The Psychological Science Accelerator's COVID-19 rapid-response dataset.

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

How can food choice best be trained? Approach-avoidance versus go/no-go training.

Behavior toward appetitive stimuli can be changed by motor response training procedures in which participants approach or respond to some stimuli and avoid or inhibit behavior to other stimuli. There is discussion in the literature whether effects are different when participants approach versus avoid stimuli during approach-avoidance training compared to when they respond versus not respond to stimuli during go/no-go training. Here, we directly compared effects of approach-avoidance training and go/no-go training on food choice within the same rigorous experimental protocol. Results showed that both training procedures influence food choice such that participants preferred Approach over Avoidance food items, and Go over NoGo food items, and these training effects were not statistically different. The present work suggests any inconsistencies in the literature on possible differences in effectiveness of these training procedures may be explained by differences in methods employed. The present work also raises new theoretical and applied questions about motor response training as a means to change behavior.