Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Scientific Data
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
1
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
The Psychological Science
Accelerator’s COVID-19
rapid-response dataset
Erin M. Buchanan et al.#
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Psychological Science Accelerator coordinated
three large-scale psychological studies to examine the eects of loss-gain framing, cognitive
reappraisals, and autonomy framing manipulations on behavioral intentions and aective
measures. The data collected (April to October 2020) included specic 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 oers 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.
Background & Summary
In 2020, the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic presented enormous challenges to people’s health and well-being.
In response to this challenge, in March 2020, the Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA)1 announced a call
for studies focusing on applied research to answer questions on how to reduce the negative emotional and
behavioral impacts of the pandemic, the PSA COVID-Rapid (PSACR) Project. e PSA is a global collabora-
tive network of over 1,000 members across 80+ countries/geopolitical locations that develop large, “big-team
science” projects. ree research studies were selected to pursue, paired with a general survey about health
behaviors, COVID-19 experiences, and demographic information (https://osf.io/x976j). e dataset described
here represents three studies on the psychology of message communication: Study (1) how framing aects
health communication messages using gain-versus-loss framing2; Study (2) cognitive reappraisal3; and Study (3)
how self-determination theory can inform health messaging for social distancing uptake4. Participants either
completed Loss-Gain Framing (Study 1) and Self-Determination (Study 3) (order counterbalanced), only the
Self-Determination (Study 3) or Cognitive Reappraisal (Study 2) (see Figs.1 and 2).
Loss-gain framing (Study 1). In the rst study, participants read health excerpts that framed these messages
behaviors as gains or losses, and we subsequently measured participants’ intentions to follow guidelines to prevent
COVID-19 transmission, attitudes towards COVID-19 prevention policies, propensity to seek additional infor-
mation about COVID-19, and anxiety (using both self-report and behavioral measures)2. is study was designed
to examine the role of message framing in inuencing compliance with the pandemic recommendations using
gain-versus-loss framing. e gain-framed messages in this study highlighted the usefulness of compliance with
the messages (e.g., there is so much to gain. If you practice these four steps, you can protect yourself and others),
whereas the loss-framed messages spotlighted the negative eects of ignoring the recommendations (e.g., there is
so much to lose. If you do not practice these four steps, you can endanger yourself and others)5. Research on the
#A full list of authors and their aliations appears at the end of the paper.
DATA DESCRIPTOR
OPEN
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
2
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
impact of message framing on emotion and behavior is critical6, and previous studies suggest that loss-framing
elicits negative emotion7. is study extended previous research to measure the impact of framing on anxiety.
Summary of study ndings. Loss-framed messages (as compared to gain-framed) increased participants’
self-reported anxiety. On the contrary, there were no meaningful dierences between gain framing and loss
framing in eects on 1) behavioral intentions to follow COVID-19 prevention guidelines, (2) attitudes toward
COVID-19 prevention policies, and 3) whether participants chose to seek more information about COVID-19.
Crucially, most of these results were relatively consistent across 84 countries.
Cognitive reappraisal (Study 2). e second study focused on emotion regulation through cognitive
reappraisal3. e COVID-19 pandemic has been shown to decrease positive emotions and psychological health
and increase negative emotions8–10. ese emotional changes could potentially be mitigated by emotion regula-
tion strategies. Cognitive reappraisal is one such strategy that encourages changes in the way one thinks about a
situation in order to change the way one feels11, and this study specically used reconstrual and repurposing as
reappraisal methods. Previous research has shown that participants engaging in cognitive reappraisal can increase
resilience in a simple and eective manner12, especially in comparison to other emotion strategies, such as emo-
tion suppression13. Study 2 examined the eectiveness of reappraisal strategies to reduce negative emotions and
increase positive ones regarding COVID-19 situations. Moreover, we explored whether cognitive reappraisals
inuence health behavioral intentions.
Summary of study ndings. e two variations of reappraisal strategies tested in this study (reconstrual and
repurposing) both reduced negative emotions and increased positive emotions related to COVID-19 situations
compared to control conditions. Neither strategy aected health behavior intentions related to stay-at-home
behaviors and hand washing behaviors. e two strategies had similar eects to one another.
Self-determination (Study 3). The third study examined motivations/intentions to participate in
social distancing using self-determination theory as a framework to design messages that either induced indi-
vidual autonomy through supportive messaging or pressured individuals through controlling messaging14,15.
Fig. 1 Survey ow for the PSACR project. As shown in Fig.2, participants were given one path through the
study determined by the date they completed the study and randomization factors.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
3
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Autonomy-supportive communication styles include information on perspective-taking, the rationale for changing
behavior, and engaging an individual’s autonomy of choice in a scenario16. Controlling communication styles use
shame and blame to induce a change in behavior17. In general, autonomy-supportive messages have been shown to
increase behavior change18, whereas controlling messages oen lead to behaviors that are the opposite of what was
intended19,20. Study 3 examined the eects of autonomy-supportive versus controlling messages about social dis-
tancing on the quality of motivation, feelings of deance, and behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing.
Summary of study ndings. e controlling message increased controlled motivation for social distancing, a
relatively ineective form of motivation concerning avoiding shame and social consequences, relative to the con-
trol group who received no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of
deance compared with the controlling message. Unexpectedly, neither autonomy-supportive or controlling mes-
sages inuenced behavioral intentions, though existing motivations did, with autonomous motivation predicting
greater long-term intentions, and controlled motivation predicting fewer long-term intentions to social distance.
Here, we present the aggregated data from all studies and from a health behavior survey assessing demograph-
ics and COVID-19 experience and local restrictions21. ese data can be further merged with corresponding data
using time and/or location information, potentially to track responses in tandem with COVID-19 rates (https://
data.humdata.org/dataset/oxford-covid-19-government-response-tracker), vaccinations22, hospitalizations
(https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer), or other psychological variables (e.g., anxiety,
depression; https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/all-us-research-program-launches-covid-19-
research-initiatives). The dataset provides an array of untapped insights into human emotion, motivation,
persuasion, and other topics that can be unlocked through secondary analyses (e.g., regional moderator analyses).
Methods
Survey ow. e PSACR project consisted of a general survey (i.e., consisting of health behaviors, COVID-19
information, and demographics) and the three studies described above (see the survey ow in Fig.1). Data were
collected online, and participants were able to complete the study from any internet-enabled device. First, partic-
ipants were shown a landing page to select their language or regional variation of a language, with 44 languages
included as options. Participants then read an informed consent form to familiarize themselves with the general
Fig. 2 Timeline for the PSACR projectin 2020. In April, only the English version of the study was available for
participants. In May, Hungarian, Dutch, Polish, and Portuguese were added to the study. In the next month,
French, Macedonian, Swedish, Spanish, Farsi, Norwegian, Russian, Turkish, Bulgarian, Urdu, Czech, Greek,
Italian, Japanese, Slovak, Arabic, Hebrew, Filipino, and Korean were launched. In July, Croatian, German,
Yoruba, Armenian, Chinese, Serbian, Finnish, Romanian, Uzbek, Bengali, Slovenian, and Hebrew were
included. Languages were generally launched with its dialect variants (e.g., Dutch and Dutch-Belgian).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
4
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
objectives of the study and indicate their consent to participate in the study (yes/no choice). e entire study was
approved by the Institutional Review Board at Ashland University as the main research hub, and local approval
was obtained from other research labs depending on individual institution requirements.
The participants were then shown a general survey, COVID-19 experience, and demographics survey
designed by the PSACR admin team (described below). Participants were then randomly invited to complete
either (a) Cognitive Reappraisal (Study 2), or (b) both the Loss-Gain Framing (Study 1) and Self-Determination
(Study 3) studies in random order. However, a small portion of participants received only Study 3
(Self-Determination), as this study was deployed before the other two studies were ready (see Fig.2 for a time-
line of the project). Creating two survey ows (Study 1 and 3 versus Study 2) kept participant completion time
to approximately 20–30 minutes across the entire survey as Study 2 took longer to complete than Study 1 and
3. Data collection for Loss-Gain Framing (Study 1) and Self-Determination (Study 3) ended before Cognitive
Reappraisal (Study 2) for which data collection was continued to achieve the a priori determined sample size.
A timeline for the dierent PSACR studies onsets and osets is presented in Fig.2. Aer completing the stud-
ies, participants were shown a debrieng about the studies that included information about the pandemic and
World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations. All translations and materials can be found at https://
osf.io/gvw56/ and at https://osf.io/s4hj2/.
Translation. e translation team consisted of one lead coordinator, two assistant coordinators, one lan-
guage specic coordinator, and translators within each language. e lead coordinator, along with the assistant
coordinators, oversaw all languages organizing and connecting information between the study teams, translation
teams, and implementation teams. e language coordinator worked with the individual translators for their
target language, and approximately 268 individuals helped achieve the translations for this study. e translation
process included three stages: forward translation, backward translation, and cultural adjustment. During for-
ward translation, at least two translators worked together to translate each study from English to each target lan-
guage. Separately, two translators then reversed this process by backward translating from each target language to
English. Between these two stages, all inconsistencies were eliminated by discussion between team members. Last,
the translated materials were sent to separate individuals for cultural adjustment. Cultural adjustment included
wording tweaks for understanding within that culture. For example, several of the educational levels were mod-
ied based on the education system in the area that generally spoke the target language (see https://osf.io/ca3ks
for a review of the translation process).
