi et al., 2020; Gosling et al., 2020). Here, we
chose to examine whether loss (versus gain) framing would
increase participants’anxiety, in particular, given that framing
effects on anxiety have received little to no empirical attention
and that anxiety has the potential to trigger significant health
burdens.
Anxiety, “an emotion characterized by feelings of tension,
worried thoughts, and physical changes like increased blood
pressure”(American Psychological Association, 2021), may take
the form of a temporary state, a chronic trait-like tendency, or a
clinical disorder.
2
Anxiety has been linked with leading causes of
human morbidity and mortality. For example, heightened anxiety
is linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease mortality and
morbidity (e.g., heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; Levine
et al., 2021). It has also been linked to increased reactivity to
losses (Hartley & Phelps, 2012;Xuetal.,2013) and increased
stress hormone secretion (i.e., cortisol), which, when chronic,
diminishes immune function and complicates individuals’ability
to cope with stress (for review, Taylor, 2021). Moreover, the
effect of anxiety on stress hormone secretion may worsen with
age (ó Hartaigh et al., 2012; Otte et al., 2005), potentially putting
elderly individuals who already face heightened risks from
COVID-19 in an even more vulnerable position. While the anx-
iety triggered by exposure to public health messages is likely
mild compared to the levels associated with a clinical disorder,
any potential behavioral benefit from message framing must still
be weighed against a potential emotional cost (intended or
otherwise).
Given the global nature of the pandemic, it is critical to
assess the generalizability of message framing effects on a
global scale. Traditionally, psychological research on human
behavior includes sample populations in western, educated,
industrialized, rich, and democratic societies (i.e., WEIRD
societies; Henrich et al., 2010a,2010b). However, extrapolat-
ing from studies conducted in only a single location may miss
meaningful cross-regional variation in effects. Consequently,
this can lead to incomplete—and even potentially
detrimental—policy recommendations. Thus, rather than
Fig. 1 An example of a public
service announcement from the
CDC. This public service
announcement used gain-framed
messages to encourage mask-
wearing (image from May, 2021)
1
Although behavioral decision researchers studying loss vs. gain framing
have traditionally examined emotional states to understand their influence on
behaviors and attitudes (for reviews, Dorison, Klusowski et al., 2020;Lerner
et al., 2015), they have tended to omit emotion as an outcome in nudge-style
interventions (i.e., interventions that encourage desirable behavior without
restricting choice or introducing economic incentives; Thaler & Sunstein,
2009). For counter-examples, see Allcott & Kessler, 2019;Loewenstein&
O'Donoghue, 2006; Zlatev & Rogers, 2020.
2
Anxiety disorders are ranked as the sixth largest contributor to non-fatal
health loss globally and appear in the top 10 causes of years of healthy life
lost in all WHO Regions (World Health Organization, 2021). We chose anx-
iety not only because it was a focal emotional state heightened by the pandem-
ic (Aknin et al., 2021), but also because of its association with negative down-
stream consequences for coping and for overall health.
Affective Science
assume generalization from a single population, research that
aims to inform global policy recommendations during
COVID-19 should incorporate a global sample (c.f., Bauer,
2019).
Method
We launched a global participant recruitment effort between
April and September 2020, collecting data in 48 languages
from 15,929 participants in 84 countries.
3
Participants were
recruited by (1) research groups affiliated with the
Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA; Moshontz et al.,
2018) and (2) semi-representative research panels. The pres-
ent experiment was bundled with another experiment—also
conducted in collaboration with the PSA, but led by an inde-
pendent research group—that assessed the relative effects of
autonomy-supportive messages vs. controlling messages on
motivation and behavioral intentions relevant to COVID-19.
Participants completed both experiments in a randomized or-
der after completing a pre-study survey that included demo-
graphic questions (for full wording of all questions from the
pre-study survey and relevant descriptive statistics, see
Table 1). The order of the study (first vs. second) did not have
a main effect on any of the dependent variables, although there
was one higher-order interaction with self-reported anxiety
(described below). A third experiment investigated the effect
of cognitive reappraisal, an emotion regulation strategy, and
was conducted concurrently by the PSA with a different sam-
ple of participants (Wang et al., 2021).
In the present experiment, participants were randomly
assigned to read COVID-19 health recommendations adapted
from World Health Organization (WHO) advisories (e.g., so-
cial distancing, mask wearing) that were framed in terms of
losses (e.g., “if you do not practice these four steps, you can
endanger yourself and others”) or gains (e.g., “if you practice
these four steps, you can protect yourself and others”). To
ensure that any observed effects arose from meaningful con-
ceptual differences (as opposed to particular wording; see
Wells & Windschitl, 1999), we also examined three variations
of the framed messages (described below). These variations of
the framed messages were designed to assess generalizability
of loss vs. gain framing across different wordings. As such,
the differences in wording are relatively minor compared to
the more central manipulation of loss vs. gain framing. Thus,
participants were randomly assigned to one of six between-
subjects experimental conditions that varied both the
framing and wording/version of the COVID-19 health
recommendation.
Following the message framing manipulation, we measured
four outcome variables: (1) behavioral intentions to follow
guidelines to prevent COVID-19 transmission, (2) attitudes to-
ward COVID-19 prevention policies, (3) whether participants
chose to seek more information about COVID-19, and (4) self-
reported anxiety. Seeking to create conditions under which one
might detect any systematic effect of framing, we selected scale
responses concerning behavioral intentions and information
seeking as outcome variables. We selected attitudes toward
COVID-19 prevention policies because garnering citizen support
for public policies is a critical ingredient in successfully combat-
ing the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, we measured self-reported
anxiety to assess the extent to which message framing may trig-
ger unintended affective consequences, beyond traditional be-
havioral or policy outcomes.
Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) COVID-19
Rapid Project
We conducted the present experiment as part of a larger PSA
COVID-19 Rapid Project, which involved one pre-study gen-
eral survey and three experiments related to COVID-19
(Forscher et al., 2020). The study and the experiments were
presented online through the formR survey platform (Arslan
et al., 2020). The present experiment was bundled with anoth-
er experiment, both of which participants completed in ran-
dom order after completing the pre-study general survey that
included questions about beliefs and behaviors related to
COVID-19.
Participants
Sample size was primarily determined by the availability of
resources among members of the PSA. Nevertheless, results
from an a-priori power simulation estimating power as a func-
tion of number of countries, number of participants per coun-
try, intraclass correlations, effect sizes, and between-country
variability in effect sizes can be found at https://osf.io/m6q8f/.
After excluding data from participants who (a) had corrupted
data due to technical difficulties, (b) did not provide responses
to our outcomes of interest, or (c) did not indicate their country
of origin, we were left with data from 15,929 participants
(62% female, 37% male, 1% other or non-response, < 1%
other; M
age
=33.70,SD
age
= 14.45), who lived in 84 different
countries and completed the survey in a total of 48 languages.
Participants were recruited either through semi-representative
research panels (n= 5,555) or by PSA research groups (n=
10,374; see Forscher et al., 2020, for more details on sampling
and translations). The survey was conducted during the Spring
and Summer of 2020.
3
For country classification, we relied on standards promoted by the
International Organization for Standardization. Nevertheless, we acknowledge
the presence of ongoing territory disputes that are not reflected in these
standards.
Affective Science
Table 1 Questions, response format, and relevant descriptive statistics of measures in the pre-study survey
Question text Response format Relevant descriptives
In the past seven days, how many times did you go out of
your home or residence?
Open numeric M=7.42,SD =7.1
In the past seven days, what were your reasons for going out
of your home or residence? Please check all that apply.
Multiple choice Work: 41%; Health visits: 16%; Groceries: 70%
Non-essential goods: 21%; Visiting family and friends:
34%; Outdoor physical activity: 32%; Animal care: 12%;
Other: 15
Of the places that you visited in the past seven days, how
many would you characterize as being crowded? Crowded
here means that you could not maintain a 6-feet/2-meter
distance between you and other people.
Numeric (1 = None of
them; 6 = All of them)
M=3.32,SD =1.26
When you have gone out in the past seven days, how often
have you worn a mask for your face?
Numeric (1 = Never; 6 =
All the time)
M=4.44,SD =1.64
If you wore a mask when going outside your home, what type
did you most frequently wear?
Forced choice Cloth mask: 39%; Surgical mask: 33%;
N95/FFP1/P100/other respirator: 6%;
Homemade/makeshift mask: 4%; Unsure: 2%; None:
13%; Not applicable: 4%
In the past seven days, where have you most frequently
directed your coughs and sneezes?
Forced choice Air: 4%; Palms: 8%; Tissue/handkerchief: 10%; Elbow: 42%;
Mask: 9%; Not applicable: 28%
Different cities and regions around the world are placing
differentlevels of restrictions ontheir residents to slow the
spread of COVID-19. Which of these options best
describes the restrictions that are currently in place in your
area?
Forced choice Total lockdown: 12%; Partial lockdown: 60%; No lockdown:
28%
How difficult do you find the level of restrictions in your area
to manage?
Numeric (1 = Not at all
difficult, 5 =
Extremely difficult)
M=2.24,SD =1.12
I live in a country where the central government provides
honest and helpful guidance about issues related to public
health.
