A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19
Author:
Ruggeri KaiORCID, Stock Friederike, Haslam S. AlexanderORCID, Capraro ValerioORCID, Boggio Paulo, Ellemers NaomiORCID, Cichocka Aleksandra, Douglas Karen M.ORCID, Rand David G.ORCID, van der Linden SanderORCID, Cikara MinaORCID, Finkel Eli J.ORCID, Druckman James N.ORCID, Wohl Michael J. A.ORCID, Petty Richard E.ORCID, Tucker Joshua A.ORCID, Shariff AzimORCID, Gelfand Michele, Packer DominicORCID, Jetten Jolanda, Van Lange Paul A. M.ORCID, Pennycook Gordon, Peters EllenORCID, Baicker Katherine, Crum Alia, Weeden Kim A.ORCID, Napper Lucy, Tabri Nassim, Zaki Jamil, Skitka Linda, Kitayama ShinobuORCID, Mobbs Dean, Sunstein Cass R.ORCID, Ashcroft-Jones Sarah, Todsen Anna Louise, Hajian Ali, Verra Sanne, Buehler Vanessa, Friedemann Maja, Hecht MarleneORCID, Mobarak Rayyan S.ORCID, Karakasheva Ralitsa, Tünte Markus R.ORCID, Yeung Siu Kit, Rosenbaum R. ShaynaORCID, Lep ŽanORCID, Yamada YukiORCID, Hudson Sa-kiera Tiarra JolynnORCID, Macchia LucíaORCID, Soboleva Irina, Dimant EugenORCID, Geiger Sandra J.ORCID, Jarke Hannes, Wingen TobiasORCID, Berkessel Jana B.ORCID, Mareva Silvana, McGill Lucy, Papa Francesca, Većkalov BojanaORCID, Afif Zeina, Buabang Eike K., Landman Marna, Tavera Felice, Andrews Jack L.ORCID, Bursalıoğlu Aslı, Zupan Zorana, Wagner LisaORCID, Navajas JoaquínORCID, Vranka MarekORCID, Kasdan David, Chen Patricia, Hudson Kathleen R., Novak Lindsay M., Teas Paul, Rachev Nikolay R.ORCID, Galizzi Matteo M., Milkman Katherine L.ORCID, Petrović Marija, Van Bavel Jay J.ORCID, Willer RobbORCID
Abstract
AbstractScientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2. In April 2020, an influential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Multidisciplinary
Reference149 articles.
1. National Academies Press. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy (National Academies Press, 2012). 2. Fact sheet: new progress on using behavioral science insights to better serve the American people. whitehouse.gov https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/15/fact-sheet-new-progress-using-behavioral-science-insights-better-serve (2016). 3. Van Bavel, J. J. et al. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 460–471 (2020). 4. Hodges, R., Caperchione, E., van Helden, J., Reichard, C. & Sorrentino, D. The role of scientific expertise in COVID-19 policy-making: evidence from four European countries. Public Org. Rev. 22, 249–267 (2022). 5. Dowd, J. B. et al. Demographic science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 9696–9698 (2020).
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|