Study deployment. e study was implemented online using formr survey soware23 which enabled com-
plex randomization and study tracking during the life of the project. e study can be reproduced using the Excel
les for each language and the overall survey ow psacr-pool.json le (https://osf.io/643aw/) provided in the
formr folder in the Open Science Framework (OSF) repository. formr soware allows a researcher to import a
survey ow through.json formatted les, and the exact questions and study design can be imported using Excel
or Google Sheets les. Within each language folder, we have provided the consent form, the general survey, the
Loss-Gain Framing survey (Study 1), the Cognitive Reappraisal survey (Study 2), the Self-Determination survey
(Study 3), and the nal WHO and debrieng information. Each language setup uses the same survey ow and
therefore can be recreated using the provided.json survey ow and the relevant Excel les.
General survey. e general survey was designed to gather information about the participants’ experiences
with COVID-19 protocols and restrictions in their lives as well as demographic information. Participants rst
reported their health behaviors in response to the pandemic by indicating how many times they had le their
homes in the past week, the reasons for leaving their home, their mask usage, hand washing, and coughing/
sneezing actions. e next section covered COVID-19 restrictions and government responses, including cur-
rent restrictions, ability to manage restrictions, and trust and satisfaction in government activities. Participants
then indicated if they had been tested for COVID-19, were self-isolating for symptoms, their condence about
understanding and preventing COVID-19, and their worry over their physical and emotional well-being. e
last section of the general survey covered participant demographics (age, gender, education, geopolitical region,
nationality, state of residence for U.S. participants, and type of community), questions about how the participant
was recruited into the survey, and questions about their household (number of members, socioeconomic status,
and health conditions).
Loss-gain framing (Study 1). In this study, each participant was rst presented with an overall descrip-
tion of the task, which was to express their opinions on various recommendations for mitigating COVID-19.
Participants were randomized into two framing conditions about the steps one can take to meet COVID-19
guidelines. ese two conditions were framed in either a gain perspective (“You have so much to gain by prac-
ticing these steps”) or a loss perspective (“You have so much to lose by not following these steps”). Within the
loss- and gain-framed conditions, the messages were written in three dierent ways, and participants were ran-
domly assigned which version of the message to view. Participants then rated the likelihood to comply with these
recommendations while the instructions were presented on the page. Next, they rated their feelings on govern-
ment policies related to health, rated their emotions (i.e., anger, anxiety, fear) when considering these policies,
and indicated if they wanted to learn more about WHO guidelines. Finally, participants were asked to complete
a manipulation check about the information they had read to ensure they had paid attention during the study.
Cognitive reappraisal (Study 2). is study focused on determining if a cognitive reappraisal strategy
would change the emotional responses to photos related to COVID-19. First, participants rated their emotions
they were feeling “right now.” For positive emotions, they indicated how hopeful, loved, peaceful, understood, and
cared for they felt. For negative emotions, they indicated how annoyed, sad, angry, stressed, le out, and much
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
5
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
hate they felt. ese emotions were randomly presented such that each person saw positive and negative emotion
questions interspersed, beginning either with positive (i.e., positive, negative, positive, negative, etc.) or negative.
e order of the questions was also randomized across participants.
At this point in the study, participants were randomized into one of four conditions: (1) reecting: reecting
upon your thoughts and feelings about any situation can lead to dierent emotional responses; (2) rethinking:
dierent ways of interpreting or thinking about any situation can lead to dierent emotions; (3) refocusing:
nding something good in even the most challenging situations can lead to dierent emotional responses; and
(4) a control condition that suggested participants respond as they naturally would. Participants were provided
with instructions on how to implement these appraisals. Consequently, participants had four practice trials
where each time they viewed a picture, rated their current aect/mood, and wrote a few sentences about how
they implemented the appraisal with respect to the picture.
Aer completion of the practice trials, participants rated ten COVID-19 related pictures (e.g., person on
a stretcher being taken out of an ambulance, grieving/worried relatives, etc.) followed by questions about
how positive and negative they felt viewing the pictures. e pictures were selected by lead team of Study 2
by searching major news sources across Asia, Europe, and North America. ese pictures were rated by the
lead team on sadness/anxiety and whether they should use the pictures. e nal selection of pictures received
higher-than-average scores (on a 1–7 Likert scale), for both ratings. is section was followed by the original
emotion questions presented at the beginning of the study, in the same randomized order as they had been pre-
viously seen. ese questions were then adjusted to determine anticipated emotions (i.e., to what extent will you
feel sad). Participants next answered questions about their positive habits, such as exercising, and negative hab-
its, such as drinking and smoking. Last, participants were given a series of attention check questions to identify
inattentive responding, along with a nal question about their current emotional state relative to their emotional
state at the beginning of the study.
Self-determination (Study 3). This study examined the COVID-19 recommendations for
social-distancing across three randomly assigned conditions: (1) an autonomy-supportive message promoting
personal agency and reective choices, (2) a controlling message that was forceful and shaming, and 3) no mes-
sage about social distancing. Each participant rated their current adherence with social distancing before receiv-
ing these messages. Aer the messages, participants rated their motivations to engage in social distancing, and
how the messaging about social distancing made them feel. ey then re-rated the original items about their
social distancing intentions for the next week (i.e., how oen will you see friends in the next week) and the next
six months. At the end of the study, participants completed manipulation check items to ensure messages were
experienced as supportive vs. pressuring.
Data processing. e complete data processing scripts from the study, along with annotations, can be found
at https://osf.io/gvw56/. During the data collection phase of the studies, we tracked several indicators such as the
current participant counts, timing, and other important factors in the study (e.g., the number of people in each
language and group). e code for this tracking is presented in https://osf.io/uzqdr/, but those summary data
were collected only for monitoring purposes during the study. e following data processing steps were taken
on the raw data, and the nal output can be found in the raw_data folder in the OSF repository. e raw data are
stored separately by month in compressed zip les due to their large size and le storage limits. e processing
steps included:
1) Eliminate duplicate rows. We collected data across multiple servers, and sometimes, the server posted the
same participant data twice.
2) Creation of unique identiers for each participant. One language of the study (Swedish) briey did not in-
clude the appropriate code to enable creating unique identiers. erefore, these data were matched using
other information embedded in the surveys and the unique identier was lled in for these participants.
3) Removal of pilot data. We removed pilot testing responses from the dataset. ese responses were identi-
ed by the start dates and times for each language separately.
4) Participant completion codes (e.g., unique subject identiers created for reporting completion at the end of the
study) were extracted from the raw data for researchers to check if their participants had completed the study.
5) Participant personal information (i.e., information that could be used to identify the participant, informa-
tion for creating completion codes, emails or phone numbers for lottery participants) was excluded before
uploading data into the raw_data folder.
Next, we transformed the raw data set to facilitate reuse of the data. e code for this stage can be found at
https://osf.io/shd9a/. e following steps were performed to create a processed dataset, and the output from this
data curation can be found in the processed_data folder online.
1) e information presented on the screen to the participant was included as a new column matching each
item label from the formr worksheets. ese labels were added as new columns in English and the language
the study was displayed in.
2) e answer choice from a participant is included in numeric format (e.g., 1 = Strongly Agree to 5 = Strongly
Disagree), and therefore, we included a new column with the original labels of the answer choice for items
that had text labels. ese labels are in English, even if the study was presented in a dierent language.
3) We created an overall participant le that has relevant information for participants across the entire study.
is data le is described below.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
6
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
4) We separated the data from each of the embedded studies (General Survey, Loss Gain, etc. described
above) into independent data les, and these les are described below.
5) For the Cognitive Reappraisal study, we added a column that identied the exact items shown to partici-
pants. e original labels contain markdown and R code that generated the random order of items for each
participant. e label column includes that code but can be dicult to interpret. erefore, we recreated the
order seen by each participant and merged that information into the Cognitive Reappraisal study le only.
Exclusion criteria. Each of the three individual studies used dierent exclusion criteria for their analyses (see
technical validation description below). For the dataset described in this manuscript, no exclusion criteria were
employed other than data curation described above. erefore, the dataset includes all answers from any person
that opened the survey, regardless of completion times or missing data.
Data Records
In this section, we describe the contents of the processed_data folder created from the data processing steps
described above. All data is stored on OSF21. e raw_data folder contains les in a similar structure, which
should be interpretable from the descriptions provided below. e main dierence in these les is that the pro-
cessed data include additional columns to disambiguate the information contained in each row.