Numeric (1 = Strongly
disagree, 7 = Strongly
agree)
M=4.67,SD =1.91
I live in a city or region where the local government provides
honest and helpful guidance about issues related to public
health.
Numeric (1 = Strongly
disagree, 7 = Strongly
agree)
M=4.74,SD =1.78
To what degree are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the
current policies of your national government to slow the
spread of COVID-19?
Numeric (1 = Extremely
dissatisfied, 7 =
Extremely satisfied)
M=4.24,SD =1.72
Have you ever been tested for COVID-19? Forced choice Yes, tested positive: 1%; Yes, tested negative, but diagnosed
positive: 1%; Yes, tested negative, not diagnosed positive:
7%; No, diagnosed positive: 3%; No: 88%
Are you currently self-isolating due to flu-like or cold-like
symptoms?
Forced choice Yes: 5%; No: 95%
To the best of your knowledge, have you been exposed to
anyone known or suspected of having COVID-19 within
the past two weeks?
Forced choice Yes: 7%; No: 93%
How confident are you about your understanding of how
COVID-19 spreads?
Numeric (1 = Not at all
confident, 5 =
Extremely confident)
M=3.6,SD =1
Based on your current daily routine, how confident are you
that you can prevent yourself from catching or spreading
COVID-19?
Numeric (1 = Not at all
confident, 5 =
Extremely confident)
M=3.32,SD =1.05
How worried are you that your physical well-being will get
worse over the next two weeks?
Numeric (1 = Not at all
worried, 5 =
Extremely worried)
M=1.99,SD =1.08
How worried are you that your emotional well-being will get
worse over the next two weeks?
Numeric (1 = Not at all
worried, 5 =
Extremely worried)
M=2.23,SD =1.24
How did you receive this survey? Forced choice Research agency: 20%; University pool: 29%; Friends or
family: 17%; Social media: 27%; Other: 7%
How would you describe your current employment? Forced choice Employed with current income: 46%; Employed without
current income: 6%; Not employed with current income:
15%; Not employed without current income: 32%
Affective Science
Procedure
Independent Variables
Participants were randomly assigned to view loss- or gain-
framed versions of four recommendations related to
COVID-19 adapted from the WHO in Spring 2020. These
recommendations related to (1) staying home (unless abso-
lutely necessary), (2) avoiding all shops other than necessary
ones (such as for food), (3) wearing a mouth and nose cover-
ing in public at all times, and (4) completely isolating if ex-
posed to COVID-19. All participants viewed four similarly
worded recommendations—but were randomly assigned to
view either a loss- or gain-framed message. To examine
whether our conclusions generalize across multiple variants
of framed messages, we created three different versions of
each frame (see Wells & Windschitl, 1999,formore
information on the importance of this stimulus sampling
approach). Thus, the experiment took the form of a 2
(Framing: gain, loss) × 3 (Version: Version 1, Version 2,
Version 3) between-subjects factorial design, featuring the
following messages:
&Gain/Version 1:“There is so much to gain. If you practice
these four steps, you can protect yourself and others.”
&Gain/Version 2:“You have so much to gain. You can
protect yourself and others if you practice these four
steps.”
&Gain/Version 3:“There is so much to gain. Practicing
these four steps can help you stay healthy and protect the
health of others.”
&Loss/Version 1:“There is so much to lose. If you do not
practice these four steps, you can endanger yourself and
others.”
&Loss/Version 2:“Youhavesomuchtolose.Youcan
endanger yourself and others if you do not practice these
four steps.”
&Loss/Version 3:“There is so much to lose. You can get
sick and endanger the health of others if you do not prac-
tice these four steps.”
The four recommendations and dependent variables were
displayed for all participants, with the message frame and ver-
sion type varied by condition. The manipulated message ap-
peared at the top of the pages displaying each recommendation
and instructions when completing the outcome variables.
Manipulation Check
At the end of the survey, participants completed a manipula-
tion check. We asked participants which of the following
phrases, if any, they recalled reading during the survey: (a)
There is so much to gain. You can stay healthy and protect
others by...; (b) There is so much to lose. You can avoid losing
your health and avoid endangering others by...”; or (c) neither.
Table 1 (continued)
Question text Response format Relevant descriptives
If you are employed, would you describe your current
employment as providing an essential service during the
pandemic? Essential services include roles for which
interruptions would pose a danger to community health
and safety.
Forced choice Yes: 21%; No: 36%; Not employed: 43%
How old are you, in years? Open numeric M=33.59,SD =14.51
What is your gender? Forced choice Female: 62%; Male: 37%; Other: 0%; Decline: 0%
What is the highest degree or level of school you have
completed? If currently enrolled, please indicate highest
level received.
Forced choice Less than high school: 2%; High school: 27%; Some college:
14%; Two year degree: 16%; Four year degree: 27%;
Professional degree: 12%; Doctorate: 2%; Unknown: 0%
How would you describe the community where you're
staying?
Forced choice Urban: 56%; Suburban: 28%; Rural: 16%
Including you, how many members are there in your
residence or household?
Open numeric M=3.68,SD =2.45
Of all the members, including you, how many have existing
health conditions, such as heart or lung disease, diabetes, or
a chronic illness?
Open numeric M=1.63,SD =1.52
On which rung would you place yourself on this
[socioeconomic status] ladder?
Numeric (1 = lowest,
10 = highest)
M=5.76,SD =1.8
Affective Science
Exact wording varied to match the precise wording across the
six conditions.
Dependent Variables
After reading the four recommendations (with message
framing varied by condition), participants completed three
self-report questionnaires: behavioral intentions to follow
guidelines to prevent COVID-19 transmission, attitudes
toward COVID-19 prevention policies, and self-reported
anxiety (described below). Afterwards, participants com-
pleted a behavioral measure, wherein they indicated
whether they would be interested in learning more infor-
mation about safe practices regarding COVID-19 (and
were thus directed to the WHO website). Full wording of
all items are presented in Table 2. While the questions
themselves were identical across conditions, participants
received different instructions depending on their
randomly-assigned condition. For example, for the behav-
ioral intention questionnaire, participants in the gain/
version 1 condition saw: “Stay healthy and protect others.
Thereissomuchtogain.Weareinterestedinhowyou
yourself will respond in the coming week in order to stay
healthy and protect others.”Participants in the loss/version
1 condition saw: “Avoid losing your health and avoid en-
dangering others. We are interested in how you yourself
will respond in the coming week in order to avoid losing
your health and avoid endangering others.”The presenta-
tion order of the dependent variables was held constant for
all participants.
Table 2 Outcome variables, question text, and response format for the main survey
Outcome
variable
Item Response format
Behavioral
Intentions
In the coming two weeks, if there is an order to stay at home at all
times except times deemed essential, how likely are you to follow
that order?
7-point scale with the following points: Extremely unlikely,
moderately unlikely, slightly unlikely, neither likely nor
unlikely, slightly likely, moderately likely, extremely likely
Behavioral
Intentions
In the coming two weeks, if you are taking care of someone who is
sick with COVID-19, how likely are you to wear a mouth and
nose covering (such as a mask) in public at all times?
7-point scale with the following points: Extremely unlikely,
moderately unlikely, slightly unlikely, neither likely nor
unlikely, slightly likely, moderately likely, extremely likely
Behavioral
Intentions
In the coming two weeks, if you notice yourself coughing and
sneezing, how likely are you to wear a mouth and nose covering
(suchasamask)inpublicatalltimes?
7-point scale with the following points: Extremely unlikely,
moderately unlikely, slightly unlikely, neither likely nor
unlikely, slightly likely, moderately likely, extremely likely
Behavioral
Intentions
In the coming two weeks, if you think you may have been exposed
to COVID-19, how likelyare you to completely isolate yourself?
7-point scale with the following points: Extremely unlikely,
moderately unlikely, slightly unlikely, neither likely nor
unlikely, slightly likely, moderately likely, extremely likely
Policy support
(individual
autonomy)
Government health officials should allow individuals to determine
how best to deal with the present COVID-19 pandemic
7-point scale with the following points: Strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree
Policy support
(individual
autonomy)
Individuals, not governments, should decide how best to act during
the COVID-19 pandemic
7-point scale with the following points: Strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree
Policy support
(government
power)
Government health officials should authorize law enforcement to
fine anyone who violates restrictions to slow the spread of
COVID-19
7-point scale with the following points: Strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree
Policy support
(government
power)
Government health officials should do everything in their power to
address the spread of COVID-19, even if it severely limits daily
activities for citizens
7-point scale with the following points: Strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree
Policy support
(government
power)
Government health officials should decide how long social
distancing practices stay in place
7-point scale with the following points: Strongly disagree,
moderately disagree, slightly disagree, neither agree nor
disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree
Anxiety To what extent do you feel anxious when considering these
recommendations?
5-point scale with the following points: not at all, slightly,
moderately, very much, extremely
Anxiety To what extent do you feel afraid when considering these
recommendations?
5-point scale with the following points: not at all, slightly,
moderately, very much, extremely
Anxiety To what extent do you feel fearful when considering these
recommendations?
5-point scale with the following points: not at all, slightly,
moderately, very much, extremely
Information
seeking
At the end of the study today, would you like to learn the latest
reliable information about COVID-19?
binary response: yes, no
Affective Science
For the outcome variables, we created ad-hoc face-valid mea-
sures and relied on exploratory analyses to assess internal consis-
tency and convergent validity (see “Results”section).
