Filter Questions in Symptom Assessment Affect the Prevalence of (A)Symptomatic COVID-19 Cases.

BACKGROUND: It has been reported that a substantial number of COVID-19 infections are asymptomatic, with both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections contributing to transmission dynamics. Yet, the share of asymptomatic cases varies greatly across studies. One reason for this could be the measurement of symptoms in medical studies and surveys. DESIGN: In 2 experimental survey studies (total N > 3,000) with participants from Germany and the United Kingdom, respectively, we varied the inclusion of a filter question on whether participants who tested positive for COVID-19 had experienced symptoms prior to presenting a checklist of symptoms. We measured the reporting of asymptomatic (versus symptomatic) COVID-19 infections. RESULTS: The inclusion of a filter question increased the reporting of asymptomatic (versus symptomatic) COVID-19 infections. Particularly mild symptoms were underreported when using a filter question. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Filter questions affect the reporting of (a)symptomatic COVID-19 cases. To account for such differences in the estimation of population infection rates, future studies should transparently report the applied question format. HIGHLIGHTS: Both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections are important for COVID-19 transmission dynamics.In previous research, symptoms have been assessed either with or without a filter question prior to presenting a symptom list.We show that filter questions reduce the reporting of asymptomatic infections.Particularly mild symptoms are underreported when using a filter question.

The association between vaccination status identification and societal polarization.

Public discord between those vaccinated and those unvaccinated for COVID-19 has intensified globally. Theories of intergroup relations propose that identifying with one's social group plays a key role in the perceptions and behaviours that fuel intergroup conflict. We test whether identification with one's vaccination status is associated with current societal polarization. The study draws on panel data from samples of vaccinated (n = 3,267) and unvaccinated (n = 2,038) respondents in Germany and Austria that were collected in December 2021 and February, March and July 2022. The findings confirm that vaccination status identification (VSI) explains substantial variance in a range of polarizing attitudes and behaviours. VSI was also related to higher psychological reactance toward mandatory vaccination policies among the unvaccinated. Higher levels of VSI reduced the gap between intended and actual counterbehaviours over time by the unvaccinated. VSI appears to be an important measure for predicting behavioural responses to vaccination policies.

Different Interventions for COVID-19 Primary and Booster Vaccination? Effects of Psychological Factors and Health Policies on Vaccine Uptake.

BACKGROUND: Mitigation of the COVID-19 pandemic requires continued uptake of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. To increase vaccination intention and uptake, key determinants of primary and booster vaccination need to be understood and potential effects of vaccination policies examined. DESIGN: Using experimental data collected in Germany in February 2022 (N = 2701), this study investigated 1) predictors of primary and booster vaccination and 2) potential effects of policies combining vaccination mandates and monetary incentives. RESULTS: Compared with unvaccinated participants, those with primary vaccination were less complacent, more often understood the collective protection afforded by vaccination, and less often endorsed conspiracy-based misinformation. Compared with participants with primary vaccination, boosted individuals were even less complacent, exhibited fewer conspiracy-based beliefs, perceived fewer constraints by prioritizing vaccination over other things, and more often favored compliance with official vaccination recommendations. Support for and reactance about vaccination mandates depended on vaccination status rather than policy characteristics, regardless of mandate type or incentives (up to 500 EUR). While unvaccinated individuals rejected policy provisions and declined vaccination, boosted individuals indicated mid-level support for mandates and showed high vaccination intention. Among vaccinated individuals, higher incentives of up to 2000 EUR had a considerable positive effect on the willingness to get boosted, especially in the absence of a mandate. CONCLUSIONS: While mandates may be needed to increase primary vaccination, our results indicate that financial incentives could be an alternative to promote booster uptake. However, combining both measures for the same target group seems inadvisable in most cases. HIGHLIGHTS: Unvaccinated individuals and people with primary and booster vaccinations differ on psychological dimensions, calling for tailored immunization campaigns.Vaccination intentions depend on vaccination status rather than on mandatory or incentivizing policies.Incentives are unlikely to persuade unvaccinated individuals but may increase booster uptake.Positive effects of incentives decrease when vaccination is mandatory, advising against combination.