Global participant data. The overall participant data consist of one participant information file and
two dictionary les that detail the hand-coded processing of a free text response. e participant information
le (participants.csv) is a comma separated text le that contains overall participant information and can be
accessed at https://osf.io/rjgwh/. e information for each column of the participant le is found in Supplemental
Table1. e le included the geopolitical region from which the participant indicated they had taken the survey,
along with the state (only forU.S. participants). is information was a free text response in the original survey.
e country_dictionary.xlsx (https://osf.io/8zv42/) and state_dictionary.xlsx (https://osf.io/5xbce/) were used
to merge geopolitical information from the overall general survey into this le. ese les are in Excel format
with two tabs. Each text answer was examined by two individuals and coded into geopolitical region codes and
U.S. state names. In cases of disagreement, a third person arbitrated that decision. e rst tab of each document
includes the nal chosen answer, and the second tab includes all coder responses for transparency. Supplemental
Tables2 and 3 include the metadata for each column. Figure3 demonstrates the geopolitical region data and
corresponding sample sizes from this processing.
Individual study data. e data are in long format wherein each line represents a single item that was
shown to the participant, including submit buttons, notes, and hidden item information. All four data les have
the same format (Supplemental Table4). e general survey data can be found at https://osf.io/37uca/ (gen-
eral_data.csv.zip), the Loss-Gain Framing study at https://osf.io/ctsrk/ (study1_data.csv.zip), the Cognitive
Reappraisal study at https://osf.io/bec2f/ (study2_data.csv.zip), and the Self-Determination study at https://osf.
io/aqkjh/ (study3_data.csv.zip). Each le is in comma separated text format, which was then compressed into a
zip archive to t within space limitations for OSF. As noted in Supplemental Table4, the Cognitive Reappraisal
study has one extra column of data due to the specic randomization involved in the study.
Table1 includes information about completion rates and demographic measures for each study. e num-
ber of participants who started the survey is rst reported. Each participant started with the general survey
indicating a large portion of the participants generally opened the link to the study and then declined to con-
tinue (i.e., 73,223 participants opened the link while only 54,952 started the general survey). e number
of participants who completed the last item in each section is also reported. In the next row, we present the
number of participants who completed most of the items (>95%) on the survey as a secondary measure of
the amount of usable data within each area. Depending on the secondary interest variables, more data may be
available for each study. e number of languages and geopolitical regions represented in each study are found
next in the table and the overall demographics can be found in Fig.3. e gender breakdown is provided for
each study, and most participants identied as female. Last, we provide information for technical validation
described below.
Technical Validation
As participants entered the survey, they were randomized into one of two combinations of studies (Cognitive
Reappraisal only or Loss-Gain Framing and Self-Determination combined). Within each of these studies, the
experimental group manipulations were randomly assigned. Last, when noted above, study items were randomly
ordered. e participants were blind to their conditions within the study. e technical programmers and study lead
investigators had knowledge of the study conditions, but these were not known to most of the data collection teams.
Samples were recruited from participant pools, paid participant websites, and social media. Research teams had no
control over the allocation of participants to conditions. Samples were tracked through an online Shiny app (i.e., an
R statistical soware that creates online interactive applications24) that displayed the total number of participants,
separated by language and condition, to ensure appropriate randomization during the study deployment.
As shown in Table1, the timing of the study completion may be used to ensure data quality by excluding
participants who completed the study too quickly (as dened by a secondary analysis team). Each individ-
ual study also included manipulation checks to determine participant attentiveness. In the Loss-Gain Framing
study, each participant was asked to indicate which framing message they had seen, and the number of partic-
ipants indicated in Table1 represents those who chose the correct answer based on their group assignment.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
7
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
e Cognitive-Reappraisal study had two manipulation check questions: participants had to pick a picture they
had not previously seen and had to indicate the instructions they had been given to appraise those pictures. e
values in Table1 represent those who answered both questions correctly.
Fig. 3 e top panel includes a map of the countries/geopolitical locations from which data was collected
for the PSACR project with corresponding sample size. e bottom panel includes a treemap of sample size
by geopolitical region, and these values are grouped by UN subregion: Eastern Europe, Northern America,
Eastern Asia, Western Europe, Southern Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, Northern Europe, Latin American and
the Caribbean, Western Asia, Australia and New Zealand, South-Eastern Asia, and Southern Asia (listed here
largest to smallest). Cell size depicts relative sample size for each sub-region to the whole sample and within
groups relative sample size.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
8
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
e Self-Determination study did not use a manipulation check with a “correct” answer, but rather examined
if their manipulation changed the responses to questions presented at the end of the study (1 Strongly Disagree to
7 Strongly Agree). e autonomy group (M = 4.11, SD = 1.70) rated the instructions as providing more choices
than the controlling message group (M = 3.57, SD = 2.01, d = 0.29) and the no message group (M = 3.75,
SD = 1.82, d = 0.20), while the controlling message group rated the messages lower than the no message group
(d = 0.10). A second question asked participants to rate the messages seen as trying to pressure people. e
controlling messages group rated the item the highest (M = 3.30, SD = 2.07) in comparison to the autonomy
message group (M = 2.62, SD = 1.91, d = 0.34) and the no message group (M = 2.88, SD = 1.96, d = 0.21).
e no message group rated this item as higher than the autonomy group, d = 0.14. While these eect sizes are
small, they indicate a pattern of responses that support participants’ responding to the manipulations presented
for their group.
Code availability
All code can be found at https://osf.io/gvw56/.
Received: 9 June 2022; Accepted: 27 October 2022;
Published: xx xx xxxx
References
1. Moshontz, H. et al. e Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology rough a Distributed Collaborative Networ.
Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 1, 501–515 (2018).
2. Dorison, C. A. et al. In COVID-19 Health Messaging, Loss Framing Increases Anxiety with Little-to-No Concomitant Benets:
Experimental Evidence from 84 Countries. Aect. Sci. 3, 577–602 (2022).
3. Wang, . et al. A multi-country test of brief reappraisal interventions on emotions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nat. Hum.
Behav. 5, 1089–1110 (2021).
4. Psychological Science Accelerator Self-Determination eory Collaboration. et al. A global experiment on motivating social
distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2111091119 (2022).
5. Meyerowitz, B. E. & Chaien, S. e eect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J. Pers.
Soc. Psychol. 52, 500–510 (1987).
6. Bavel, J. J. V. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471
(2020).
7. Nabi, . L. et al. Can Emotions Capture the Elusive Gain-Loss Framing Eect? A Meta-Analysis. Commun. es. 47, 1107–1130
(2020).
8. Hou, Z., Du, F., Jiang, H., Zhou, X. & Lin, L. Assessment of Public Attention, is Perception, Emotional and Behavioural esponses
to the COVID-19 Outbrea: Social Media Surveillance in China. SSN Electron. J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3551338 (2020).
9. Cullen, W., Gulati, G. & elly, B. D. Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic. QJM Int. J. Med. 113, 311–312 (2020).
10. Yarrington, J. S. et al. Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Mental Health among 157,213 Americans. J. Aect. Disord. 286, 64–70
(2021).
11. Mcae, . & Gross, J. J. Emotion regulation. Emotion 20, 1–9 (2020).
12. Tugade, M. M. & Fredricson, B. L. egulation of Positive Emotions: Emotion egulation Strategies that Promote esilience.
J. Happiness Stud. 8, 311–333 (2007).
General
Study Loss-Gain
Framing Study 1 Cognitive Reappraisal
Study 2 Self-Determination
Study 3
Number Started Survey 54952 17682 27979 20033a
Number Completed Last Item 48434b16775c21425 18806
Number Completed Most Items 48182 16799 21447d18999
Number Languages 44 44 43 44
Number Geopolitical Regions 110 89 89 90
Gender
Female 30226 10300 13543 11602
Male 17277 6185 7575 6864
Prefer Not to Say/Other 557 187 219 223
Missing 374 103 88 117
M Minutes Completion 7.51 4.19 20.41 6.37
SD Minutes Completion 5.27 4.03 10.71 4.94
Manipulation Check Passed NA 12049 13859dNA
Tab le 1. Completion and Demographic Information. Note. All items starting with Number Languages are
calculated based on participants who completed the last item in the study. ae published version of this study
added a secondary dataset collected by the lead authors. at data is not included in our publication or these
sample sizes. bWhen more participants complete the last item versus all items, this generally occurred because
participants skipped many items or pages of the survey. cWhen more participants complete most items versus
the last time, this generally occurred when people le the survey early or skipped the last page (either on
purpose or because they clicked Continue twice too quickly). dis study used two exclusions: participants
had to answer at least one manipulation check item correctly (here, we present the number who answered both
correctly), and they had to complete at least 50% of the study items (here, we present people who completed
most items).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
9
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
13. Webb, T. L., Miles, E. & Sheeran, P. Dealing with feeling: A meta-analysis of the eectiveness of strategies derived from the process
model of emotion regulation. Psychol. Bull. 138, 775–808 (2012).
14. Deci, E. L. & yan, . M. Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Can. Psychol.
Can. 49, 182–185 (2008).
15. yan, . M. & Deci, E. L. Self-Determination eory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. (Guilford
Publications, 2017).
16. Su, Y.-L. & eeve, J. A Meta-analysis of the Eectiveness of Intervention Programs Designed to Support Autonomy. Educ. Psychol.
ev. 23, 159–188 (2011).