4
Participants
first indicated their intentions to engage in a variety of COVID-19
preventative behaviors (adapted from WHO recommendations at
the time of survey launch in Spring 2020). Specifically, partici-
pants indicated how likely they were to (1) stay at home at all
times unless absolutely necessary, (2) avoid all shops other than
necessary ones (such as for food), (3) wear a mouth and nose
covering (such as a mask) in public at all times, and (4) completely
isolate themselves if they think they have been exposed to
COVID-19. The four questions were presented in a randomized
order and all responses were on a 7-point scale (1 = Extremely
unlikely to 7 = Extremely likely).
Of note, we observed an unexpected J-shaped distribution in
behavioral intentions—wherein a large majority of participants
indicated very strong intentions to engage in protective behaviors
(M=6.47,SD = 0.91 on a 7-point scale). In the SI,wediscuss
potential explanations for, and additional analyses regarding, the
restriction of range. Despite the restriction of range (and thus
smaller-than-expected variation in the measure), behavioral inten-
tions were still correlated with other variables in the convergent
validity analyses (rs from .04 to .35;described in “Results”section
below). Furthermore, we did not observe a restriction of range in
the other continuous outcomes: attitudes about policies that em-
power individuals (M= 3.46, SD =1.93ona7-pointscale),
attitudes about policies that extend government power (M=
5.67, SD = 1.31 on a 7-point scale), and anxiety (M= 2.44, SD
= 1.17 on a 5-point scale). Concerns about restrictions of range
also were not applicable to the measure of information seeking
(25% no, 75% yes).
After responding to the behavioral intention items, partici-
pants reported their attitudes toward five statements regarding
COVID-19 prevention policies. The policy attitude items fo-
cused on trade-offs between individual rights and collective
security. Two statements emphasized individual rights and
autonomy (e.g., “Individuals, not governments, should decide
how best to act during the COVID-19 pandemic”), whereas
the other three statements emphasizedcollective security (e.g.,
“Government health officials should do everything in their
power to address the spread of COVID-19, even if it severely
limits daily activities for citizens”). The five questions were
presented in a randomized order and all responses were on a 7-
point scale (1 = Strongly disagree to 7 = Strongly agree).
Next, the survey asked participants to indicate the extent to
which they felt anxious, afraid, and fearful when considering
the COVID-19 health recommendations. The three questions
were presented in a randomized order and all responses were
on 5-point scales (1 = Not at all to 5 = Extremely).
Last, participants were asked if they would like to learn more
information about COVID-19. (All participants, regardless of stat-
ed preference, received additional information about COVID-19
at the end of the study.) A one-item question asked participants:
“At the end of the study today, would you like to learn the latest
reliable information about COVID-19?”The dependent variable
was assessed as a binary variable (Yes, No).
Ethics
All participating research groups either obtained approval
from their host institution’s ethics committee, indicated that
their institution did not require approval to conduct thistype of
experiment, or indicated that the experiment was covered by a
preexisting ethics approval. All participants provided in-
formed consent.
Results
First, we report a set of preliminary analyses concerning the
manipulation check, internal consistency of scales, and con-
vergent validity among variables. Next, we report the results
of our inferential analyses. Finally, we report additional ex-
ploratory analyses regarding anxiety. Data, code, materials,
power simulation details, and the pre-registered analysis plan
for this experiment are available at https://osf.io/m6q8f/.
Preliminary Analyses
Manipulation Check
Results revealed that 73% of participants correctly identified
their condition from among three different response options
(gain message, loss message, or neither). In order to be con-
servative, and to keep with our pre-registration plan, we re-
ported results with the full (Intent to Treat) sample even
though 27% of participants did not correctly identify which
treatment they received. Importantly, however, the pattern of
results was similar when we restricted the sample to just the
portion of the sample that passed the manipulation check (see
SI for more information).
Internal Consistency of Outcome Measures
Internal consistency for both the four-item behavioral inten-
tion and three-item self-reported anxiety measures was appro-
priate (α> .78, average inter-item r> .47). The internal con-
sistency of the five-item policy support measure, however,
was lower than expected (α= .67; average inter-item r=
.29). Thus, per our pre-registration plan, we performed an
exploratory factor analysis. This exploratory factor analysis
used varimax rotation and a minimal residual factoring
4
Unfortunately, due to the time pressure to launch this international data
collection effort at the onset of the global pandemic, we did not have time to
pretest the stimuli for the study.
Affective Science
method to identify two distinct subgroups of items: support for
(1) policiesthat empower individuals to make decisions about
COVID-19 (two items; α= .74; average inter-item r=.59),
and (2) policies that extend governments’ability to stop the
spread of COVID-19 (three items; α= .77; average inter-item
r= .53). These two scales were weakly and negatively corre-
lated (r=−.15, p< .001), and we analyzed the two subscales
separately. Our behavioral measure of information-seeking
was a single item and thus internal consistency analyses are
not applicable.
Convergent Validity of Outcome Variables
We examined the extent to which our outcome measures were
associated with conceptually-related variables. To do so, we
(a) post-hoc identified conceptually-related variables from the
pre-study general survey, and (b) examined the extent to
which they were associated with the outcome variables.
Notably, these general survey items were administered before
the present study (and thus were not affected by participants’
experience in the study). In all cases, we observed associations
in the anticipated direction (ps < .001) that ranged from very
small (|r| = .04) to medium (|r| = .35) in size. For example,
behavioral intentions were positively associated with the self-
reported number of times that participants had recently worn a
mask (r=.28,p< .001; see SI for more detail).
Inferential Analyses
We first modeled each outcome variable using linear (for con-
tinuous variables) or logistic (for dichotomized variables)
mixed-effects regression with message framing entered as an
effect-coded factor, country-level random intercepts, and
country-level random slopes. For all outcomes besides behav-
ioral intentions, country-level random slopes led to singular
fits and were subsequently removed. These convergence is-
sues provided preliminary evidence that the estimated effects
of message framing on our outcomes of interest were consis-
tent across countries. To facilitate comparisons across out-
comes, we also estimated the overall message framing effects
using random-effects meta-analysis. For the meta-analysis, we
used Cohen’sdas the effect size index, wherein positive
values indicated higher levels of the outcome variables in
the loss- (vs. gain-) framed conditions.
5
Effects on Behavioral Intentions, Policy Support,
and Information Seeking
Our first set of analyses tested the effect of message framing
on behavioral intentions, attitudes toward two types of poli-
cies, and information seeking. Results indicated that framing
messages in terms of losses vs. gains had extremely small,
non-significant effects on (1) intentions to engage in protec-
tive behavior a 0.03 increase on a 7-point scale; F(1, 35.17) =
2.70, p=.110,d=0.03,95%CI[−0.01, 0.07], τ
2
=0.005;(2)
support for policies that empower individuals to make deci-
sions about COVID-19 a 0.01increase on a 7-point scale; F(1,
15871) = 0.05, p=.826,d= 0.004, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.04], τ
2
≈
0; (3) support for policies that extend governments’ability to
stop the spread of COVID-19 a 0.04 increase on a 7-point
scale; F(1, 15877) = 3.46, p= .063, d= 0.03, 95% CI
[0.002, 0.06], τ
2
≈0; and (4) the probability that par-
ticipants sought additional information about COVID-19
(a 1.2% point decrease; z=−1.80, p=.071,d=−
0.008, 95% CI [−0.02, 0.004], τ
2
≈0). Notably, the
low τ
2
values suggest that the estimated effects of mes-
sage framing on our outcomes of interest were consis-
tent across countries (see Fig. 2).
While we found little evidence of between-country hetero-
geneity in the effects of message framing on behavioral inten-
tions, attitudes, and information seeking, we next examined
whether these estimated effects were moderated by methodo-
logical features of the study, such as (a) the version of the
framed message (versions 1–3), (b) the sampling pool (panel,
non-panel), and (c) the order in which participants completed
the two bundled studies (present experiment first, present ex-
periment second). To do so, we separately added each
moderator-of-interest and its higher-order interaction with
message framing as effect-coded factors in the mixed-effects
models described above. Results did not indicate that the mes-
sage framing effects interacted with any of the moderators of
interest (ps > .138).
To probe the robustness of the estimated effects of message
framing on behavioral intentions, attitudes, and information
seeking, we performed exploratory multiverse analyses (also
sometimes described as a specification-curve analysis;
Simonsohn et al., 2020; Steegen et al., 2016).
6
The present
multiverse analyses examined how 398 justifiable approaches
to data processing and modeling affected our conclusions.
5
For dichotomous outcomes (i.e., information seeking), we converted log
odds ratios to Cohen’sds (Borenstein et al., 2009). Countries without at least
one observation in each of the conditions were excluded from the meta-
analysis.
6
Such multiverse analyses acknowledge that (1) there are often many justifi-
able approaches to processing and modeling data, (2) justifiable differences in
the processing and modeling of data can change the inferences one might draw
from the data, (3) examining different data processing and modeling ap-
proaches helps probe the robustness of a set of results, and (4) reporting how
differentdata processing and modeling approaches impact results can improve
the transparency and credibility of research findings (Lebel et al., 2018). In the
main text, we describe the results of multiverse analysis models that con-
verged. Nevertheless, we describe the results ofadditional analytic approaches
that yielded model convergence issues in the SI.