Experiencing herd immunity in virtual reality increases COVID-19 vaccination intention: Evidence from a large-scale field intervention study.

This study investigates the impact of an immersive virtual reality (VR) simulation of herd immunity on vaccination intentions and its potential underlying mechanisms. In this preregistered field study, N = 654 participants were randomly assigned to one of the three VR conditions: (1) Gamified Herd Immunity; (2) Gamified Herd Immunity + Empathy (with additional narrative elements); (3) Control (gamified with no vaccination-related content). In the Gamified Herd Immunity simulation, participants embodied a vulnerable person and navigated a wedding venue trying to avoid getting infected. A total of 455 participants with below maximum intentions to take a novel vaccine and without severe cybersickness were analyzed. The Gamified Herd Immunity + Empathy and the Gamified Herd Immunity conditions increased vaccination intentions by 6.68 and 7.06 points on a 0-100 scale, respectively, compared to 1.91 for the Control condition. The Gamified Herd Immunity + Empathy condition enhanced empathy significantly more than the Gamified Herd Immunity condition but did not result in higher vaccination intentions. Experienced presence was related to the change in vaccination intentions. The results suggest that VR vaccination communication can effectively increase vaccination intentions; the effect is not solely due to the technological novelty and does not depend on empathy.

Integrating psychosocial variables and societal diversity in epidemic models for predicting COVID-19 transmission dynamics.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, governments must make decisions based on a variety of information including estimations of infection spread, health care capacity, economic and psychosocial considerations. The disparate validity of current short-term forecasts of these factors is a major challenge to governments. By causally linking an established epidemiological spread model with dynamically evolving psychosocial variables, using Bayesian inference we estimate the strength and direction of these interactions for German and Danish data of disease spread, human mobility, and psychosocial factors based on the serial cross-sectional COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO; N = 16,981). We demonstrate that the strength of cumulative influence of psychosocial variables on infection rates is of a similar magnitude as the influence of physical distancing. We further show that the efficacy of political interventions to contain the disease strongly depends on societal diversity, in particular group-specific sensitivity to affective risk perception. As a consequence, the model may assist in quantifying the effect and timing of interventions, forecasting future scenarios, and differentiating the impact on diverse groups as a function of their societal organization. Importantly, the careful handling of societal factors, including support to the more vulnerable groups, adds another direct instrument to the battery of political interventions fighting epidemic spread.

Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Background: COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. Methods: We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (n = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts (n = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK (n = 299) and the US (n = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings: Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. Interpretation: The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies. Funding: This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.

Virtual reality reduces COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the wild: a randomized trial.

Vaccine hesitancy poses one of the largest threats to global health. Informing people about the collective benefit of vaccination has great potential in increasing vaccination intentions. This research investigates the potential for engaging experiences in immersive virtual reality (VR) to strengthen participants' understanding of community immunity, and therefore, their intention to get vaccinated. In a pre-registered lab-in-the-field intervention study, participants were recruited in a public park (tested: [Formula: see text], analyzed: [Formula: see text]). They were randomly assigned to experience the collective benefit of community immunity in a gamified immersive virtual reality environment ([Formula: see text] of sample), or to receive the same information via text and images ([Formula: see text] of sample). Before and after the intervention, participants indicated their intention to take up a hypothetical vaccine for a new COVID-19 strain (0-100 scale) and belief in vaccination as a collective responsibility (1-7 scale). The study employs a crossover design (participants later received a second treatment), but the primary outcome is the effect of the first treatment on vaccination intention. After the VR treatment, for participants with less-than-maximal vaccination intention, intention increases by 9.3 points (95% CI: 7.0 to [Formula: see text]). The text-and-image treatment raises vaccination intention by 3.3 points (difference in effects: 5.8, 95% CI: 2.0 to [Formula: see text]). The VR treatment also increases collective responsibility by 0.82 points (95% CI: 0.37 to [Formula: see text]). The results suggest that VR interventions are an effective tool for boosting vaccination intention, and that they can be applied "in the wild"-providing a complementary method for vaccine advocacy.

