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

Ruggeri, Kai and Stock, Friederike and Haslam, S. Alexander and Capraro, Valerio and Boggio, Paulo and Ellemers, Naomi and Cichocka, Aleksandra 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, Michele and Packer, Dominic and Jetten, Jolanda and Van Lange, Paul A. M. 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 Tünte, Markus R. and Yeung, Siu Kit and Rosenbaum, R. Shayna and Lep, Žan and Yamada, Yuki and Hudson, Sa-kiera Tiarra Jolynn and Macchia, Lucía 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 Većkalov, Bojana and Afif, Zeina and Buabang, Eike K. and Landman, Marna and Tavera, Felice and Andrews, Jack L. and Bursalıoğlu, Aslı and Zupan, Zorana and Wagner, Lisa and Navajas, Joaquín 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 Milkman, Katherine L. and Petrović, Marija and Van Bavel, Jay J. and Willer, Robb (2023) A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19. Nature. ISSN 0028-0836

[thumbnail of s41586-023-06840-9.pdf] Text
s41586-023-06840-9.pdf - Published Version
Download (4MB)

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.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: Article Paper Librarian > Geological Science
Depositing User: Unnamed user with email support@article.paperlibrarian.com
Date Deposited: 14 Dec 2023 10:49
Last Modified: 14 Dec 2023 10:49
URI: http://editor.journal7sub.com/id/eprint/2511

Actions (login required)

View Item
View Item