Affective Science
Most approaches indicated that message framing did not im-
pact intentions to engage in protective behavior (87% of
models) or support for COVID-19-related policies (67% of
models). In the scenarios where the estimated message fram-
ing effects were significant, the magnitudes were extremely
small (i.e., less than a 0.06 change on a 7-point behavioral
intentionsmeasure; less than a 0.20 change in a 7-point policy
support measure). Many justifiable data processing and ana-
lysis approaches did indicate that framing messages in terms
of losses (vs. gains) decreased information seeking (80% of
models). However, in these scenarios, the magnitude was
small (i.e., less than a 4% point decrease in the probability
of seeking information; see SI for more information).
Effects on Self-Reported Anxiety
The next set of analyses examined whether loss-framed vs.
gain-framed messages had a differential impact on self-
reported anxiety. Results indicated that participants reported
higher levels of anxiety after being exposed to loss- (M=2.58,
SD = 1.18) vs. gain-framed (M=2.30,SD = 1.14) messages,
F(1, 15881) = 253.67, p<.001,d= 0.25, 95% CI [0.21, 0.29],
τ
2
= 0.007. Once again, the low τ
2
value suggests that the
estimated effect of message framing on anxiety was consistent
across countries (see Fig. 2).
To assess these anxiety results in terms of practical per-
spective, we estimated the association between (a) self-
reported personal exposure to COVID-19 (a presumably
anxiety-producing event that was measured as a binary vari-
able in the pre-study survey), and (b) experienced anxiety after
the framing manipulation. The estimated effect of message
framing on anxiety was nearly 1.5 times the size of the esti-
mated association between actual exposure to COVID-19 and
anxiety (which was associated with a 0.19 increase on the 5-
point anxiety measure). Thus, in practical terms, the effect of
message framing on anxiety appeared substantial. That being
said, comparing the size of these relationships could be com-
plicated by the fact that people who were exposed to COVID-
19 and avoided negative outcomes could have decreased
(rather than increased) anxiety.
7
Future research is needed to
further benchmark the relative size of loss- vs. gain-framing
on self-reported anxiety.
Similar to the analyses of the other outcome variables, we
next examined whether the estimated effect of framing on
anxiety was moderated by methodological features of the
study. Results did not indicate that the effect of message fram-
ing on anxiety was moderated by the version of the message (p
= .368) or the sampling pool (p= .799). This implies that the
Fig. 2 Loss-framed vs. gain-framed messages regarding COVID-19 in-
fluenced anxiety but not behavioral intentions, policy support, or infor-
mation seeking. Cohen’sdwas used as the effect size, with positive
values indicating higher levels of the outcome variable in the loss-
framed vs. gain-framed condition. Dots and bars represent the effect size
estimates and 95% confidence intervals respectively. Country-level effect
size estimates are denoted in black and overall effect size estimates are
denoted in yellow. Country names are denoted by their International
Organization for Standardization codes. To improve the viewability of
the x-axis, 40 countries with fewer than 30 participants per group (i.e.,
relatively wide error bars) are removed from the plot. Nevertheless, these
countries are still included in the overall effect size estimates
7
We thank the review team for this point.
Affective Science
underlying construct itself (loss vs. gain framing), rather than
the particular wording associated with any instantiation of it,
drives the effects. Inconsequentially, the message framing ef-
fect was moderated by the order in which participants com-
pleted the study, F(1, 15880) = 4.35, p= .037. Follow-up
contrasts indicated that the effect of framing on anxiety was
slightly larger when participants completed our study second
(where message framing led to a 0.32 shift on the 5-point
anxiety measure) vs. first (where message framing led to a
0.24 shift in the anxiety measure). It could be the case that
completingthe other study first (which also asked participants
to read COVID-19 health messaging) heightened attention to
COVID-19, and thus magnified the anxiety effects observed
in the present data. Importantly, however, the observed effect
of message framing on anxiety was significant regardless of
the order of the studies (both ps < .0001) and the moderation
by study order was relatively inconsequential in size com-
pared to the overall effect of loss- vs. gain-framing.
Finally, we conducted a multiverse analysis to examine
how 162 justifiable approaches to data processing and model-
ing affected our conclusions about anxiety. Strikingly, all 162
justifiable data processing and modeling approaches exam-
ined in the multiverse analysis indicated that framing mes-
sages in terms of losses (vs. gains) significantly increased
anxiety (all ps < .001; all mean differences > 0.21). These
results suggest that the inferences regarding the effects of
message framing on anxiety are robust across a wide variety
of justifiable analytic decisions.
Additional Analyses Regarding Pre-Study Worry
Our analyses to this point have examined anxiety in response
to the framed messages. However, the pre-study survey also
included two items assessing anxiety-relevant states: worry
regarding one’s physical and emotional health. Both items
were moderately correlated (r= .58) and answered on 5-
pointscales(1=Notatallworried,5=Extremelyworried).
For simplicity, we averaged the two items and refer to this
combined index as pre-study worry. (Statistical significance
of results remains unchanged when we analyze the two items
separately.)
In order to be maximally comprehensive, we conducted a
set of exploratory (post-hoc) analyses concerning whether loss
(vs. gain) framing would exert differential effects on any of
the four outcome variables for individuals higher (vs. lower)
on pre-study worry. That is, we tested whether pre-study wor-
ry moderated any of the message framing effects documented
above. To test this possibility, we modeled each outcome var-
iable with (a) frame entered as an effect-coded factor, (b) pre-
study worry entered mean-centered, (c) their higher-order in-
teraction, and (d) random intercepts for country. For behav-
ioral intentions, policy support, and post-study anxiety, we
used linear mixed-effect models; for information seeking, we
used a logistic mixed-effect model. For all outcomes, there
was not a significant interaction between message framing
and pre-study worry (p> .43), suggesting that the effect of
message framing did not depend on levels of pre-study worry.
Summary
While framing messages in terms of loss (versus gain) con-
ferred little-to-no measured benefits, such loss framing
exerted moderately sized and extremely consistent costs in
terms of increased state anxiety (see Fig. 2). Moreover, the
results for anxiety appeared consistent across countries, mes-
sage wording, sampling pool, study order, and analytic
choices—increasing confidence about generalizability.
Discussion
The COVID-19 pandemic (andits aftermath) highlights a crit-
ical need to effectively communicate health information to the
global public. It also highlights the importance of rapidly test-
ing psychological interventions on a global scale. We exper-
imentally tested the differential effects of framing messages in
terms of losses vs. gains on COVID-19-related behavioral
intentions, policy attitudes, information seeking, and experi-
enced anxiety.
Results indicated that message framing had little-to-no
measurable benefit for behavioral intentions, policy attitudes,
or information seeking, but did have a significant emotional
cost in terms of increased anxiety. These results were consis-
tent across 84 countries, three variations of the message fram-
ing wording, across semi-representative and non-
representative samples, across survey order, and across 560
data processing and analytic choices. Taken together, these
results imply that the conceptual difference between loss-
and gain-framing accounts for its effect on anxiety (rather than
any particular phrasing of stimuli, culturally specific connota-
tion, methodological feature, or data analytic approach).
The effect of message framing on anxiety when reading
loss- vs. gain-framed health recommendations was nearly
1.5 times the size of the association between self-reported
personal exposure to COVID-19 and anxiety when reading
the health messages, revealing the important practical impact
of loss framing. Because heightened anxiety has been associ-
ated with major causes of morbidity and mortality, diminished
coping abilities, and neuroendocrine dysregulation, the
heightened levels of anxiety under loss-framed messages rep-
resent an important outcome. Of course, the anxiety triggered
in our study was relatively mild compared to acute levels
associated with clinically-diagnosable anxiety disorders.
Indeed, the average post-treatment anxiety was quite low in
both framing conditions (2.58/5 and 2.30/5 for the loss and
gain conditions, respectively). Nevertheless, public health
Affective Science
communicators should benefit from learning that gain-framed
messages COVID-19 messages are at least as effective as loss-
framed messages in their impact onbehavioral intentions, pol-
icy attitudes, and information seeking behavior—but induce
significantly less anxiety at a population level.
While some commentators have urged organizations to
“scare people”when communicating COVID-19 health infor-
mation (e.g., in the New York Times;Rosenthal,2020), the
present results cast doubt on the wisdom of reminding people
how much they stand to lose during the pandemic. Despite
eliciting higher levels of anxiety, loss-framed (vs. gain-
framed) messages did not meaningfully change behavioral
intentions, information seeking behavior, or policy attitudes
in the context of COVID-19. Admittedly, literature on fear
appeals is nuanced (e.g., Kok et al., 2018;Petersetal.,
2018). But because the present study is the largest and most
globally representative study ever conducted on message
framing and anxiety, there is compelling evidence that trig-
gering anxiety through COVID-19 messaging does not im-
prove behavioral intentions, attitudes, or actual behavior—at
least in this context.
More generally, the present results contribute to a nascent
literature broadening the scope of behavioral decision (nudge-
style) interventions beyond strictly behavioral outcomes.