Measuring parents' readiness to vaccinate themselves and their children against COVID-19.

To reach high vaccination rates against COVID-19, children and adolescents should be also vaccinated. To improve childhood vaccination rates and vaccination readiness, parents need to be addressed since they decide about the vaccination of their children. We adapted the 7C of vaccination readiness scale to measure parents' readiness to vaccinate their children and evaluated the scale in a long and a short version in two studies. The study was first evaluated with a sample of N = 244 parents from the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) and validated with N = 464 parents from the Danish COSMO. The childhood 7C scale showed acceptable to good psychometric properties in both samples and explained more than 80% of the variance in vaccination intentions. Additionally, differences in parents' readiness to vaccinate their children against COVID-19 were strongly determined by their readiness to vaccinate themselves, explaining 64% of the variance. Vaccination readiness and intentions for children changed as a function of the children's age explaining 93% of differences between parents in their vaccination intentions for their children. Finally, we found differences in correlations of components with self- versus childhood vaccination, as well as between the children's age groups in the prediction of vaccination intentions. Thus, parents need to be targeted in specifically tailored ways, based on the age of their child, to reach high vaccination rates in children. The scale is publicly available in several languages (www.vaccination-readiness.com).

Lessons learned about willingness to adopt various protective measures during the early COVID-19 pandemic in three countries.

BACKGROUND: Regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, concerted efforts have been invested in research to investigate and communicate the importance of complying with protective behaviors, such as handwashing and mask wearing. Protective measures vary in how effective they are in protecting the individual against infection, how much experience people have with them, whether they provide individual or societal protection, and how they are perceived on these dimensions. METHODS: This study assessed the willingness to follow recommended measures, depending on these features, among participants from Germany (n = 333), Hong Kong (n = 367), and the U.S. (n = 495). From April 24th to May 1st, 2020, individuals completed an online survey that assessed the antecedents of interest. RESULTS: It was shown that assumed effectiveness, previous experience, and intended self- and other-protection positively predicted willingness to comply across countries. When measures were mainly perceived as protecting others (vs. the self), individuals were less prone to adopt them. When a measure's effectiveness to protect the individual was perceived as lower, willingness to adopt the measure increased with higher levels of prior experience and collectivism. Moreover, protecting others was more strongly related to adoption when individuals had higher levels of collectivism and lower levels of individualism. CONCLUSIONS: Emphasizing the benefit for others could be a means to lower the potential detrimental effects of low assumed effectiveness for individual protection.

Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

Attitude toward a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and its determinants: Evidence from serial cross-sectional surveys conducted throughout the pandemic in Germany.

BACKGROUND: Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 is often discussed as a means to counter low vaccine uptake. Beyond the potential legal, ethical, and psychological concerns, a successful implementation also needs to consider citizens' support for such a policy. Public attitudes toward vaccination mandates and their determinants might differ over time and, hence, should be monitored. METHODS: Between April 2020 and April 2021, we investigated public support for mandatory vaccination policies in Germany and examined individual correlates, such as vaccination intentions, confidence in vaccine safety, and perceived collective responsibility, using a series of cross-sectional, quota-representative surveys (overall N = 27,509). RESULTS: Support for a vaccination mandate declined before the approval of the first vaccine against COVID-19 in December 2020 and increased afterwards. However, at the end of April 2021, only half of respondents were in favor of mandatory regulations. In general, mandates were endorsed by those who considered the vaccines to be safe, anticipated practical barriers, and felt responsible for the collective. On the contrary, perceiving vaccination as unnecessary and weighing the benefits and risks of vaccination was related to lower support. Older individuals and males more often endorsed vaccination mandates than did younger participants and females. Interestingly, there was a gap between vaccination intentions and support for mandates, showing that the attitude toward mandatory vaccination was not only determined by vaccination-related factors such as vaccine safety or prosocial considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Because of low public support, mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 should be considered a measure of last resort in Germany. However, if removing barriers to vaccination and educational campaigns about vaccine safety and the societal benefits of high vaccination uptake are not sufficient for increasing vaccination uptake to the required levels, mandates could be introduced. In this case, measures to ensure and increase acceptance and adherence should be taken.

