A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19
Аутори
Ruggeri, KaiStock, Friederike
Haslam, Alexander S.
Capraro, Valerio
Boggio, P.
Ellemers, N.
Cichocka, A.
Douglas, Karen M.
Rand, David G.
van der Linden, Sander
Cikara, Mina
Finkel, Eli J.
Druckman, James N.
Wohl, Michael J.A.
Petty, Richard E.
Tucker, Joshua A.
Shariff, Azim
Gelfand, M.
Packer, Dominic
Jetten, Jolanda
Van Lange, Paul AM
Pennycook, Gordon
Peters, Ellen
Baicker, Katherine
Crum, Alia
Weeden, Kim A
Napper, Lucy
Tabri, Nassim
Zaki, Jamil
Skitka, Linda
Kitayama, Shinobu
Mobbs, Dean
Sunstein, Cass R
Ashcroft Jones, Sarah
Todsen, Anna Louise
Hajian, Ali
Verra, Sanne
Buehler, Vanessa
Friedemann, Maja
Hecht, Marlene
Mobarak, Rayyan S
Karakasheva, Ralitsa
Tunte, Markus R
Yeung, Siu Kit
Rosenbaum, R Shayna
Lep, Žan
Yamada, Yuki
Hudson, Sa-Kiera Tiarra Jolynn
Macchia, Lucia
Soboleva, Irina
Dimant, Eugen
Geiger, Sandra J.
Jarke, Hannes
Wingen, Tobias
Berkessel, Jana B
Mareva, Silvana
McGill, Lucy
Papa, Francesca
Veckalov, Bojana
Afif, Zeina
Buabang, Eike K
Landman, Marna
Tavera, Felice
Andrews, Jack L.
Bursalioglu, Asli
Zupan, Zorana
Wagner, Lisa
Navajas, Joaquin
Vranka, Marek
Kasdan, David
Chen, Patricia
Hudson, Kathleen R
Novak, Lindsay M
Teas, Paul
Rachev, Nikolay R
Galizzi, Matteo M
Milknan, Katherine L
Petrović, Marija
van Bavel, Jay J
Willer, Robb
Чланак у часопису (Објављена верзија)
Метаподаци
Приказ свих података о документуАпстракт
Scientific 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 s...ocial 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.
Кључне речи:
behavioural science / covid-19 / policy decisionsИзвор:
Nature, 2023, 625, 134-147Издавач:
- Nature Publishing Group
Институција/група
Psihologija / PsychologyTY - JOUR AU - Ruggeri, Kai AU - Stock, Friederike AU - Haslam, Alexander S. AU - Capraro, Valerio AU - Boggio, P. AU - Ellemers, N. AU - Cichocka, A. AU - Douglas, Karen M. AU - Rand, David G. AU - van der Linden, Sander AU - Cikara, Mina AU - Finkel, Eli J. AU - Druckman, James N. AU - Wohl, Michael J.A. AU - Petty, Richard E. AU - Tucker, Joshua A. AU - Shariff, Azim AU - Gelfand, M. AU - Packer, Dominic AU - Jetten, Jolanda AU - Van Lange, Paul AM AU - Pennycook, Gordon AU - Peters, Ellen AU - Baicker, Katherine AU - Crum, Alia AU - Weeden, Kim A AU - Napper, Lucy AU - Tabri, Nassim AU - Zaki, Jamil AU - Skitka, Linda AU - Kitayama, Shinobu AU - Mobbs, Dean AU - Sunstein, Cass R AU - Ashcroft Jones, Sarah AU - Todsen, Anna Louise AU - Hajian, Ali AU - Verra, Sanne AU - Buehler, Vanessa AU - Friedemann, Maja AU - Hecht, Marlene AU - Mobarak, Rayyan S AU - Karakasheva, Ralitsa AU - Tunte, Markus R AU - Yeung, Siu Kit AU - Rosenbaum, R Shayna AU - Lep, Žan AU - Yamada, Yuki AU - Hudson, Sa-Kiera Tiarra Jolynn AU - Macchia, Lucia AU - Soboleva, Irina AU - Dimant, Eugen AU - Geiger, Sandra J. AU - Jarke, Hannes AU - Wingen, Tobias AU - Berkessel, Jana B AU - Mareva, Silvana AU - McGill, Lucy AU - Papa, Francesca AU - Veckalov, Bojana AU - Afif, Zeina AU - Buabang, Eike K AU - Landman, Marna AU - Tavera, Felice AU - Andrews, Jack L. AU - Bursalioglu, Asli AU - Zupan, Zorana AU - Wagner, Lisa AU - Navajas, Joaquin