Fields such as public health and health psychology have long
considered affective states to be crucial outcome variables in
and of themselves (e.g., Epel et al., 2018;Mikelsetal.,2016;
Taylor, 2021). The field of communication has also begun to
consider affect as both an outcome itself and as a mediator of
behavioral outcomes (Hameleers, 2021; Wong et al., 2013;
Nabi et al., 2020). In the present work, we build both on these
fields, and on emerging literature in behavioral decision re-
search (Allcott & Kessler, 2019; Haushofer et al., 2021;Zlatev
& Rogers, 2020), to propose that emotional consequences
should be considered when evaluating the costs vs. benefits
of nudge-style interventions (c.f., Glaeser, 2005).
8
In the pres-
ent case, under an expanded cost-benefit analysis that includes
emotional consequences (c.f. Dukes et al., 2021), messages
framed in terms of gains appear superior (for related
discussion, see Loewenstein & O'Donoghue, 2006).
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite its global scope, the present experiment features some
methodological limitations. First, it remains unknown whether
sustained framing interventions (rather than single shot) could
have stronger effects. Given that the measures rely on self-
report and that the anxiety effects are measured immediately
(rather than over time), it is unclear to what extent such effects
would persist outside of the specific experimental context.
Second, the behavioral intentions variable exhibited restric-
tion of range, which may have contributed to diminishing a
message framing effect. However, behavioral intentions had
sufficient variance to correlate with other expected predictors
in the study (e.g., self-reported mask wearing), providing
some evidence that the range was not sufficiently limited to
preclude the detection of meaningful relationships. Moreover,
we did not observe restrictions of range on policy attitudes and
information seeking (variables that we similarly did not find
affected by message framing).
A few future directions merit note. Most centrally, future
research is needed to understand the lack of differential effects
of loss vs. gain message framing on behavioral intentions,
policy support, and information seeking. Perhaps the strongest
explanation for why loss-gain framing shows substantial ef-
fects in other contexts—but not here—is because the present
set-up differs substantially from classic loss-gain work on risk
preferences. In canonical risk preference paradigms (e.g.,
Dorison & Heller, 2022; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979;
Ruggeri et al., 2020; Tversky & Kahneman, 1991), partici-
pants are confronted with choices between a sure option and
a risky gamble. Importantly, probabilities for each option are
provided. Prior research identifies a robust effect that general-
izes across contexts: people are typically risk-averse when the
choice options are presented as losses but risk-seeking when
choice options are presented as gains. Our paradigm intention-
ally deviated from this large body of research on loss-gain
framing effects on risk preferences. In the present paradigm,
probabilities were unknown and participants were not present-
ed with a choice between a sure option and a risky gamble
because it would have been unrealistic to provide known
probabilities about the pandemic. Thus, the present paradigm
follows more directly from research in the health psychol-
ogy literature that compares health actions associated with
gains (e.g., wearing sunscreen to clear skin) vs. inaction
associated with losses (e.g., not wearing sunscreen to skin
cancer). This literature has yielded mixed results
(Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Rothman & Sheeran, 2021)
for the effects of framing, suggesting that key moderators
remain to be identified (for reviews, see Levin et al.,
1998;van’tRietetal.,2016).
There is at least one study,however, that used a reasonably
comparable paradigm but which found divergent results:
Abhyankar et al. (2008) found a loss-frame advantage on in-
tentions to obtain the MMR vaccine for one’schild.Itcould
be the case that the effects of loss- vs. gain-message framing
differ when assessing health intentions for oneself vs. another
person, especially when the other person is a child under one’s
care. Additional possibilities include that there may be some-
thing specific about an unfolding (and highly uncertain) pan-
demic that blunted such effects or that the gain/loss manipu-
lations were weaker in the present study.
8
This idea is not new. Economist Jeremy Bentham’s original (1879) concep-
tion of utility emphasized happiness as “the greatest good”(for discussion, see
Lerner et al., 2022).
Affective Science
Four additional future directions merit note. First, fol-
lowing from the point above, while we found limited het-
erogeneity by country, future research could explore het-
erogeneity in the effect of message framing across other
dimensions (e.g., such as the tightness vs. looseness of the
culture; Gelfand et al., 2021; Uskul et al., 2009). Indeed,
it could be the case that our operationalization of country
was limited by the manner in which we sampled partici-
pants. Second, while we also found limited heterogeneity
in the effect of message framing across the different ver-
sions of loss and gain framing, future research could ex-
amine additional versions of these messages (e.g., self- vs.
other-focused messages). Third, while we conducted an
initial set of analyses with the pre-study survey (focused
on pre-study worry), future research could test a more
comprehensive set of hypotheses using these data.
Finally, while the present work expanded the scope of
nudge-style outcomes beyond behavior to include anxiety,
future research is needed to further integrate emotional
outcomes (both immediate and long-term) into cost-
benefit calculations for implementing nudge-style inter-
ventions (e.g., framing). Not only does the subjective ex-
perience of emotion matter in and of itself (anxiety creates
suffering) but also the myriad effects of emotion on health
(e.g., Emdin et al., 2016; Kubzansky & Kawachi, 2020)
and health behavior (e.g., Dorison, Wang et al., 2020;
Dorison, Klusowski et al., 2020;Ferreretal.,2020)mat-
ter as well.
Conclusion
In a global experiment spanning 84 countries and nearly
16,000 participants, loss vs. gain message framing had a wide-
spread effect on self-reported anxiety while exerting no nota-
ble effects on cognitive and behavioral outcomes related to the
COVID-19 pandemic. To the extent that policymakers and
health organizations aim to minimize anxiety during a pan-
demic that has engendered high levels of stress and illness, our
results provide evidence that gain framing may be superior to
loss framing in communicating COVID-19 prevention mes-
sages. The results hold theoretical implications for multiple
literatures, including research on health message framing, so-
cial influence, affective science, and public policy. More gen-
erally, the results underscore the lesson that, for policymakers
and health organizations, large-scale collaborations can pro-
vide empirical answers to global questions (Coles et al., 2022;
Forscher et al., in press), freeing communicators from having
to rely on either intuition or speculation about applications of
theory in particular contexts (c.f., Haushofer & Metcalf,
2020).
Additional Information
Funding Statement This work was supported by the following sources:
National Science Foundation (SES-1559511; J.S. Lerner); National Institutes
of Health/National Cancer Institute (RO1-CA-224545; V.W. Rees; also J.S.
Lerner); European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program,
grant agreement No 769595 (Z. Chen); JSPS KAKENHI 16H03079,
17H00875, 18K12015, and 20H04581 (Y. Yamada); Research Grant
EDUHK 28611118 awarded to W. Law by the Research Grant Council,
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China; the Japanese
Psychological Association, Grant for research and practical activities related
to the spread of the novel coronavirus to (T. Ishii; K. Ihaya); Social Sciences
and Humanities Research Council of Canada (# 950-224884; T. Gill);
Program FUTURE LEADER of Lorraine Université d’Excellence within
the program Investissements Avenir (ANR-15-IDEX-04-LUE) operated by
the French National Research Agency (S. Massoni); the Portuguese National
Foundation for Science and Technology (UID/PSI/03125/2020; R.R.
Ribeiro); the Australian Research Council (DP180102384; R.M. Ross); a
PhD grant from Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (PD/BD/150570/
2020; R. Oliveira); a French National Research Agency ―Investissements
d’avenir‖program grant (ANR-15-IDEX-02) awarded to Hans IJzerman
(supporting P.S. Forscher); VIDI Grant 452-17-013 from the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (P.M. Isager); Slovak Research and
Development Agency APVV-20-0319 (P. Kačmár); the Slovak Research
and Development (project number APVV-17-0418; P. Babinčák); the
Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology (UID/PSI/
03125/2020; P. Arriaga); the Huo Family Foundation (N. Johannes); the
research program ―Dipartimenti di Eccellenza‖from MIUR to the
Department of General Psychology of the University of Padua (N. Cellini;
G. Mioni); CAPES (Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível
Superior), number PNPD 3002010037P0 –MEC/CAPES (M.A. Varella);
Charles University Research Programme "Progres" Q18 (M. Vranka); Polish
National Science Center & DFG Beethoven grant (2016/23/G/HS6/01775;
M. Parzuchowski); the Foundation for Polish Science (; A. Groyecka-
Bernard); the National Science Centre (2020/36/T/HS6/00256; M. Misiak;
2020/36/T/HS6/00254; A. Groyecka-Bernard); IDN Being Human Lab,
University of Wroclaw (M. Misiak, A. Sorokowska, P. Sorokowski);
Slovak Research and Development Agency APVV-18-0140 (M.
Martončik); Slovak Research and Development Agency APVV-17-0596
(M. Hruška); Slovak Research and Development Agency APVV-20-0319
(M. Adamkovič); Rubicon Grant (019.183SG.007) from the Netherlands
Organisation for Scientific Research (K. van Schie); the National Science
Centre, Poland (UMO-2019/35/B/HS6/00528; K. Barzykowski); the statuto-
ry funds of the Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University (M.
