Coping with COVID-19: Survey data assessing psychological distress to COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy with measures of theory of planned behavior, mindfulness, compassion, cultural orientation, and pandemic fatigue.

As the COVID-19 pandemic extends into another year, the causes and consequences of pandemic fatigue and vaccine hesitancy have become prominent concerns. This dataset contains MTurk survey responses from 658 vaccinated USA samples indicating: (a) pandemic fatigue and psychological distress (physical and trauma symptoms); (b) delays in receiving medical care due to COVID-19 restrictions; (c) vaccine-related behavior and beliefs (type of vaccine and vaccine hesitancy), and (d) COVID-19 preventive health behaviors. Several predictor variables were also collected including: (a) demographic variables; (b) COVID-19 health risk factors; (c) perceived susceptibility to disease and intolerance of uncertainty; (d) attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control about COVID-19 vaccine from the theory of planned behavior; (e) compassion for self and others; (f) psychological flexibility and inflexibility; (g) Buddhist mindfulness insight (impermanence, acceptance of suffering, nonself attachment, mindfulness); and (h) cultural orientation and authoritarianism. The data were collected between August 28th and October 18th of 2021. Out of the 746 MTurk workers who responded to the survey, 88 were removed from the dataset due to failing attention checks and problems with quality data. The responses from the remaining 658 allow an examination of the associations between fatigue and distress from COVID-19; COVID-19 vaccine related behaviors and beliefs; preventive health behaviors for COVID-19; COVID-19 susceptibility; intolerance of uncertainty; together with compassion, psychological flexibility, mindfulness, cultural orientation, as well as authoritarianism as possible moderators of COVID-19 fatigue, distress, and vaccine beliefs.

To which world regions does the valence-dominance model of social perception apply?

Over the past 10 years, Oosterhof and Todorov's valence-dominance model has emerged as the most prominent account of how people evaluate faces on social dimensions. In this model, two dimensions (valence and dominance) underpin social judgements of faces. Because this model has primarily been developed and tested in Western regions, it is unclear whether these findings apply to other regions. We addressed this question by replicating Oosterhof and Todorov's methodology across 11 world regions, 41 countries and 11,570 participants. When we used Oosterhof and Todorov's original analysis strategy, the valence-dominance model generalized across regions. When we used an alternative methodology to allow for correlated dimensions, we observed much less generalization. Collectively, these results suggest that, while the valence-dominance model generalizes very well across regions when dimensions are forced to be orthogonal, regional differences are revealed when we use different extraction methods and correlate and rotate the dimension reduction solution. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The stage 1 protocol for this Registered Report was accepted in principle on 5 November 2018. The protocol, as accepted by the journal, can be found at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7611443.v1 .