17. Bartholomew, . J., Ntoumanis, N. & Th⊘gersen-Ntoumani, C. A review of controlling motivational strategies from a self-
determination theory perspective: implications for sports coaches. Int. ev. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2, 215–233 (2009).
18. Sheeran, P. et al. Self-determination theory interventions for health behavior change: Meta-analysis and meta-analytic structural
equation modeling of randomized controlled trials. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 88, 726–737 (2020).
19. Weinstein, N., Vansteeniste, M. & Paulmann, S. Don’t you say it that way! Experimental evidence that controlling voices elicit
deance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 88, 103949 (2020).
20. Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N. & Inzlicht, M. Ironic Eects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can educe (but
Also Increase) Prejudice. Psychol. Sci. 22, 1472–1477 (2011).
21. Buchanan, E. et al. Data and Scripts. Open Science Framewor https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GVW56 (2022).
22. Mathieu, E. et al. A global database of COVID-19 vaccinations. Nat. Hum. Behav. 5, 947–953 (2021).
23. Arslan, . C., Walther, M. P. & Tata, C. S. formr: A study framewor allowing for automated feedbac generation and complex
longitudinal experience-sampling studies using . Behav. es. Methods 52, 376–387 (2020).
24. Chang, W. et al. shiny: Web Application Framewor for . (2021).
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contribution of multiple funders who contributed to the success of this project
(all listed below). Additionally, the authors would like to thank others who contributed to the PSACR project, as
not all contributed to this manuscript. A complete list of personnel can be found at https://psyarxiv.com/x976j/.
Erin M. Buchanan: Amazon Web Services (AWS) Imagine Grant. Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe: Internal
funding from Kingston University. Hannah Moshontz: National Institute of Mental Health of the National
Institutes of Health under Award Number T32MH018931. Adeyemi Adetula: PSA research grant ($285.59) for
the PSACR projects data collection. Dmitrii Dubrov: e work of Dmitrii Dubrov was supported within the
framework of the Basic Research Program at HSE University, RF. Marek A. Vranka: Progres Q18/Cooperatio
MCOM, Charles University. Yuki Yamada: JSPS KAKENHI Grant Numbers JP18K12015 and JP20H04581.
Niklas Johannes: Huo Family Foundation. Tatsunori Ishii: JSPS (The Japan Society for the Promotion of
Science) KAKENHI, Grant Number 19K14370. Małgorzata Kossowska: e Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian
University. Kevin van Schie: Rubicon grant (019.183SG.007) from the Netherlands Organization for Scientic
Research (NWO). Robert M. Ross: Australian Research Council (DP180102384). Dmitry Grigoryev: The
Russian data was collected within the framework of the HSE University Basic Research Program. Tripat Gill:
Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Anthony J. Krafnick: Dominican University Faculty
Support Grant. Jaime R. Silva: FONDECYT 1221538. William Jiménez-Leal: Vicerrectoria de Investigaciones,
Uniandes. Agnieszka Sorokowska: Statutory funds of the Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw. Adriana
Julieth Olaya Torres: University of Desarrollo, Faculty of Psychology. Piotr Sorokowski: Study was founded by
IDN Being Human Lab (University of Wrocław). Michal Misiak: IDN Being Human Lab (University of Wrocław).
Krystian Barzykowski: was supported by the National Science Centre, Poland (2019/35/B/HS6/00528). Patrícia
Arriaga: was supported by UID/PSI/03125/2019 from the Portuguese National Foundation for Science and
Technology (FCT). Ivan Ropovik: PRIMUS/20/HUM/009 and NPO Systemic Risk Institute (LX22NPO5101).
Andrej Findor: Agentúra na podporu výskumu a vývoja (Slovak Research and Development Agency) - APVV-
17-0596. Matej Hruška: Agentúra na podporu výskumu a vývoja (Slovak Research and Development Agency)
- APVV-17-0596. Matus Adamkovic: Slovak Research and Development Agency, project no. APVV-20-0319.
Gabriel Baník: Slovak Research and Development Agency, project no. APVV-17-0418. Dawn L. Holford: is
supported by a Horizon 2020 grant 964728 (JITSUVAX) from the European Commission and was supported
by a United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) Research Fellowship grant ES/V011901/1. Rodrigo A.
Cárcamo: ANID - Fondecyt 1201513. Sébastien Massoni: 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. Alexandre Bran: Association Nationale de la Recherche Scientique and Pacica
(CIFRE grant 2017/0245).
Author contributions
Writing - original dra: Erin M. Buchanan, Jerey M. Pavlacic, Savannah C. Lewis. Writing - review & editing: All
authors. Visualization: Erin M. Buchanan, Peder Mortvedt Isager. Validation: Erin M. Buchanan. Formal Analysis:
Erin M. Buchanan. Data curation: Erin M. Buchanan, Bastien Paris. Conceptualization, Methodology: Patrícia
Arriaga, Nicholas A. Coles, Charles A. Dorison, Amit Goldenberg, James J. Gross, Blake Heller, Michael C.
Mensink, Jeremy K. Miller, Ivan Ropovik, Alexander J. Rothman, Richard M Ryan, Andrew G.omas, Ke Wang,
Nicole Legate, Brian P Gill, Vaughan W. Rees, Nancy Gibbs, uy-vy i Nguyen. Project Administration: Flavio
Azevedo, Jennifer L. Beaudry, Julie E. Beshears, Erin M. Buchanan, Dr. Christopher R. Chartier, Nicholas A.
Coles, Patrick S. Forscher, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Hans IJzerman, Carmel A. Levitan, Savannah C.
Lewis, Peter R Mallik, Shira Meir Drexler, Jeremy K. Miller, Hannah Moshontz, Bastien Paris, Maximilian A.
Primbs, MohammadHasan Sharifian, Miguel Alejandro A. Silan, Jordan W. Suchow, Anna Louise Todsen.
Resources: Balazs Aczel, Matus Adamkovic, Sylwia Adamus, Adeyemi Adetula, Gabriel Agboola Adetula, Arca
Adıgüzel, Bamikole Emmanuel AGESIN, Lina Pernilla Ahlgren, Afroja Ahmed, Handan Akkas, Sara G. Alves,
Benedict G Antazo, Jan Antfolk, Lisa Anton-Boicuk, Patrícia Arriaga, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta, Adrian Dahl
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
10
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Askelund, Flavio Azevedo, Souan Azouaghe, Ekaterina Baklanova, Gabriel Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Jozef
Bavolar, Maja Becker, Julia Beitner, Jana B. Berkessel, Michał Białek, Olga Bialobrzeska, Ahmed Bokkour,
Alexandre Bran, Tara Bulut Allred, Martin Čadek, Mariagrazia Capizzi, Nicola Cellini, Zhang Chen, Faith Chiu,
Hu Chuan-Peng, Noga Cohen, Sami Çoksan, Vera Cubela Adoric, Wilson Cyrus-Lai, Johanna Czamanski-Cohen,
Gabriela Czarnek, Ilker Dalgar, Anna Dalla Rosa, Lisa M. DeBruine, Ikhlas Djamai, Artur Domurat, Dmitrii
Dubrov, Maksim Fedotov, Katarzyna Filip, Andrej Findor, Oscar J. Galindo-Caballero, Sandra J. Geiger, Biljana
Gjoneska, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Caterina Grano, Agata Groyecka-Bernard, Nandor Hajdu, Paul H. P.
Hanel, Mikayel Harutyunyan, Karlijn Hoyer, Evgeniya Hristova, Matej Hruška, Barbora Hubena, Keiko Ihaya,
Peder Mortvedt Isager, Tatsunori Ishii, Teodor Jernsäther, Xiaoming Jiang, Niklas Johannes, Ondřej Kácha, Pavol
Kačmár, Lada Kaliska, Julia Arhondis Kamburidis, Gwenaêl Kaminski, Cemre Karaarslan, Alper Karababa,
Angelos P. Kassianos, Ahmed KHAOUDI, Julita Kielińska, Halil Emre Kocalar, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Max
Korbmacher, Tatiana Korobova, Małgorzata Kossowska, Marta Kowal, Luca Kozma, Dajana Krupić, Dino Krupić,
Yoshihiko Kunisato, Jonas R. Kunst, Murathan Kurfalı, Elizaveta Kushnir, Ranran Li, Gabriel Lins de Holanda
Coelho, Esio Manunta, Gabriela-Mariana Marcu, Marcel Martončik, Sébastien Massoni, Princess Lovella G.
