The use of online surveys has grown rapidly in social science and policy research, surpassing more established methods. We argue that a better understanding is needed, especially of the strengths and weaknesses of non‐probability online surveys, which can be conducted relatively quickly and cheaply. We describe two common approaches to non‐probability online surveys—river and panel sampling—and theorize their inherent selection biases: namely, topical self‐selection and economic self‐selection. We conduct an empirical comparison of two river samples (Facebook and web‐based sample) and one panel sample (from a major survey research company) with benchmark data grounded in a comprehensive population registry. The river samples diverge from the benchmark on demographic variables and yield much higher frequencies on non‐demographic variables, even after demographic adjustments; we attribute this to topical self‐selection. The panel sample is closer to the benchmark. When examining the characteristics of a non‐demographic subpopulation, we detect no differences between the river and panel samples. We conclude that non‐probability online surveys do not replace probability surveys, but augment the researcher's toolkit with new digital practices, such as exploratory studies of small and emerging non‐demographic subpopulations.

There is a considerable amount of hate material online, but the degree to which individuals are exposed to these materials vary. Using samples of youth and young adults from four countries, we investigate who is exposed to hate materials. We find support for using routine activity theory to understand exposure at the individual level; however, there is significant cross-national variation in exposure after accounting for individual-level factors. We consider two plausible hypotheses that could account for this cross-national variation. The data best fit the hypothesis that anti–hate speech laws may provide a source of guardianship against exposure.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: The outbreak of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has dramatically changed societies in 2020. Since the end of February, Europe has been hit particularly hard by COVID-19, but there are major country differences in both the spread of the virus and measures taken to stop the virus. Social psychological factors such as institutional trust could be important in understanding the development of the epidemic. Objective: The aim of this study was to examine country variations of COVID-19 mortality in Europe by analyzing social risk factors explaining the spread of the disease, restrictions and control measures, and institutional trust. Methods: The present study was based on a background analysis of European Social Survey data on 25 European countries (N=47,802). Multilevel mixed effects linear regression models focused on 84 days of the COVID-19 epidemic (January 22 to April 14, 2020) and modelled the daily COVID-19 mortality. Analysis focused on the impact of social relations, restrictions, and institutional trust within each country. Results: The spread of the COVID-19 epidemic has been fast everywhere, but the findings revealed significant differences between countries in COVID-19 mortality. Perceived sociability predicted higher COVID-19 mortality. Major differences between the 25 countries were found in reaction times to the crisis. Late reaction to the crisis predicted later mortality figures. Institutional trust was associated with lower COVID-19 mortality. Conclusions: The analyses demonstrated the importance of societal and social psychological factors in the spread of the COVID-19 epidemic. By considering multiple perspectives, this study showed that country differences in Europe are major, and this will have an impact on how countries will cope with the ongoing crisis in the following months. The results indicated the importance of timely restrictions and cooperation with people.