Kossowska, P. Szwed, G. Czarnek), ANID Millennium Science Initiative
/Millennium Institute for Research on Depression and Personality-MIDAP
ICS13_005 FONDECYT 1221538 (J.R. Silva); Knut and Alice Wallenberg
Foundation (2016:0229; J.K. Olofsson); the Slovak Research and
Development Agency APVV-15-0662 (J.Benka); the Sherwin Early Career
Professor in the Rock Ethics Institute (J.A. Soto); Penn State's Office of the
Senior Faculty Mentor (J.A. Soto); German National Academic Foundation
(J. Berkessel); the Scientific Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic under the
grant No. VEGA 1/0748/19 (J. Bavolar); Chair for Public Trust in Health,
Grenoble Ecole de Management (I. Ziano); PRIMUS/20/HUM/009 (I.
Ropovik); Tufts University (H. Urry); the National Institute of Mental
Health T32MN018931 (H. Moshontz); APVV-17-0418 (G. Banik); J.
William Fulbright Program (F. Azevedo); the Innovational Research
Incentives Scheme Veni from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific
Research—Division for the Social Sciences 451-15-028 (E.S. Smit); AWS
Imagine Grant (E.M. Buchanan); the Basic Research Program at the National
Research University Higher School of Economics (D. Grigoryev); the Basic
Research Program at HSE University, RF (D.Dubrov). Contract no. APVV-
18-0140 (D. Dubrov); the Research Council of Norway 288083, 223273 (C.
Affective Science
Tamnes); the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority 2020023
(A.D. Askelund); the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority
2019069, 2021070, 500189 (C. Tamnes); EFOP-3.6.1.-16-2016-00004 and
NKFIH PD 137588 (A.N. Zsido); Faculty Development Grant from
Dominican University (A.J. Krafnick); Portuguese National Foundation for
Science and Technology SFRH/BD/126304/2016 (A.C. Santos);
the statutory funds of the University of Wroclaw (A. Sorokowska); Internal
funding from Kingston University (A. Gourdon-Kanhukamwe); the Slovak
Research and Development Agency under contract no. APVV-17-0596 (A.
Findor); Pacifica and the ANRT through the CIFRE grant 2017/0245 (A.
Bran); Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology
UIDP/4950/2020 (I. Almeida, A. Ferreira, D. Sousa); PhD grant co-funded
by the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and Technology and the
European Social Fund 2020.08597.BD (A. Ferreira); European Project
H2020 Grant agreement ID 731827 STIPED - Transcranial brain stimulation
as innovative therapy for chronic pediatric neuropsychiatric disorders (D.
Sousa); a special grant from the Association for Psychological Science (to
the Psychological Science Accelerator); an in-kind purchase from the Leibniz
Institute for Psychology (protocol https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.
3012); a fee waiver from Prolific, Inc. Further financial support was
provided by the Psychological Science Accelerator. We thank the Leibniz
Institute for Psychology (ZPID) for help with data collection via the organi-
zation and implementation of semi-representative panels. Funders had no
other roles in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish
or preparation of the manuscript.
Data Availability Data and materials are available here: https://osf.io/
m6q8f/.
Ethics Approval All participating research groups either obtained ap-
proval from their host institution’s ethics committee, explicitly indicated
that their institution did not require approval to conduct this type of
experiment, or explicitly indicated that the experiment was covered by a
preexisting ethics approval.
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Consent to Participate All participants provided informed consent.
Contribution Statement Conceptualization: C. A. Dorison, J. S. Lerner,
B. H. Heller, A. J. Rothman, I. I. Kawachi, K. Wang, V. W. Rees, B. P.
Gill,N.Gibbs,N.A.Coles
Data Curation: P.S. Forscher, E.M. Buchanan
Formal Analysis: N. A. Coles, C. A. Dorison
Funding Acquisition: P.S. Forscher, H. IJzerman, C. Chartier, E.M.
Buchanan
Investigation: Z. Vally, Z. Tajchman, A.N. Zsido, Z. Chen, I. Ziano,
C.D. Ceary,Y. Lin, Y. Kunisato, Q. Xiao, X. Jiang, E.Yao, J. Wilson,W.
Jimenez-leal, W. Law, W. Collins, K.L. Richard, W. Vranka, V.
Ankushev, V. Schei, U.S. Tran, S. Yeung, W. Hassan, T.J. Lima, T.
Ostermann, T. Frizzo, T.E. Sverdrup, T. House, T. Gill, T. Jernsäther,
Koptjevskaja-tamm, T.J. Hostler, T. Ishii, A. Studzinska, S.M. Janssen,
S.E. Schulenberg, S. Tatachari, S. Azouaghe, P. Sorokowski, A.
Sorokowska, X. Song, D. Grigoryev, S. Daches, S.N. Geniole, S.
Vračar, S. Massoni, S. Zorjan, E. Sarıoğuz, S.G. Alves, S. Pöntinen, S.
Álvarez Solas, S. Ordoñez-Riaño, S. BatićOčovaj, S. Onie, S. Lins, S.
Çoksan, A. Sacakli, S. Ruiz-Fernández, S. Fatahmodares, R.B. Walczak,
R. Vilar, R. Cárcamo, R.M. Ross, R. Mccarthy, T. Ballantyne, E.C.
Westgate, R. Afhami, D. Ren, R.P. Monteiro, U.-D. Reips, N. Reggev,
R.J. Calin-jageman, R. Oliveira, M. Nedelcheva-Datsova, R.-M. Rahal,
T. Radtke, R. Searston, P. Zdybek, S. Chen, J.T. Perillo, P. Kačmár, P.
Macapagal, P. Szwed, P. Hanel, P.AG. Forbes, P. Arriaga, K.
Papachristopoulos, P.S. Correa, C. Ogbonnaya, O. Bialobrzeska, N.
Kiselnikova, N. Simonovic, N. Nock, N. Albayrak-Aydemir, N. Say,
N. Levy, N. Torunsky, N. Van Doren, N. Sunami, N.R. Rachev, N.M.
Majeed, N.S. Corral-Frías, N. Ouherrou, M.Y. Lucas, M. Pantazi, M.R.
Vasilev, M. Ortiz, M.M. Butt, R. Muda, M.M. Tejada Rivera, M. Sirota,
M. Seehuus, M. Parzuchowski, M. Toro, M. Hricova, M. Marszalek, M.
Karekla, G. Mioni, M. Westerlund, M. Vdovic, M. Bialek, M. Anne, M.
Misiak,M.Grinberg,M.F.Espinoza Barría, M.C. Mensink, M.
Harutyunyan, M. Khosla, M. Adamkovič, M.F. Ribeiro, M. Terskova,
M. Hruška, M. Martončik, M. Voracek, M. Frias-Armenta, M. Kowal, M.
Roczniewska, M. Braun Kohlová, M. Paruzel-Czachura, M. Romanova,
M. Papadatou-Pastou, M.V. Jones, M.S. Ortiz, M. Manavalan, M.
Kossowska, M.A. Varella, M.F. Colloff, M. Bradford, L. Vaughn, L.
Eudave, L. Vieira, L. Calderón Pérez, L.B. Lazarevic, L.M. Jaremka, E.
Kushnir, G. Lins De Holanda Coelho, L. Ahlgren, L. Volz, L. Boucher,
L. Javela Delgado, L. Beatrix, K. Yu, J. Wachowicz, K. Desai, K.
Barzykowski, L. Kozma, K. Evans, M.A. Koehn, K. Wolfe, K. Klevjer,
K. Vezirian, K. Damnjanović, K. Schmidt, K. Moon, J. Kielińska, J.E.
Cruz Vásquez, J. Vargas-nieto, J.T. Roxas, J. Taber, J. Urriago-Rayo,
J.M. Pavlacic, J. Bavolar, J.A. Soto, J.K. Olofsson, J.K. Vilsmeier, J.
Czamanski-cohen, J. Boudesseul, J. Kamburidis, J. Zickfeld, J.F.
Miranda, E. Hristova, J. Milosevic Djordjevic, J.V. Valentova, J.
Antfolk, J. Berkessel, J. Schrötter, J. Urban, J. Röer, J.O. Norton, J.R.
Silva, J. Uttley, J.R.Kunst, I.L. Ndukaihe, A. Iyer, I.Vilares, A. Ivanov, I.
Ropovik, I. Sarieva, I. Prusova, I. Pinto, I.A. Almeida, I. Dalgar, I.
Zakharov, A.I. Arinze, K. Ihaya, I.D. Stephen, B. Gjoneska, H.
Brohmer, H. Flowe, H. Godbersen, H. Kocalar, M.V. Hedgebeth, H.
Manley, G. Kaminski, G. Nilsonne, G. Anjum, G.A. Travaglino, G.
Feldman, G. Pfuhl, G.M. Marcu, G. Hofer, G. Banik, G. Bijlstra, F.
Verbruggen, F.Y. Kung, F. Foroni, G. Singer, F. Mosannenzadeh, E.
Marinova, E. Štrukelj, E. Baskin, E. Luis Garcia, E. Musser, E. Ahn, E.
Pronizius, E.A. Jackson, E. Manunta, E. Agadullina, D. Šakan, O. Dujols,
D. Dubrov, M. Willis, M. Tümer, I. Djamai, D. Vega, H. Du, D. Mola,
W.E. Davis, D. Holford, D. Lewis, D.C. Vaidis, D. Hausman Ozery, D.