Maturan, Irem Metin-Orta, Jasna Milošević Đorđević, Giovanna Mioni, Aviv Mokady, Renan P. Monteiro, Sara
Morales-Izquierdo, Farnaz Mosannenzadeh, Fany Muchembled, Mina Nedelcheva-Datsova, Gustav Nilsonne,
Raquel Oliveira, Clara Overkott, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Tamar Elise Paltrow, Myrto Pantazi, Bastien Paris, Mariola
Paruzel-Czachura, Michal Parzuchowski, Ilse L. Pit, Sara Johanna Pöntinen, Razieh Pourafshari, Ekaterina
Pronizius, Nikolay R. Rachev, Niv Reggev, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Rafael R. Ribeiro, Marta Roczniewska, Ivan
Ropovik, Susana Ruiz-Fernandez, Aslı Saçaklı, Dušana Dušan Šakan, Anabela Caetano Santos, Nicolas Say, Vidar
Schei, Nadya-Daniela Schmidt, Jana Schrötter, Daniela Serrato Alvarez, MohammadHasan Sharian, Miguel
Alejandro A. Silan, Claudio Singh Solorzano, Karolina Staniaszek, Stefan Stieger, Eva Štrukelj, Anna Studzinska,
Naoyuki Sunami, Lilian Suter, erese E. Sverdrup, Anna Szala, Barnabas Szaszi, Christian K Tamnes, Anna
Louise Todsen, Murat Tümer, Anum Urooj, Kevin van Schie, Martin R. Vasilev, Milica Vdovic, Diego Vega, Jeroen
P.H. Verharen, Kevin Vezirian, Luc Vieira, Roosevelt Vilar, Jáchym Vintr, Leonhard Volz, Claudia C. von Bastian,
Marek A. Vranka, Lara Warmelink, Minja Westerlund, Yuki Yamada, Ilya Zakharov, Danilo Zambrano, Janis H.
Zickfeld, Andras N. Zsido, Barbara Žuro. Investigation: Christopher L. Aberson, Matus Adamkovic, Adeyemi
Adetula, Arca Adıgüzel, Reza Aami, Elena Agadullina, Lina Pernilla Ahlgren, Afroja Ahmed, Nihan Albayrak-
Aydemir, Inês A. T. Almeida, Sara G. Alves, Gulnaz Anjum, Michele Anne, Benedict G Antazo, Jan Antfolk,
Nwadiogo Chisom Arinze, Azuka Ikechukwu Arinze, Patrícia Arriaga, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta, Alexios
Arvanitis, Adrian Dahl Askelund, Souan Azouaghe, Hui Bai, Busra Bahar Balci, Tonia Ballantyne, Gabriel
Baník, Krystian Barzykowski, Ernest Baskin, Sanja Batić Očovaj, Carlota Batres, Jozef Bavolar, Maja Becker,
Behzad Behzadnia, Anabel Belaus, Jana B. Berkessel, Michał Białek, Olga Bialobrzeska, Gijsbert Bijlstra, Ahmed
Bokkour, Jordane Boudesseul, Alexandre Bran, Erin M. Buchanan, Tara Bulut Allred, Carsten Bundt, Muhammad
Mussaffa Butt, Robert J Calin-Jageman, Rodrigo A. Cárcamo, Joelle Carpentier, Nicola Cellini, Abdelilah
Charyate, Zhang Chen, Faith Chiu, William J. Chopik, Weilun Chou, Sami Çoksan, W. Matthew Collins, Nadia
Sarai Corral-Frias, Johanna Czamanski-Cohen, Shimrit Daches, Ilker Dalgar, Anna Dalla Rosa, William E. Davis,
Anabel de la Rosa-Gómez, Barnaby James Wyld Dixson, Ikhlas Djamai, Artur Domurat, Hongfei Du, Dmitrii
Dubrov, Celia Esteban-Serna, Luis Eudave, Gilad Feldman, Ana Ferreira, Andrej Findor, Paul A G Forbes,
Francesco Foroni, Patrick S. Forscher, Martha Frias-Armenta, Cynthia H.Y. Fu, Tripat Gill, Biljana Gjoneska,
Hendrik Godbersen, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, Caterina Grano, Dmitry Grigoryev, Agata Groyecka-
Bernard, Paul H. P. Hanel, Andree Hartanto, Mikayel Harutyunyan, Dawn L Holford, omas J. Hostler, Monika
Hricova, Evgeniya Hristova, Matej Hruška, Keiko Ihaya, Hans IJzerman, Tatsunori Ishii, Bastian Jaeger, Allison P
Janak, Steve M. J. Janssen, Lisa M. Jaremka, Teodor Jernsäther, Xiaoming Jiang, William Jiménez-Leal, Jennifer A.
Joy-Gaba, Pavol Kačmár, Julia Arhondis Kamburidis, Gwenaêl Kaminski, Heather Barry Kappes, Cemre
Karaarslan, Alper Karababa, Maria Karekla, Angelos P. Kassianos, Ahmed KHAOUDI, Meetu Khosla, Julita
Kielińska, Natalia Kiselnikova, Halil Emre Kocalar, Monica A Koehn, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm, Małgorzata
Kossowska, Marta Kowal, Luca Kozma, Anthony J. Krafnick, Franki Y. H. Kung, Yoshihiko Kunisato, Jonas R.
Kunst, Elizaveta Kushnir, Anna O. Kuzminska, Claus Lamm, Ljiljana B. Lazarevic, David M. G. Lewis, Tiago J. S.
Lima, Samuel Lins, Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho, Elkin O. Luis, PAULO MANUEL L. MACAPAGAL,
Nadyanna M. Majeed, Mathi Manavalan, Esio Manunta, Gabriela-Mariana Marcu, Marcel Martončik, Sébastien
Massoni, Randy McCarthy, Joseph P. McFall, Michael C. Mensink, Jeremy K. Miller, Jasna Milošević Đorđević,
Giovanna Mioni, Michal Misiak, Aviv Mokady, Renan P. Monteiro, David Moreau, Farnaz Mosannenzadeh, Rafał
Muda, Erica D. Musser, Izuchukwu L.G. Ndukaihe, Mina Nedelcheva-Datsova, Gustav Nilsonne, Nora L. Nock,
Chris Noone, CHISOM ESTHER OGBONNAYA, Adriana Julieth Olaya Torres, Raquel Oliveira, Jonas K.
Olofsson, Sandersan Onie, omas Ostermann, Asil Ali Özdoğru, Myrto Pantazi, Marietta Papadatou-Pastou,
Mariola Paruzel-Czachura, Michal Parzuchowski, Jerey M. Pavlacic, Jennifer T Perillo, Gerit Pfuhl, Sara Johanna
Pöntinen, Maximilian A. Primbs, Ekaterina Pronizius, Nikolay R. Rachev, eda Radtke, Rima-Maria Rahal,
Crystal Reeck, Niv Reggev, Ulf-Dietrich Reips, Dongning Ren, Matheus Fernando Felix Ribeiro, Marta
Roczniewska, Jan Philipp Röer, Ivan Ropovik, Robert M. Ross, Susana Ruiz-Fernandez, Aslı Saçaklı, Dušana
Dušan Šakan, Anabela Caetano Santos, Nicolas Say, Vidar Schei, Kathleen Schmidt, Jana Schrötter, Martin
Seehuus, Daniela Serrato Alvarez, Jaime R. Silva, Claudio Singh Solorzano, Miroslav Sirota, Agnieszka
Sorokowska, Piotr Sorokowski, Jose A. Soto, Daniela Sousa, Ian D Stephen, Daniel Shak Storage, Eva Štrukelj,
Anna Studzinska, Naoyuki Sunami, Clare AM Sutherland, Therese E. Sverdrup, Paulina Szwed, Srinivasan
Tatachari, María del Carmen Tejada R., Andrew G.Thomas, Mónica Camila Toro Venegas, Ulrich S. Tran,
Giovanni A. Travaglino, Alexa M Tullett, Murat Tümer, Jan Urban, Anum Urooj, Jim Uttley, David C. Vaidis,
Zahir Vally, Natalia Van Doren, Martin R. Vasilev, Leigh Ann Vaughn, Milica Vdovic, Diego Vega, Frederkck
Verbruggen, Kevin Vezirian, Luc Vieira, Roosevelt Vilar, Iris Vilares, Johannes K. Vilsmeier, Leonhard Volz,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
11
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Claudia C. von Bastian, Martin Voracek, Marek A. Vranka, Radoslaw B. Walczak, Minja Westerlund, Erin C.
Westgate, Aaron L. Wichman, Megan L Willis, Kelly Wolfe, Qinyu Xiao, Siu Kit Yeung, Karen Yu, Ilya Zakharov,
Danilo Zambrano, Przemysław Marcin Zdybek, Ignazio Ziano, Janis H. Zickfeld, Saša Zorjan, Andras N. Zsido.