Sensitive attitudes and adherence to recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic: Comparing direct and indirect questioning techniques.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, various behavioral measures were imposed to curb the spread of the virus. In a preregistered study based on a quota-representative sample of adult Danish citizens (N = 1031), we compared the prevalence estimates of self-reported handwashing, physical distancing, and attitudes toward the behavioral measures between people surveyed with a direct and an indirect questioning approach (i.e., the crosswise model). Moreover, we investigated two possible predictors of sensitive behaviors and attitudes, namely empathy for people vulnerable to the virus and Honesty-Humility from the HEXACO Model of Personality. We also examined the interaction of both predictors with the questioning format. Survey participants reported more violation of guidelines regarding handwashing and physical distancing when asked indirectly rather than directly, whereas attitudes regarding the behavioral measures did not differ between the two questioning formats. Respondents with less empathy for people vulnerable to COVID-19 reported more violations of handwashing and physical-distancing, and those low on Honesty-Humility reported more violations of physical distancing.

The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a weekly serial cross-sectional survey on risk perceptions, knowledge, public trust and behaviour, 3 to 25 March 2020.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions.AimTo identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3-25 March 2020).MethodsA serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour.ResultsAcceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants' age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action.ConclusionIdentifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach.

A self-administered virtual reality intervention increases COVID-19 vaccination intention.

Effective interventions for increasing people's intention to get vaccinated are crucial for global health, especially considering COVID-19. We devised a novel intervention using virtual reality (VR) consisting of a consultation with a general practitioner for communicating the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination and, in turn, increasing the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. We conducted a preregistered online experiment with a 2×2 between-participant design. People with eligible VR headsets were invited to install our experimental application and complete the ten minute virtual consultation study at their own discretion. Participants were randomly assigned across two age conditions (young or old self-body) and two communication conditions (with provision of personal benefit of vaccination only, or collective and personal benefit). The primary outcome was vaccination intention (score range 1-100) measured three times: immediately before and after the study, as well as one week later. Five-hundred-and-seven adults not vaccinated against COVID-19 were recruited. Among the 282 participants with imperfect vaccination intentions (<100), the VR intervention increased pre-to-post vaccination intentions across intervention conditions (mean difference 8.6, 95% CI 6.1 to 11.1,p<0.0001). The pre-to-post difference significantly correlated with the vaccination intention one week later, ρ=0.20,p<0.0001. The VR intervention was effective in increasing COVID-19 vaccination intentions both when only personal benefits and personal and collective benefits of vaccination were communicated, with significant retention one week after the intervention. Utilizing recent evidence from health psychology and embodiment research to develop immersive environments with customized and salient communication efforts could therefore be an effective tool to complement public health campaigns.

Information about herd immunity through vaccination and empathy promote COVID-19 vaccination intentions.

OBJECTIVE: An effective vaccine against COVID-19 is a desired solution to curb the spread of the disease. However, vaccine hesitancy might hinder high uptake rates and thus undermine efforts to eliminate COVID-19 once an effective vaccine became available. The present contribution addresses this issue by examining two ways of increasing the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. METHOD: Two preregistered online studies were conducted (N = 2,315 participants from the United Kingdom) in which knowledge about and beliefs in herd immunity through vaccination, as well as empathy for those most vulnerable to the virus, were either measured (Study 1) or manipulated (Study 2). As a dependent variable, individuals' self-reported vaccination intention once a vaccine against COVID-19 became available was assessed. RESULTS: In Study 1 (N = 310), the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was correlated with knowledge about and belief in herd immunity through vaccination (r = .58, p < .001), as well as with empathy for those most vulnerable to the virus (r = .26, p < .001). In Study 2 (N = 2,005), information about herd immunity through vaccination (Cohen's d = .13, p = .003) and empathy (Cohen's d = .22, p < .001) independently promoted vaccination intention. CONCLUSIONS: The motivation to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was related to and could be causally promoted by both mere information about herd immunity through vaccination and by empathy. As such, the present research provides a better understanding of the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Vaccination policy reactance: Predictors, consequences, and countermeasures.

