However, we do not find evidence of larger between-survey differences in the topics we expected to be more sensitive (see Table 4). We find substantial differences in both sets of modules, and the comparison suggests if anything larger differences in the topics we expected to be less sensitive. This is driven by the two food insecurity modules, and in fact COVID-19 exposure is the module for which item-level results are most mixed. It is possible that our expectations about which topics would be more and less sensitive in this context were inaccurate, and food insecurity questions belonged in the more sensitive class. It could also be that accessing the online questionnaire from Facebook limits its perceived anonymity and reduces the advantage of the online mode for honest reporting. Finally, it is entirely possible that other mechanisms played a larger role in shaping the pattern of differences between the two surveys, or that the mechanisms had varying effects across modules.

**Table 4: Reduced sensitivity bias in the Facebook survey may have contributed to the differences between surveys, but we cannot provide clear evidence of its contribution**

||**Indicator**|**Shar**<br>**response**<br>**more sev**<br>_PPCS_|**e choosing**<br>**s that indicate**<br>**ere outcomes**<br>_(%)_<br>_Facebook_|**Difference**<br>_(percentage_<br>_point)_|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||_A1_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate personal exposure to conflict events|7.47|24.17|16.70|
|_itive_|_A2_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate stronger aggressive tendencies|20.49|33.19|12.70|
|_e sens_|_A3_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate higher risk for mental health problems|15.89|34.00|18.11|
|_Mor_|_A4_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate higher severity of depression|61.20|69.26|8.06|
||symptoms||||
||_Average across indicators_|_26.26_|_40.15_|_13.89_|
|_ve_|_B1_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate food insecurity (based on FIES)|34.28|54.31|20.03|
|_sensiti_|_B2_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate food insecurity (based on RCSI)|30.02|55.46|25.44|
|_Less_|_B3_Average share of respondents choosing responses<br>that indicate exposure to COVID-19|38.44|46.12|7.68|
||_Average across indicators_|_34.23_|_50.79_|_16.56_|

Notes: The indicators reported here are related but not equivalent to the index/score and prevalence indicators elsewhere in the report. Responses indicating more severe outcomes are constructed as responses of “Yes” in a binary response scale (A1, B3); as all response options on the more-severe-than-neutral side of response scales with a clear neutral/tipping point (A2-A4); or as responses indicating any experience of food insecurity (B1-B2). The unweighted share of respondents choosing responses that indicate more severe outcomes is estimated for each question, then averaged across all non-contingent questions in each topic module. Item-level results are reported with clustered standard errors in Appendix B. In all modules except COVID-19 exposure, all or most item-level differences are positive and significant at the 5% level at least.

9