Zambrano Ricaurte, D. Storage, D. Sousa, D. Serrato Alvarez, A. Dalla
Rosa, D. Marko, D. Moreau, C. Reeck, R.C. Correia, C.M. Whitt, C.
Lamm, C. Singh Solorzano, C.C. von Bastian, C.A.M. Sutherland, C.L.
Aberson, C. Karashiali, C. Noone, F. Chiu, C. Karaarslan, N. Cellini, C.
Esteban-serna, C. Reyna, C. Batres, C. Grano, J. Carpentier, C.H. Fu, B.
Jaeger, C. Bundt, T. Bulut Allred, A. Bokkour, N. Bogatyreva, W.J.
Chopik, B. Antazo, B. Behzadnia, M. Becker, W. Chou, H. Bai, B.
Balci, P. Babinčák, B.J.W. Dixson, A. Mokady, H.B. Kappes, M. Atari,
J. Aruta, A. Domurat, N.C. Arinze, A. Vatakis, A. Adiguzel, K. Ait El
Arabi, A.A. Özdoğru, A. Olaya Torres, A. Theodoropoulou, A.P.
Kassianos, A. Findor, A. Hartanto, A. Thibault Landry, A. Ferreira,
A.C. Santos, A. De La Rosa-Gomez, A. Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A.
Karababa, A. Janak, A. Bran, A.M. Tullett, A.O. Kuzminska, A.J.
Krafnick, A. Urooj, A. Khaoudi, A. Ahmed, A. Groyecka-Bernard, A.
Askelund, A. Adetula, A. Belaus, A.C. Charyate, A.L. Wichman, A.
Stoyanova, A. Greenburgh, A. Thomas, A. Arvanitis, P.S. Forscher,
J.K. Miller, H. Urry, H. IJzerman, E.M. Buchanan, M.A. Primbs
Methodology: C. A. Dorison, J. S. Lerner, B. H. Heller, A. J.
Rothman, I. I. Kawachi, K. Wang, V. W. Rees, B. P. Gill, N. Gibbs, N.
A. Coles
Project Administration: C.R. Ebersole, Y. Yamada, M. Vranka, V.
Kriţanić,S.C.Lewis,S.MeirDrexler,S.MoralesIzquierdo,N.
Reggev, R. Habte, P. Hanel, P. Arriaga, B. Paris, M.R. Vasilev, M.
Alarcón Maldonado, M.A. Silan, M. Martončik, M. Oosterlinck, C.A.
Levitan, L. Volz, L. Kozma, K. Barzykowski, K. Kirgizova, K.
Thommesen, J.W. Suchow, J.E. Beshears, J. Antfolk, I. Sula, I.L. Pit, I.
Dalgar,B.Gjoneska,H.Chuan-Peng,M.Sharifian,H.Azab,G.
Kaminski, G.M. Marcu, F. Azevedo, E. Štrukelj, E. Pronizius, J.L.
Beaudry, D. Dunleavy, F. Chiu, N. Cellini, B. Ishkhanyan, L. Bylinina,
Affective Science
T. Bulut Allred, M. Becker, A. Szabelska, A.P. Kassianos, A. Gourdon-
Kanhukamwe, A. Todsen, A. Urooj, A. Ahmed, A. Askelund, A.
Adetula, P.S. Forscher, P.R. Mallik, N.A. Coles, J.K. Miller, H.
Moshontz, H. Urry, H. IJzerman, D.M. Basnight-brown, C. Chartier,
E.M. Buchanan, M.A. Primbs.
Resources:A.N.Zsido,M.Zrimsek,Z.Chen,Z.Gialitaki,Y.
Kunisato, Y. Yamada, X. Jiang, X. Du, E. Yao, W. Cyrus-lai, W. Law,
M. Vranka, V. Schei, V. Kriţanić, V.H. Kadreva, V. Cubela Adoric, R.
Houston, T.E. Sverdrup, M. Fedotov, T. Jernsäther, M. Koptjevskaja-
Tamm, T. Ishii, B. Szaszi, S. Adamus, L. Suter, S. Habib, A.
Studzinska, D. Stojanovska, S. Stieger, S. Azouaghe, S.C. Lewis, S.
Sinkolova, S. Meir Drexler, S. Massoni, E. Sarıoğuz,S.Morales
Izquierdo, S.G. Alves, S. Pöntinen, S. Çoksan, A. Sacakli, S. Ruiz-
Fernández, S.J. Geiger, R. Betlehem, R. Vilar, R.P. Monteiro, U.-D.
Reips, N. Reggev, R. Pourafshari, R. Oliveira, M. Nedelcheva-datsova,
R.R. Ribeiro, R. Habte, S. Chen, P.G. Maturan, P. Kačmár, P. Hanel, P.
Arriaga, B. Paris, O. Kácha, M. Bernardo, O. Campos, O. Niño Bravo,
O.J. Galindo-Caballero, O. Bialobrzeska, N. Cohen, N. Johannes, N. Say,
N.Sunami,N.R.Rachev,N.Schmidt,K.Nadif,M.Pantazi,M.R.
Vasilev, M. Kabir, M. Parzuchowski, M. Alarcón Maldonado, M.
Marszalek, G. Mioni, M.J. Bosma, M. Westerlund, M. Vdovic, M.
Bialek, M.A. Silan, M. Capizzi, M. A. Kurfali, M. Harutyunyan, M.
Korbmacher, M. Adamkovič, M. Hruška, M. Čadek, M. Kowal, M.
Topor, M. Roczniewska, M. Oosterlinck, M. Paruzel-Czachura, M.
Lund, M. Antoniadi, A. Muminov, M. Kossowska, M. Friedemann, M.
Wielgus, L. Vieira, L. Sanabria Pineda, E. Kushnir, L. Anton-boicuk, G.
Lins De Holanda Coelho, L. Ahlgren, C.A. Levitan, L. Micheli, L. Volz,
M. Stojanovska, L. Samojlenko, L. Kaliska, L. Beatrix, L. Warmelink, L.
Rojas-Berscia, J. Wachowicz, K. Barzykowski, L. Kozma, K. Kirgizova,
B.B. Agesin, T. Korobova, K. Klevjer, K. Van Schie, K. Vezirian, K.
Thommesen, K. Filip, K. Grzech, K. Hoyer, K. Rana, K. Janjić,J.
Kielińska, J. Beitner, J. Vargas-Nieto, J. Bavolar, J. Messerschmidt, J.
Czamanski-cohen, J. Lee, J. Kamburidis, J. Zickfeld, J.P.H. Verharen, E.
Hristova, J.E. Beshears, J. Milosevic Djordjevic, J. Bosch, J. Antfolk, J.
Berkessel, J. Schrötter, J. Vintr, J.R. Kunst, I. Ropovik, I. Sula, I. Metin-
orta, A. Bozdoc, I.L. Pit, I. Dalgar, I. Zakharov, K. Ihaya, B. Gjoneska, H.
Kocalar, H.Chuan-Peng, M. Sharifian, H. Akkas, H. Azab, G. Kaminski,
G. Nilsonne, G. Czarnek, G.M. Marcu, G. Banik, G.A. Adetula, F.
Muchembled, F. Azevedo, F. Mosannenzadeh, E. Marinova, E.
Štrukelj, Z. Etebari, I.M.M. van Steenkiste, E. Pronizius, E. Manunta,
D. Šakan, P. Dursun, O. Dujols, D. Dubrov, M. Tümer, J.L. Beaudry,
D. Popović, D. Dunleavy, I. Djamai, D. Krupić, D. Vega, D. Zambrano
Ricaurte, D. Serrato Alvarez, A. Dalla Rosa, D. Krupić,D.Marko,R.C.
Correia, C. Singh Solorzano, C.C. von Bastian, C. Overkott, C. Wang, F.
Chiu, C. Picciocchi, C. Karaarslan, N. Cellini, R. Li, C. Grano, C.
Tamnes, B. Ishkhanyan, T. Bulut Allred, A. Bokkour, N. Bogatyreva,
B. Antazo, M. Becker, B. Cocco, B. Hubena, B. Ţuro, B. Aczel, E.
Baklanova, A. Mokady, A. Szala, A. Szabelska, J. Aruta, A. Domurat,
A. Modena, A. Adiguzel, A. Monajem, K. Ait El Arabi, A.A. Özdoğru,
A. PenićJurković, A.P. Kassianos, A. Findor, A. Thibault Landry, A.C.
Santos, A. Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A. Todsen,A. Karababa, A. Bran, A.
Khaoudi, A. Ahmed, A. Groyecka-Bernard, A. Askelund, A. Adetula, A.
Stoyanova, E.M. Buchanan
Supervision: C.R. Ebersole, K. Thommesen, J.W. Suchow, M.
Sharifian, A. Todsen, P.S. Forscher, P.R. Mallik, N.A. Coles, J.K.
Miller, H. Moshontz, H. Urry, H. IJzerman, D.M. Basnight-brown, C.
Chartier, E.M. Buchanan, M.A. Primbs
Writing - Original Draft: C. A. Dorison, J. S. Lerner, B. H. Heller, A.
J. Rothman, I. I. Kawachi, K. Wang, V.W. Rees, B. P. Gill, N. Gibbs, N.
A. Coles
Writing - Review and Editing: C. A. Dorison, J. S. Lerner, B. H.