Ending the COVID-19 pandemic will require rapid large-scale uptake of vaccines against the disease. Mandating vaccination is discussed as a suitable strategy to increase uptake. In a series of cross-sectional quota-representative surveys and two preregistered experiments conducted in Germany and the US (total N = 4629), we investigated (i) correlates of individual preferences for mandatory (vs voluntary) COVID-19 vaccination policies; (ii) potential detrimental effects of mandatory policies; and (iii) interventions potentially counteracting them. Results indicate that reactance elicited by mandates can cause detrimental effects, such as decreasing the intention to vaccinate against influenza and adhere to COVID-19 related protective measures.

Prosocial vaccination.

Most vaccines not only directly protect vaccinated individuals but also provide a social benefit through community protection. Therefore, vaccination can be considered a prosocial act to protect others. We review the recent empirical evidence on (i) how prosocial concerns relate to vaccination intentions and (ii) promoting prosocial vaccination through explaining community protection or inducing concern for vulnerable others. The available evidence suggests that promoting the prosocial aspect of vaccinations could be a vaccination communication strategy to improve vaccine uptake. We point to several areas in which future research can test the boundary conditions of this approach and increase its effectiveness.

Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic Nationwide Lockdown on Mental Health, Environmental Concern, and Prejudice Against Other Social Groups

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit humanity globally. Besides its obvious threats to our physical health and economic stability, one can only speculate about the pandemic?s and its countermeasures? psychosocial impacts. Here, we took advantage of a sample of healthy male participants who had completed psychosocial measures on mental health, environmental concern, and prejudice against asylum-seekers just before and during the nationwide lockdown in Germany in spring 2020. A follow-up assessment of 140 participants during the lockdown provided a unique opportunity to track psychosocial changes in a prospective longitudinal study design. In comparison to before the lockdown (1) mental health worsened, (2) environmental concern increased, and (3) prejudice against asylum-seekers decreased. Our study demonstrates psychosocial ?side effects? of the pandemic that bring both challenges and opportunities for our society with regard to the handling of psychological reactions to this pandemic and further global crises, including climate change and mass migration.

Comparing responses in repeated cross-sectional and panel studies: Results across eight weeks during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark.

It is often important to study people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors over time. To this end, researchers have relied on repeated cross-sectional (RCS) studies, in which different people from the same population participate on different measurement occasions. Also, researchers have relied on panel studies, in which the same group of people participate on different measurement occasions. However, few studies have directly tested whether participants' responses in RCS studies were similar to those found in panel studies. To address this gap, we compared the responses to 33 items, 28 of which were further grouped into four aggregates (Affections, Worries, States, Health concerns), over 8 weeks during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Denmark in a RCS study (overall N = 5,993, per measurement occasion 616 ≤ n ≤ 964) with the responses in a largely equivalent panel study (993 ≤ n ≤ 2,546 across measurement occasions). The study participants were randomly drawn from the same quota-representative participant pool and responded to the same items on the same measurement occasions. Results indicated a few differences between the study samples on the first measurement occasion (i.e., selection effects between studies). Further, we found statistical support for different trajectories in 21 aggregates/items. However, visual inspection of the trajectories suggested subtle differences between the studies at large. The results thus raise awareness that the trajectories of people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors can differ between survey methods, especially when only a few measurement occasions are considered. Nevertheless, such differences might not be substantial over time. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).