Competing interests
e authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary information e online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to E.M.B.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional aliations.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Cre-
ative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. e images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not per-
mitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the
copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© e Author(s) 2023
Erin M. Buchanan
1 ✉ , Savannah C. Lewis
2, Bastien Paris
3, Patrick S. Forscher
4,
Jerey M. Pavlacic5, Julie E. Beshears6, Shira Meir Drexler7, Amélie Gourdon-Kanhukamwe8,9,
Peter R Mallik10, Miguel Alejandro A. Silan
11, Jeremy K. Miller12, Hans IJzerman
13,14,
Hannah Moshontz15, Jennifer L. Beaudry16, Jordan W. Suchow
17, Christopher R. Chartier2,
Nicholas A. Coles
18, MohammadHasan Sharian19, Anna Louise Todsen20,
Carmel A. Levitan
21, Flávio Azevedo
22, Nicole Legate
23, Blake Heller24,
Alexander J. Rothman25, Charles A. Dorison26, Brian P. Gill27, Ke Wang28, Vaughan W. Rees
29,
Nancy Gibbs30, Amit Goldenberg31, Thuy-vy Thi Nguyen32, James J. Gross33, Gwenaêl Kaminski34,
Claudia C. von Bastian
35, Mariola Paruzel-Czachura36,37, Farnaz Mosannenzadeh38,
Souan Azouaghe13,39, Alexandre Bran40, Susana Ruiz-Fernandez
41,
Anabela Caetano Santos42,43, Niv Reggev
44, Janis H. Zickfeld
45, Handan Akkas
46,
Myrto Pantazi47, Ivan Ropovik
48,49, Max Korbmacher50, Patrícia Arriaga51, Biljana Gjoneska
52,
Lara Warmelink
53, Sara G. Alves54, Gabriel Lins de Holanda Coelho55, Stefan Stieger
56,
Vidar Schei57, Paul H. P. Hanel58, Barnabas Szaszi59, Maksim Fedotov
60, Jan Antfolk
61,
Gabriela-Mariana Marcu
62, Jana Schrötter
63, Jonas R. Kunst64, Sandra J. Geiger
65,
Adeyemi Adetula
13,66, Halil Emre Kocalar67, Julita Kielińska68, Pavol Kačmár
69,
Ahmed Bokkour70, Oscar J. Galindo-Caballero
71, Ikhlas Djamai39, Sara Johanna Pöntinen61,
Bamikole Emmanuel AGESIN72, Teodor Jernsäther
73, Anum Urooj74, Nikolay R. Rachev
75,
Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm
76, Murathan Kurfalı76, Ilse L. Pit
77,78, Ranran Li
79, Sami Çoksan80,
Dmitrii Dubrov81, Tamar Elise Paltrow82, Gabriel Baník
83, Tatiana Korobova84,
Anna Studzinska
85, Xiaoming Jiang86, John Jamir Benzon R. Aruta87, Jáchym Vintr88,
Faith Chiu58,89, Lada Kaliska90, Jana B. Berkessel
91, Murat Tümer92, Sara Morales-Izquierdo
93,
Hu Chuan-Peng
94, Kevin Vezirian13, Anna Dalla Rosa95, Olga Bialobrzeska96, Martin R. Vasilev97,
Julia Beitner
98, Ondřej Kácha88, Barbara Žuro99,100, Minja Westerlund61,
Mina Nedelcheva-Datsova75, Andrej Findor101, Dajana Krupić102, Marta Kowal
103,
Adrian Dahl Askelund104, Razieh Pourafshari105, Jasna Milošević Đorđević106,
Nadya-Daniela Schmidt
107, Ekaterina Baklanova108, Anna Szala
109, Ilya Zakharov110,
Marek A. Vranka
111, Keiko Ihaya112, Caterina Grano113, Nicola Cellini114, Michał Białek
103,
Lisa Anton-Boicuk115, Ilker Dalgar116, Arca Adıgüzel67, Jeroen P. H. Verharen117,
Princess Lovella G. Maturan
118, Angelos P. Kassianos
119, Raquel Oliveira120, Martin Čadek121,
Vera Cubela Adoric
122, Asil Ali Özdoğru123, Therese E. Sverdrup57, Balazs Aczel
124,
Danilo Zambrano125, Afroja Ahmed126, Christian K. Tamnes64, Yuki Yamada
127,
Leonhard Volz
128, Naoyuki Sunami
129, Lilian Suter
130, Luc Vieira131,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
12
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Agata Groyecka-Bernard103, Julia Arhondis Kamburidis132, Ulf-Dietrich Reips133,
Mikayel Harutyunyan111, Gabriel Agboola Adetula72, Tara Bulut Allred134, Krystian Barzykowski135,
Benedict G Antazo136, Andras N. Zsido137, Dušana Dušan Šakan138, Wilson Cyrus-Lai139,
Lina Pernilla Ahlgren61, Matej Hruška140, Diego Vega141, Esio Manunta142, Aviv Mokady
143,
Mariagrazia Capizzi144, Marcel Martončik145,146, Nicolas Say147, Katarzyna Filip135,
Roosevelt Vilar148, Karolina Staniaszek149, Milica Vdovic106, Matus Adamkovic
146,150,
Niklas Johannes151, Nandor Hajdu59, Noga Cohen
152, Clara Overkott153, Dino Krupić
154,
Barbora Hubena155, Gustav Nilsonne
73,156,157, Giovanna Mioni114,
Claudio Singh Solorzano
113,158, Tatsunori Ishii159, Zhang Chen160, Elizaveta Kushnir161,
Cemre Karaarslan162, Rafael R. Ribeiro163, Ahmed Khaoudi70, Małgorzata Kossowska164,
Jozef Bavolar
69, Karlijn Hoyer165, Marta Roczniewska166,167, Alper Karababa67, Maja Becker
142,
Renan P. Monteiro168, Yoshihiko Kunisato169, Irem Metin-Orta170, Sylwia Adamus135,
Luca Kozma
137,171, Gabriela Czarnek135, Artur Domurat
172, Eva Štrukelj173,
Daniela Serrato Alvarez125, Michal Parzuchowski
174, Sébastien Massoni175,
Johanna Czamanski-Cohen
176, Ekaterina Pronizius
177, Fany Muchembled178,
Kevin van Schie179,180,181, Aslı Saçaklı182, Evgeniya Hristova183, Anna O. Kuzminska184,
Abdelilah Charyate185,186, Gijsbert Bijlstra187, Reza Aami188, Nadyanna M. Majeed189,
Erica D. Musser
190, Miroslav Sirota
191, Robert M. Ross
192, Siu Kit Yeung193,
Marietta Papadatou-Pastou194, Francesco Foroni
195, Inês A. T. Almeida
196,
Dmitry Grigoryev
197, David M. G. Lewis
198, Dawn L. Holford
199, Steve M. J. Janssen
200,
Srinivasan Tatachari
201, Carlota Batres
202, Jonas K. Olofsson
73, Shimrit Daches203,
Anabel Belaus
204, Gerit Pfuhl
205, Nadia Sarai Corral-Frias206, Daniela Sousa207,
Jan Philipp Röer208, Peder Mortvedt Isager209, Hendrik Godbersen41, Radoslaw B. Walczak210,
Natalia Van Doren211, Dongning Ren165, Tripat Gill212, Martin Voracek
177, Lisa M. DeBruine
213,
Michele Anne200, Sanja Batić Očovaj214, Andrew G. Thomas215, Alexios Arvanitis
216,
Thomas Ostermann217, Kelly Wolfe218, Nwadiogo Chisom Arinze
66, Carsten Bundt64,
Claus Lamm
177, Robert J Calin-Jageman
219, William E. Davis220, Maria Karekla
221,
Saša Zorjan222, Lisa M. Jaremka223, Jim Uttley35, Monika Hricova
69, Monica A Koehn
224,
Natalia Kiselnikova225, Hui Bai226, Anthony J. Krafnick
227, Busra Bahar Balci228,
Tonia Ballantyne229, Samuel Lins
230, Zahir Vally231, Celia Esteban-Serna232, Kathleen Schmidt2,
Paulo Manuel L. Macapagal233,234, Paulina Szwed235, Przemysław Marcin Zdybek210,
David Moreau236, W. Matthew Collins237, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba238, Iris Vilares239, Ulrich S. Tran177,
Jordane Boudesseul240,241, Nihan Albayrak-Aydemir
242,243, Barnaby James Wyld Dixson
244,
Jennifer T Perillo245,246, Ana Ferreira196, Erin C. Westgate247, Christopher L. Aberson248,
Azuka Ikechukwu Arinze66, Bastian Jaeger249, Muhammad Mussaa Butt
250, Jaime R. Silva251,
Daniel Shak Storage252, Allison P Janak253, William Jiménez-Leal254, Jose A. Soto211,
Agnieszka Sorokowska
255, Randy McCarthy256, Alexa M Tullett257, Martha Frias-Armenta258,
Matheus Fernando Felix Ribeiro259, Andree Hartanto189, Paul A. G. Forbes115, Megan L. Willis
260,
María del Carmen Tejada R261, Adriana Julieth Olaya Torres262, Ian D Stephen
263,
David C. Vaidis40, Anabel de la Rosa-Gómez264, Karen Yu265, Clare A. M. Sutherland266,267,
Mathi Manavalan25, Behzad Behzadnia268, Jan Urban269, Ernest Baskin270, Joseph P. McFall271,
Chisom Esther Ogbonnaya
66, Cynthia H. Y. Fu
272, Rima-Maria Rahal
273,
Izuchukwu L. G. Ndukaihe274, Thomas J. Hostler275, Heather Barry Kappes243, Piotr Sorokowski255,
Meetu Khosla276, Ljiljana B. Lazarevic
277, Luis Eudave278, Johannes K. Vilsmeier177,
Elkin O. Luis279, Rafał Muda280, Elena Agadullina197, Rodrigo A. Cárcamo281, Crystal Reeck
282,
Gulnaz Anjum64, Mónica Camila Toro Venegas261, Michal Misiak283,284, Richard M. Ryan195,
Nora L. Nock285, Giovanni A. Travaglino
286, Michael C. Mensink287, Gilad Feldman288,
Aaron L. Wichman289, Weilun Chou290, Ignazio Ziano291, Martin Seehuus292, William J. Chopik
293,
Franki Y. H. Kung294, Joelle Carpentier295, Leigh Ann Vaughn296, Hongfei Du297, Qinyu Xiao
298,
Tiago J. S. Lima299, Chris Noone300, Sandersan Onie301,302, Frederick Verbruggen
160,
Theda Radtke303 & Maximilian A. Primbs38
1Analytics, Harrisburg University of Science and Technology, Harrisburg, USA. 2Ashland University, Ashland, USA.
3Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 4Busara Center for Behavioral Economics, Nairobi, Kenya.
5Department of Psychology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, USA. 6Alliant International University, San Diego, USA.
7Department of Neurology, Mauritius Hospital Meerbusch, Meerbusch, Germany. 8King’s College, London, United
Kingdom. 9Kingston University, London, United Kingdom. 10Hubbard Decision Research, Glen Ellyn, USA. 11Annecy
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
13
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Behavioral Science Lab, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France. 12Willamette University, Salem, USA. 13LIP/PC2S,
Université Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France. 14Institut Universitaire de France, Paris, France. 15University of
Wisconsin - Madison, Madison, USA. 16Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University of Technology,
Melbourne, Australia. 17School of Business, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, USA. 18Center for the Study
of Language and Information, Stanford University, Stanford, USA. 19Department of Psychology, University of Tehran,
Tehran, Iran. 20School of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, United Kingdom.
21Occidental College, Los Angeles, USA. 22Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United
Kingdom. 23Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, USA. 24Hobby School of Public Aairs, University of Houston,
Houston, USA. 25University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA. 26Kellogg School of Management, Evanston, USA.
27Mathematica, Princeton, USA. 28Harvard University, Boston, USA. 29Department of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, USA. 30Harvard Kennedy School, Boston, USA. 31Harvard
Business School, Boston, USA. 32Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom. 33Department of Psychology,
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. 34CLLE, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 35University of Sheeld,
Sheeld, United Kingdom. 36Institute of Psychology, University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Spain. 37Penn
Center for Neuroaesthetics, ChatLab, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, US. 38Radboud University, Nijmegen,
Netherlands. 39Department of Psychology, Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco. 40Université Paris Cité, Paris,
France. 41FOM University of Applied Sciences, Essen, Germany. 42Department of Education, Social Sciences and
Humanities, Faculty of Human Kinetics, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 43Environmental Health Institute,
Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal. 44Department of Psychology and School of Brain Sciences
and Cognition, Ben Gurion University, Beersheba, Israel. 45Department of Management, Aarhus University, Aarhus,
Denmark. 46MIS Department, Ankara Science University, Ankara, Turkey. 47Center for Social and Cultural Psychology,
Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium. 48Faculty of Education, Institute for Research and Development of
Education, Charles University, Prague, Czechia. 49Faculty of Education, University of Presov, Presov, Slovakia.
50Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway. 51CIS_Iscte, ISCTE - University Institute of Lisbon,
Lisbon, Portugal. 52Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Skopje, North Macedonia. 53Lancaster University,
Lancaster, United Kingdom. 54Center for Psychology at University of Porto, Faculty of Psychology and Educational
Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal. 55University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 56Department of Psychology
and Psychodynamics, Karl Landsteiner University of Health Sciences, Krems an der Donau, Austria. 57Department of
Strategy and Management, NHH Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway. 58University of Essex, Essex,
United Kingdom. 59Institute of Psychology, ELTE - Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. 60Institute for
Linguistic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia. 61Faculty of Arts, Psychology and Theology, Åbo
Akademi University, Turku, Finland. 62Department o f Psychology, “Lucian Blaga” University of Sibiu, Sibiu, Romania.
63Department of Psychiatry, Medical Faculty, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia. 64Department
of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway. 65Environmental Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion,
and Methods, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 66Alex Ekwueme Federal University,
Ndufu-Alike, Nigeria. 67Department of Psychological Counseling and Guidance, Muğla Sıtkı Koçman University,
Kotekli, Turkey. 68Jan Dlugosz University in Czestochowa, Czestochowa, Poland. 69Department of Psychology,
Faculty of Arts, Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice, Košice, Slovakia. 70Mohammed V University, Rabat, Morocco.
71Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y Humanas, Universidad Manuela Beltrán, Bogota, Colombia. 72Department of Pure
& Applied Psychology, Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba Akoko, Nigeria. 73Department of Psychology, Stockholm
University, Stockholm, Sweden. 74La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia. 75Department of General, Experimental,
Developmental, and Health Psychology, Soa University St. Kliment Ohridski, Soa, Bulgaria. 76Department of
Linguistics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 77Institute of Human Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford,
United Kingdom. 78Calleva Research Centre for Evolution and Human Sciences, Magdalen College, Oxford, United
Kingdom. 79Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. 80Department of Psychology, Erzurum Technical
University, Erzurum, Turkey. 81Higher School of Economics, National Research University, Moscow, Russian
Federation. 82Independent Scientist, Krakow, USA. 83Institute of Psychology, University of Presov, Presov, Slovakia.
84London Gates Education Group, Riga, Russian Federation. 85Humanities Department, Icam Toulouse, Toulouse,
France. 86Institute of Linguistics, Shanghai International Studies University, Shanghai, China. 87Department of
Psychology, School of Medical and Life Sciences, Sunway University, Subang Jaya, Malaysia. 88Green Dock,
Hostivice, Czech Republic. 89English Language and Linguistics, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland. 90Matej Bel
University in Banská Bystrica, Banská Bystrica, Slovakia. 91University of Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
92Independent Scientist, Istanbul, Turkey. 93Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Warwick, United
Kingdom. 94School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China. 95Department of Philosophy,
Sociology, Education and Applied Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 96SWPS University of Social
Sciences and Humanities, Warsaw, Poland. 97Department of Psychology, Bournemouth University, Poole, United
Kingdom. 98Department of Psychology, Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 99Institute of Psychology,
Dublin, Ireland. 100Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia. 101Faculty of Social
and Economic Sciences, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia. 102Centre for Psychological
Counselling and Research Norvel, Osijek, Croatia. 103Institute of Psychology, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland.
104Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Nic Waals Institute, Oslo, Norway. 105University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. 106Faculty
of Media and Communication, Singidunum University, Belgrade, Serbia. 107Institute of Psychology, University of
Hildesheim, Hildesheim, Germany. 108Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. 109Centre of Language
Evolution Studies, Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Toruń, Poland. 110Psychological Institute of Russian
Academy of Education, Moscow, Russia. 111Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. 112Fukuoka Institute of
Technology, Fukuoka, Japan. 113Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy. 114Department
of General Psychology, University of Padova, Padova, Italy. 115University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 116Ankara
Medipol University, Altındağ/Ankara, Turkey. 117Department of Molecular and Cell Biology, University of California
Berkeley, Berkeley, USA. 118Department of Psychology, University of the Philippines Diliman, Quezon City,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
14
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Philippines. 119Department of Nursing, Cyprus University of Technology, Limassol, Cyprus. 120Iscte-Instituto
Universitário de Lisboa (Cis-Iul), Lisboa, Portugal. 121Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United Kingdom. 122University
of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia. 123Üsküdar University, İstanbul, Turkey. 124ELTE - Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest,
Hungary. 125Facultad de Psicología, Fundación Universitaria Konrad Lorenz, Bogotá, Colombia. 126Global MINDS,
University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland. 127Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 128University of Amsterdam,
Amsterdam, Netherlands. 129Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education (IGDORE), Stockholm,
Sweden. 130Zurich University of Applied Sciences, School of Applied Psychology, Zurich, Switzerland. 131University of
Paris, Paris, France. 132Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridsky”, Sofia, Bulgaria. 133Department of Psychology,
University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany. 134Laboratory for Research of Individual Differences, Faculty of
Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 135Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Krakow,
Poland. 136Jose Rizal University, Metro Manila, Philippines. 137Institute of Psychology, University of Pécs, Pécs,
Hungary. 138Department of Psychology, Faculty for Legal and Business Studies Dr Lazar Vrkatić, Novi Sad, Serbia.
139INSEAD, Singapore, Singapore. 140Faculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of European Studies and
International Relations, Comenius University, Bratislava, Slovakia. 141Universidad Latina de Costa Rica, San Pedro,
Costa Rica. 142CLLE, CNRS, Université de Toulouse, Toulouse, France. 143Department of Psychology, Ben Gurion
University, Beersheba, Israel. 144Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.