Heller, A. J. Rothman, I. I. Kawachi, K. Wang, V. W. Rees, B. P. Gill,
N. Gibbs, N. A. Coles, C.R. Ebersole, Z. Vally, Z. Tajchman, A.N. Zsido,
M. Zrimsek,Z. Chen, I. Ziano, Z. Gialitaki, C.D. Ceary, Y. Jang, Y. Lin,
Y. Kunisato, Y. Yamada, Q. Xiao, X. Jiang, X. Du, E. Yao, J. Wilson, W.
Cyrus-Lai, W. Jimenez-Leal, W. Law, W. Collins, K.L. Richard, M.
Vranka, V. Ankushev, V. Schei, V. Kriţanić, V.H. Kadreva, V. Cubela
Adoric, U.S. Tran, S. Yeung, W. Hassan, R. Houston, T.J. Lima, T.
Ostermann, T. Frizzo, T.E. Sverdrup, T. House, T. Gill, M. Fedotov, T.
Jernsäther, M. Koptjevskaja-Tamm, T.J. Hostler, T. Ishii, B. Szaszi, S.
Adamus, L. Suter, S. Habib, A. Studzinska, D. Stojanovska, S.M.
Janssen, S. Stieger, S.E. Schulenberg, S. Tatachari, S. Azouaghe, P.
Sorokowski, A. Sorokowska, X. Song, S.C. Lewis, S. Sinkolova, D.
Grigoryev, S. Meir Drexler, S. Daches, S.N. Geniole, S. Vračar, S.
Massoni, S. Zorjan, E. Sarıoğuz, S. Morales Izquierdo, S.G. Alves, S.
Pöntinen, S. Álvarez Solas, S. Ordoñez-Riaño, S. BatićOčovaj, S. Onie,
S.Lins,S.Çoksan,A.Sacakli,S.Ruiz-Fernández,S.J.Geiger,S.
Fatahmodares, R.B. Walczak, R. Betlehem, R. Vilar, R. Cárcamo, R.M.
Ross, R. Mccarthy, T. Ballantyne, E.C. Westgate, R. Afhami, D. Ren,
R.P. Monteiro, U.-D. Reips, N. Reggev, R.J. Calin-jageman, R.
Pourafshari, R. Oliveira, M. Nedelcheva-Datsova, R. Rahal, R.R.
Ribeiro, T. Radtke, R. Searston, R. Habte, P. Zdybek, S. Chen, P.G.
Maturan, J.T. Perillo, P.M. Isager, P. Kačmár, P. Macapagal, P. Szwed,
P. Hanel, P.A.G. Forbes, P. Arriaga, B. Paris, K. Papachristopoulos, P.S.
Correa, O. Kácha, M. Bernardo, O. Campos, O. Niño Bravo, O.J.
Galindo-caballero, C. Ogbonnaya, O. Bialobrzeska, N. Kiselnikova, N.
Simonovic, N. Cohen, N. Nock, N. Johannes, N. Albayrak-Aydemir, N.
Say, N. Levy, N. Torunsky, N. Van Doren, N. Sunami, N.R. Rachev,
N.M. Majeed,N. Schmidt, K. Nadif, N.S. Corral-Frías, N. Ouherrou, M.
Pantazi, M.Y. Lucas, M.R. Vasilev, M. Ortiz, M.M. Butt, M. Kabir, R.
Muda, M.M. Tejada Rivera, M. Sirota, M. Seehuus, M. Parzuchowski,
M. Toro, M. Hricova, M. Alarcón Maldonado, M. Marszalek, M.
Karekla, G. Mioni, M.J. Bosma, M. Westerlund, M. Vdovic, M. Bialek,
M.A. Silan, M. Anne, M. Misiak, M.Grinberg,M.Capizzi,M.F.
Espinoza Barría, M. A. Kurfali, M.C. Mensink, M. Harutyunyan, M.
Khosla, M. Korbmacher, M. Adamkovič, M.F. Ribeiro, M. Terskova,
M. Hruška, M. Martončik, M. Voracek, M. Čadek, M. Frias-Armenta,
M. Kowal, M. Topor, M. Roczniewska, M. Oosterlinck, M. Braun
Kohlová, M. Paruzel-Czachura, M. Romanova, M. Papadatou-Pastou,
M. Lund, M. Antoniadi, M.V. Jones, M.S. Ortiz, M. Manavalan, A.
Muminov, M. Kossowska, M. Friedemann, M. Wielgus, M.A. Varella,
M.F. Colloff, M. Bradford, L. Vaughn, L. Eudave, L. Vieira, L. Sanabria
Pineda, L. Calderón Pérez, L.B. Lazarevic,L.M. Jaremka, E. Kushnir, L.
Anton-boicuk, G. Lins De Holanda Coelho, L. Ahlgren, C.A. Levitan, L.
Micheli, L. Volz, M. Stojanovska, L. Boucher, L. Samojlenko, L. Javela
Delgado, L. Kaliska, L. Beatrix, L. Warmelink, L. Rojas-berscia, K. Yu,
J. Wachowicz, K. Desai, K. Barzykowski, L. Kozma, K. Evans, K.
Kirgizova, B.B. Agesin, M.A. Koehn, K. Wolfe, T. Korobova, K.
Klevjer, K. Van Schie, K. Vezirian, K. Damnjanović,K.Thommesen,
K. Schmidt, K. Filip, K. Grzech, K. Hoyer, K. Moon, K. Rana, K. Janjić,
J.W. Suchow, J. Kielińska, J.E. Cruz Vásquez, J. Beitner, J. Vargas-
Nieto, J.T. Roxas, J. Taber, J. Urriago-Rayo, J.M. Pavlacic, J. Bavolar,
J.A. Soto, J.K. Olofsson, J.K. Vilsmeier, J. Messerschmidt, J. Czamanski-
cohen, J. Boudesseul, J. Lee, J. Kamburidis,J. Zickfeld, J.F. Miranda, J.P.
Verharen, E. Hristova, J.E. Beshears, J. Milosevic Djordjevic, J. Bosch,
J.V. Valentova, J. Antfolk, J. Berkessel, J. Schrötter, J. Urban, J. Röer,
J.O. Norton, J.R. Silva, J.S. Pickering, J. Vintr, J. Uttley, J.R. Kunst, I.L.
Ndukaihe, A. Iyer, I. Vilares, A. Ivanov, I. Ropovik, I. Sula, I. Sarieva, I.
Metin-orta, I. Prusova, I. Pinto, A. Bozdoc, I.A. Almeida, I.L. Pit, I.
Dalgar, I. Zakharov, A.I. Arinze, K. Ihaya, I.D. Stephen, B. Gjoneska,
H. Brohmer, H. Flowe, H. Godbersen, H. Kocalar, M.V. Hedgebeth, H.
Chuan-Peng, M. Sharifian, H. Manley, H. Akkas, H. Azab, G. Kaminski,
G. Nilsonne, G. Anjum, G.A. Travaglino, G. Feldman, G. Pfuhl, G.
Czarnek, G.M. Marcu, G. Hofer, G. Banik, G.A. Adetula, G. Bijlstra,
F. Verbruggen, F.Y. Kung, F. Foroni, G. Singer, F. Muchembled, F.
Azevedo, F. Mosannenzadeh, E. Marinova, E. Štrukelj, Z. Etebari, E.
Baskin, E. Luis Garcia, E. Musser, I.M.M. van Steenkiste, E. Ahn, E.
Pronizius, E.A. Jackson, E. Manunta, E. Agadullina, D. Šakan, P.
Affective Science
Dursun, O. Dujols, D. Dubrov, M. Willis, M. Tümer, J.L. Beaudry, D.
Popović, D. Dunleavy, I. Djamai, D. Krupić, D. Vega, H. Du, D. Mola,
W.E. Davis, D. Holford, D. Lewis, D.C. Vaidis, D. Hausman Ozery, D.
Zambrano Ricaurte, D. Storage, D. Sousa, D. Serrato Alvarez, A. Dalla
Rosa, D. Krupić, D. Marko, D. Moreau, C. Reeck, R.C. Correia, C.M.
Whitt, C. Lamm, C. Singh Solorzano, C.C. von Bastian, C.A.M.
Sutherland, C. Overkott, C.L. Aberson, C. Wang, C. Karashiali, C.
Noone, F. Chiu, C. Picciocchi, C. Karaarslan, N. Cellini, C. Esteban-
serna, C. Reyna, C. Batres, R. Li, C. Grano, J. Carpentier, C. Tamnes,
C.H. Fu, B. Ishkhanyan, L. Bylinina, B. Jaeger, C. Bundt, T. Bulut
Allred, A. Bokkour, N. Bogatyreva, W.J. Chopik, B. Antazo, B.
Behzadnia, M. Becker, B. Cocco, W. Chou, B. Hubena, B. Ţuro, B.
Aczel, E. Baklanova, H. Bai, B. Balci, P. Babinčák, B.J.W. Dixson, A.
Mokady, H.B. Kappes, M. Atari, A. Szala, A. Szabelska, J. Aruta, A.
Domurat,N.C.Arinze,A.Modena,A.Vatakis,A.Adiguzel,A.
Monajem,K.AitElArabi,A.A.Özdoğru, A. Olaya Torres, A.
Theodoropoulou, A. PenićJurković,