Objectives. Consistent with behaviour observed in prior crises, individuals are stockpiling supplies during the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The goal of this study was to describe stockpiling behaviour in response to COVID-19 and investigate individual predictors of stockpiling. Methods. Workers (N = 363, 54.72% male, 44.65% female, 0.63% other; M age = 38.41, SD = 12.48, range = 18-78) were recruited from Amazon's Mechanical Turk and completed a survey about their stockpiling of 13 items, as well as behaviours and opinions surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and their political affiliation. Results. Participants stockpiled, on average, approximately 6 items, and toilet paper was the item most commonly procured. Approximately 25% of the sample acquired a gun or other weapon in response to the pandemic and approximately 20% of participants stockpiled gold or other precious metals. Stockpiling was more commonly observed among individuals who were more conservative, worried more about the pandemic, and social distanced less. Conclusions. Individual, societal, and ideological implications are discussed. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Consistent with prior crises and infectious disease outbreaks, COVID-19 has led to stockpiling (i.e., procuring real or perceived emergency supplies). Stockpiling stems from an individual's response, either rationally or emotionally, to scarcity, which may elicit stress, anxiety, fear, or panic, leading people to build private stocks or place orders for more than they need. In addition to scarcity, the experience of COVID-19 itself is linked to psychological distress, which may confer additional motivation to stockpile.

Teaching quantitative methods at the undergraduate level is a difficult yet rewarding endeavor due to the challenges instructors face in presenting the material. One way to bolster student learning is through the use of statistical software packages. Google Sheets is a cloud-based spreadsheet program capable of many basic statistical procedures, which has yet to be evaluated for use in quantitative methods courses. This article contains pros and cons to using Google Sheets in the classroom and provides an evaluation of student attitudes toward using Google Sheets in an introductory quantitative methods class. The results suggest favorable student attitudes toward Google Sheets and which attitudes toward Google Sheets show a positive relationship with quantitative self-efficacy. Thus, based on the positive student attitudes and the unique features of Google Sheets, it is a viable program to use in introductory methods classes. However, due to limited functionality, Google Sheets may not be useful for more advanced courses. Future research may want to evaluate the use of third-party Google Sheets applications, which can increase functionality, and the use of Google Sheets in online classes.

The statistical package chosen to aid in teaching quantitative methods is at the instructor’s discretion, but little research has investigated student attitude toward these different packages. This study compared Google Sheets, a spreadsheet package similar to Microsoft Excel, and a traditional package, SPSS, to determine which of the two programs students preferred to use. One hundred and thirty-nine students enrolled in a quantitative methods course completed surveys at the middle and end of the semester during Spring 2016 and Fall 2016. The results suggested Google Sheets was preferred to SPSS at both time points, and attitudes toward Google Sheets improved over time. Further research could investigate the perspectives of students in other levels of experience with statistics and other statistical packages.

Political tribalism has increased dramatically in recent years. We explored partisan double-standards of Democratic and Republican voters across both hypothetical and real-world scenarios. In Study 1, participants rated the perceived legitimacy of election outcomes in response to hypothetical and ambiguous results from the 2020 presidential election. In Study 2 Part 1, college students and Amazon Turk volunteers rated their support of real-world presidential policies and actions. All policies/actions were attributed to Trump or Obama though they actually occurred under both presidents. In Study 2 Part 2, participants rated how bigoted various statements were; we manipulated who the utterances were attributed to (Trump v. Bill Clinton or Trump v. Martin Luther King [MLK]). Generally, Republican ratings were more favorable when statements were attributed to Trump vs. Democratic leaders while the opposite is true of Democrats. Crucially, these biases exist when evaluating identical information. Republicans and Democrats had a very small and very large tendency, respectively, to view statements as more bigoted under Trump vs. MLK. To the degree that this study can answer the question about which side is more guilty of double-standards, our results provide tentative evidence that this occurs under Democrats more than Republicans, though this overall difference may obscure important moderators. Our data provide evidence for tribal loyalty which may have significant social and political ramifications.