A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Author(s): Kai Ruggeri, Friederike Stock, S Alexander Haslam, Valerio Capraro, Paulo Boggio, Naomi Ellemers, Aleksandra Cichocka, Karen M Douglas, David G Rand, Sander van der Linden, Mina Cikara, Eli J Finkel, James N Druckman, Michael J A Wohl, Richard E Petty, Joshua A Tucker, Azim Shariff, Michele Gelfand, Dominic Packer, Jolanda Jetten, Paul A M Van Lange, Gordon Pennycook, Ellen Peters, Katherine Baicker, Alia Crum, Kim A Weeden, Lucy Napper, Nassim Tabri, Jamil Zaki, Linda Skitka, Shinobu Kitayama, Dean Mobbs, Cass R Sunstein, Sarah Ashcroft-Jones, Anna Louise Todsen, Ali Hajian, Sanne Verra, Vanessa Buehler, Maja Friedemann, Marlene Hecht, Rayyan S Mobarak, Ralitsa Karakasheva, Markus R Tünte, Siu Kit Yeung, R Shayna Rosenbaum, Žan Lep, Yuki Yamada, Sa-Kiera Tiarra Jolynn Hudson, Lucía Macchia, Irina Soboleva, Eugen Dimant, Sandra J Geiger, Hannes Jarke, Tobias Wingen, Jana B Berkessel, Silvana Mareva, Lucy McGill, Francesca Papa, Bojana Većkalov, Zeina Afif, Eike K Buabang, Marna Landman, Felice Tavera, Jack L Andrews, Aslı Bursalıoğlu, Zorana Zupan, Lisa Wagner, Joaquín Navajas, Marek Vranka, David Kasdan, Patricia Chen, Kathleen R Hudson, Lindsay M Novak, Paul Teas, Nikolay R Rachev, Matteo M Galizzi, Katherine L Milkman, Marija Petrović, Jay J Van Bavel, Robb Willer
Abstract: Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions 1, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process 2. In April 2020, an influential paper 3 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.
Organisation(s): Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Department of Cognition, Emotion, and Methods in Psychology
External organisation(s): Columbia University in the City of New York, University of Cambridge, New York Air National Guard, Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, University of Queensland, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Mackenzie Presbyterian University, Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico, University Medical Centre Utrecht (UMC), Canterbury Christ Church University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Anglia Ruskin University, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Northwestern University, Carleton University Ottawa, Ohio State University, New York University, University of British Columbia (UBC), Stanford University, Lehigh University, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Universität zu Köln, Cornell University, University of Oregon, Loyola University Chicago, University of Michigan, California Institute of Technology (Caltech), University of Oxford, University of Tehran, Cowry Consulting, University of Maryland, College Park, Chinese University of Hong Kong, York University, Rotman Research Institute, University of Ljubljana, Centre for Applied Epistemology, Educational Research Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia., Kyushu University, University of California, Berkeley, University of London, Duke Kunshan University, University of Pennsylvania, Münchener Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wirtschaftswissenschaft - CESifo GmbH, Universität Mannheim, University of Exeter, University College Dublin, University of Groningen, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, VU University Medical Center Amsterdam, The World Bank, Trinity College Dublin, University of Pretoria, University of Belgrade, Universität Zürich (UZH), Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Charles University Prague, Sungkyunkwan University (SKKU), University of Texas, Austin, National University of Singapore (NUS), Sofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski", London School of Economics and Political Science
Journal: Nature
Volume: 625
Pages: 134-147
No. of pages: 14
ISSN: 0028-0836
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06840-9
Publication date: 2023
Peer reviewed: Yes
Austrian Fields of Science 2012: 501021 Social psychology
Portal url: https://ucrisportal.univie.ac.at/en/publications/b6015ae0-d026-430e-af86-b7e25a56b378