AU - Vranka, Marek AU - Kasdan, David AU - Chen, Patricia AU - Hudson, Kathleen R AU - Novak, Lindsay M AU - Teas, Paul AU - Rachev, Nikolay R AU - Galizzi, Matteo M AU - Milknan, Katherine L AU - Petrović, Marija AU - van Bavel, Jay J AU - Willer, Robb PY - 2023 UR - http://reff.f.bg.ac.rs/handle/123456789/6015 AB - Scientific 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. PB - Nature Publishing Group T2 - Nature T1 - A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19 EP - 147 SP - 134 VL - 625 DO - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9 ER -
@article{ author = "Ruggeri, Kai and Stock, Friederike and Haslam, Alexander S. and Capraro, Valerio and Boggio, P. and Ellemers, N. and Cichocka, A. and Douglas, Karen M. and Rand, David G. and van der Linden, Sander and Cikara, Mina and Finkel, Eli J. and Druckman, James N. and Wohl, Michael J.A. and Petty, Richard E. and Tucker, Joshua A. and Shariff, Azim and Gelfand, M. and Packer, Dominic and Jetten, Jolanda and Van Lange, Paul AM and Pennycook, Gordon and Peters, Ellen and Baicker, Katherine and Crum, Alia and Weeden, Kim A and Napper, Lucy and Tabri, Nassim and Zaki, Jamil and Skitka, Linda and Kitayama, Shinobu and Mobbs, Dean and Sunstein, Cass R and Ashcroft Jones, Sarah and Todsen, Anna Louise and Hajian, Ali and Verra, Sanne and Buehler, Vanessa and Friedemann, Maja and Hecht, Marlene and Mobarak, Rayyan S and Karakasheva, Ralitsa and Tunte, Markus R and Yeung, Siu Kit and Rosenbaum, R Shayna and Lep, Žan and Yamada, Yuki and Hudson, Sa-Kiera Tiarra Jolynn and Macchia, Lucia and Soboleva, Irina and Dimant, Eugen and Geiger, Sandra J. and Jarke, Hannes and Wingen, Tobias and Berkessel, Jana B and Mareva, Silvana and McGill, Lucy and Papa, Francesca and Veckalov, Bojana and Afif, Zeina and Buabang, Eike K and Landman, Marna and Tavera, Felice and Andrews, Jack L. and Bursalioglu, Asli and Zupan, Zorana and Wagner, Lisa and Navajas, Joaquin and Vranka, Marek and Kasdan, David and Chen, Patricia and Hudson, Kathleen R and Novak, Lindsay M and Teas, Paul and Rachev, Nikolay R and Galizzi, Matteo M and Milknan, Katherine L and Petrović, Marija and van Bavel, Jay J and Willer, Robb", year = "2023", abstract = "Scientific 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 = "Nature Publishing Group", journal = "Nature", title = "A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19", pages = "147-134", volume = "625", doi = "https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9" }
Ruggeri, K., Stock, F., Haslam, A. S., Capraro, V., Boggio, P., Ellemers, N., Cichocka, A., Douglas, Karen M., Rand, D. G., van der Linden, S., Cikara, M., Finkel, E. J., Druckman, J. N., Wohl, M. J.A., Petty, R. E., Tucker, J. A., Shariff, A., Gelfand, M., Packer, D., Jetten, J., Van Lange, P. A., Pennycook, G., Peters, E., Baicker, K., Crum, A., Weeden, K. A., Napper, L., Tabri, N., Zaki, J., Skitka, L., Kitayama, S., Mobbs, D., Sunstein, C. R., Ashcroft