145Faculty of Arts, University of Presov, Presov, Slovakia. 146Institute of Social Sciences CSPS, Slovak Academy of
Sciences, Bratislava, Slovakia. 147Prague University of Economics and Business, Praha, Czechia. 148Universitas
Sebelas Maret, Kota Surakarta, Indonesia. 149Independent Scientist, Krakow, Poland. 150Faculty of Humanities and
Social Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. 151University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. 152Department of
Special Education and The Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University
of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. 153Department of Psychology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 154University of Osijek,
Osijek, Croatia. 155Independent Researcher, Praha, Czech Republic. 156Department of Clinical Neuroscience,
Karolinska Institutet, Solna, Sweden. 157Swedish National Data Service, Gothenburg University, Gothenburg,
Sweden. 158Laboratory of Alzheimer’s Neuroimaging and Epidemiology, IRCCS Istituto Centro San Giovanni di Dio
Fatebenefratelli, Brescia, Italy. 159Department of Psychology, Faculty of Integrated Arts & Social Science, Japan
Women’s University, Tokyo, Japan. 160Department of Experimental Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
161Södertörn University, Huddinge, Sweden. 162Independent Scientist, Ankara, Turkey. 163ISCTE-University Institute
of Lisbon, Lisboa, Portugal. 164Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Warszawa,
Poland. 165Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 166SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities,
Sopot, Poland. 167Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden. 168Federal University of Paraíba, Paraiba, Brazil.
169Department of Psychology, Senshu University, Toyko, Japan. 170Department of Psychology, Atilim University,
Ankara, Turkey. 171School of Education and Social Sciences, Division of Psychology, University of the West of
Scotland, Paisley, Scotland. 172University of Silesia in Katowice, Katowice, Poland. 173Sapienza University of Rome,
Rome, Slovenia. 174Center for Research on Cognition and Behavior, SWPS University of Social Sciences and
Humanities, Sopot, Poland. 175CNRS, Université de Lorraine, Nancy, France. 176The School of Creative Arts Therapies,
Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Sciences, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. 177Department of Cognition, Emotion
and Methods in Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 178Departamento de
Idiomas, Campus Sonora Norte, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Hermosillo, México. 179Medical and Clinical Psychology,
Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Neth erlands. 180Department of Psychology, Education and Child Studies, Erasmus
School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 181MRC Cognition and
Brain Sciences Unit, University of Cambridge, Rotterdam, United Kingdom. 182Independent Researcher, Istanbul,
Turkey. 183Cognitive Science and Psychology Department, New Bulgarian University, Soa, Bulgaria. 184Faculty of
Management, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. 185Ibn Tofail University (ESEF), Kenitra, Morocco. 186BETA,
Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France. 187Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The
Netherlands. 188Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran. 189Singapore Management University, Singapore,
Singapore. 190Psychology Department, Florida International University, Miami, USA. 191Department of Psychology,
University of Essex, Colchester, United Kingdom. 192School of Psychological Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia. 193Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China. 194National and Kapodistrian University of
Athens, Athens, Greece. 195Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 196Faculty of
Medicine FMUC, Institute of Nuclear Sciences Applied to Health ICNAS, Coimbra Institute for Biomedical Imaging
and Translational Research CIBIT, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal. 197HSE University, Moscow, Russia.
198Discipline of Psychology, Centre for Healthy Ageing, Health Futures Institute, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia.
199University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom. 200University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Malaysia. 201T A
Pai Management Institute, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, India. 202Franklin and Marshall College,
Lancaster, USA. 203Psychology Department, Bar Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel. 204Instituto de Investigaciones
Psicológicas (IIPsi), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientícas y Técnicas, Universidad Nacional de Córdoba,
Córdoba, Argentina. 205Department of Psychology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim,
Norway. 206University of Sonora, Sonora, Mexico. 207Institute of Nuclear Sciences Applied to Health ICNAS, Coimbra
Institute for Biomedical Imaging and Translational Research CIBIT, University of Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal.
208Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. 209Oslo New University College, Oslo, Norway. 210University of
Opole, Institute of Psychology, Opole, Poland. 211The Pennsylvania State University, State College, USA. 212Lazaridis
School of Business and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Canada. 213School of Psychology &
Neuroscience, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. 214Faculty of Law and Business Studies Dr Lazar
Vrkatić, Novi Sad, Serbia. 215School of Psychology, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom. 216Department
of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece. 217Department for Psychology and Psychotherapy, Witten/
Herdecke University, Witten, Germany. 218University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom. 219Neuroscience
Program, Dominican University, River Forest, USA. 220Wittenberg University, Springeld, USA. 221University of
Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus. 222Department of Psychology, University of Maribor, Maribor, Slovenia. 223University of
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
15
SCIENTIFIC DATA | (2023) 10:87 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01811-7
www.nature.com/scientificdata
www.nature.com/scientificdata/
Delaware, Newark, USA. 224Discipline of Psychology, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia.
225Educational Centre “Psychodemia”, Moscow, Russian Federation. 226Stanford University, Stanford, USA.
227Psychology Department, Dominican University, River Forest, USA. 228Samsun University Department of
Psychology, Samsun, Turkey. 229Indiana University Pennsylvania, Indiana, USA. 230University of Porto, Porto,
Portugal. 231Department of Clinical Psychology, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates.
232Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, London, United Kingdom. 233Social
Science Department, College of Liberal Arts, Technological University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines.
234School of Psychology, Arellano University, Metro Manila, Philippines. 235Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland.
236University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 237Nova Southeastern University, Broward County, USA.
238Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA. 239Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, USA. 240Laboratoire Parisien de Psychologie Sociale, Université Paris Nanterre, Nanterre, France.
241Grupo de Investigación en Comunicación y Salud, Instituto de Investigación Cientíca, Universidad de Lima, Paris,
Peru. 242Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom. 243London School of Economics and Political Science,
London, United Kingdom. 244School of Health and Behavioural Sciences, University of the Sunshine Coast, Petrie,
QLD, Petrie, Australia. 245Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, USA. 246Division of
Community Behavioral Health, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of New Mexico Health
Sciences Center, Albuquerque, USA. 247University of Florida, Gainsville, USA. 248Cal Poly Humboldt, Humboldt, USA.
249Department of Experimental and Applied Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands. 250Department of Psychology, Government College University, Lahore, Pakistan. 251Universidad del
Desarrollo, Concepcion, Chile. 252Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Denver, USA. 253Yale School of
Public Health, Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, New Haven, USA. 254Psychology Department,
Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia. 255Institute of Psychology, University of Wroclaw, Wrocław, Poland.
256Northern Illinois University, Dekalb, USA. 257University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, USA. 258Universidad de Sonora,
Hermosillo, México. 259Universidade de Brasília, Brasília, Brasil. 260School of Behavioural and Health Sciences,
Australian Catholic University, New South Wales, Australia. 261Facultad de Psicología, Universidad del Desarrollo,
Concepcion, Chile. 262Faculty of Psychology, University of Desarrollo, Desarrollo, Chile. 263NTU Psychology,
Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom. 264Faculty of Higher Studies Iztacala, National
Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City, Mexico. 265Department of Psychology, Sewanee: The University of
the South, Sewanee, USA. 266University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland. 267University of Western Australia,
Crawley, Australia. 268University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran. 269Environment Centre, Charles University, Prague, Czech
Republic. 270Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, USA. 271State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, USA.
272School of Psychology, University of East London, London, UK. 273Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective
Goods, Bonn, Germany. 274Department of Psychology, Alex Ekwueme Federal University, Ndufu-Alike, Nigeria.
275Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom. 276Department of Psychology, Daulat Ram
College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. 277Faculty of Philosophy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia. 278School
of Education and Psychology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 279Psychological Processes in Education and
Health Group, School of Education and Psychology, University of Navarra, Pamplona, Spain. 280Faculty of Economics,
Maria Curie-Sklodowska University, Lublin, Poland. 281Facultad de Psicología, Universidad San Sebastián, Valdivia,
Chile. 282Department of Marketing, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, USA. 283IDN Being
Human Lab, University of Wrocław, Wrocław, Poland. 284School of Anthropology & Museum Ethnography, University
of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. 285Department of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, Case Western
Reserve University, Cleveland, USA. 286Department of Law and Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London,
London, UK. 287University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, USA. 288University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R.,
China. 289Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, USA. 290Fo Guang University, Jiaoxi, Taiwan. 291Grenoble
Ecole de Management, Grenoble, France. 292Middlebury College, Middlebury, USA. 293Michigan State University,
East Lansing, USA. 294Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA. 295Department of Organization and Human
Resources, UQAM, Montreal, Canada. 296Psychology Department, Ithaca College, Ithaca, USA. 297Institute of
Advanced Studies in Humanities and Social Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Zhuhai, China. 298Department of
Psychology, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong S.A.R., China. 299Department of Social and Work Psychology,
University of Brasília, Brasília, Brazil. 300University of Galway, Galway, Ireland. 301Black Dog Institute, UNSW Sydney,
Sydney, Australia. 302Emotional Health for All Foundation, Jakarta, Indonesia. 303University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal,
Germany. ✉e-mail: ebuchanan@harrisburgu.edu
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