Jones, S., Todsen, A. L., Hajian, A., Verra, S., Buehler, V., Friedemann, M., Hecht, M., Mobarak, R. S., Karakasheva, R., Tunte, M. R., Yeung, S. K., Rosenbaum, R. S., Lep, Ž., Yamada, Y., Hudson, S. T. J., Macchia, L., Soboleva, I., Dimant, E., Geiger, S. J., Jarke, H., Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., Mareva, S., McGill, L., Papa, F., Veckalov, B., Afif, Z., Buabang, E. K., Landman, M., Tavera, F., Andrews, J. L., Bursalioglu, A., Zupan, Z., Wagner, L., Navajas, J., Vranka, M., Kasdan, D., Chen, P., Hudson, K. R., Novak, L. M., Teas, P., Rachev, N. R., Galizzi, M. M., Milknan, K. L., Petrović, M., van Bavel, J. J.,& Willer, R.. (2023). A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19. in Nature Nature Publishing Group., 625, 134-147. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9
Ruggeri K, Stock F, Haslam AS, Capraro V, Boggio P, Ellemers N, Cichocka A, Douglas, Karen M., Rand DG, van der Linden S, Cikara M, Finkel EJ, Druckman JN, Wohl MJ, Petty RE, Tucker JA, Shariff A, Gelfand M, Packer D, Jetten J, Van Lange PA, Pennycook G, Peters E, Baicker K, Crum A, Weeden KA, Napper L, Tabri N, Zaki J, Skitka L, Kitayama S, Mobbs D, Sunstein CR, Ashcroft Jones S, Todsen AL, Hajian A, Verra S, Buehler V, Friedemann M, Hecht M, Mobarak RS, Karakasheva R, Tunte MR, Yeung SK, Rosenbaum RS, Lep Ž, Yamada Y, Hudson STJ, Macchia L, Soboleva I, Dimant E, Geiger SJ, Jarke H, Wingen T, Berkessel JB, Mareva S, McGill L, Papa F, Veckalov B, Afif Z, Buabang EK, Landman M, Tavera F, Andrews JL, Bursalioglu A, Zupan Z, Wagner L, Navajas J, Vranka M, Kasdan D, Chen P, Hudson KR, Novak LM, Teas P, Rachev NR, Galizzi MM, Milknan KL, Petrović M, van Bavel JJ, Willer R. A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19. in Nature. 2023;625:134-147. doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9 .
Ruggeri, Kai, Stock, Friederike, Haslam, Alexander S., Capraro, Valerio, Boggio, P., Ellemers, N., Cichocka, A., Douglas, Karen M., Rand, David G., van der Linden, Sander, Cikara, Mina, Finkel, Eli J., Druckman, James N., Wohl, Michael J.A., Petty, Richard E., Tucker, Joshua A., Shariff, Azim, Gelfand, M., Packer, Dominic, Jetten, Jolanda, Van Lange, Paul AM, Pennycook, Gordon, Peters, Ellen, Baicker, Katherine, Crum, Alia, Weeden, Kim A, Napper, Lucy, Tabri, Nassim, Zaki, Jamil, Skitka, Linda, Kitayama, Shinobu, Mobbs, Dean, Sunstein, Cass R, Ashcroft Jones, Sarah, Todsen, Anna Louise, Hajian, Ali, Verra, Sanne, Buehler, Vanessa, Friedemann, Maja, Hecht, Marlene, Mobarak, Rayyan S, Karakasheva, Ralitsa, Tunte, Markus R, Yeung, Siu Kit, Rosenbaum, R Shayna, Lep, Žan, Yamada, Yuki, Hudson, Sa-Kiera Tiarra Jolynn, Macchia, Lucia, Soboleva, Irina, Dimant, Eugen, Geiger, Sandra J., Jarke, Hannes, Wingen, Tobias, Berkessel, Jana B, Mareva, Silvana, McGill, Lucy, Papa, Francesca, Veckalov, Bojana, Afif, Zeina, Buabang, Eike K, Landman, Marna, Tavera, Felice, Andrews, Jack L., Bursalioglu, Asli, Zupan, Zorana, Wagner, Lisa, Navajas, Joaquin, Vranka, Marek, Kasdan, David, Chen, Patricia, Hudson, Kathleen R, Novak, Lindsay M, Teas, Paul, Rachev, Nikolay R, Galizzi, Matteo M, Milknan, Katherine L, Petrović, Marija, van Bavel, Jay J, Willer, Robb, "A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19" in Nature, 625 (2023):134-147, https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9 . .