A global experiment on motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic

Finding communication strategies that effectively motivate social distancing continues to be a global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This cross-country, preregistered experiment (n = 25,718 from 89 countries) tested hypotheses concerning generalizable positive and negative outcomes of social distancing messages that promoted personal agency and reflective choices (i.e., an autonomy-supportive message) or were restrictive and shaming (i.e., a controlling message) compared with no message at all. Results partially supported experimental hypotheses in that the controlling message increased controlled motivation (a poorly internalized form of motivation relying on shame, guilt, and fear of social consequences) relative to no message. On the other hand, the autonomy-supportive message lowered feelings of defiance compared with the controlling message, but the controlling message did not differ from receiving no message at all. Unexpectedly, messages did not influence autonomous motivation (a highly internalized form of motivation relying on one’s core values) or behavioral intentions. Results supported hypothesized associations between people’s existing autonomous and controlled motivations and self-reported behavioral intentions to engage in social distancing. Controlled motivation was associated with more defiance and less long-term behavioral intention to engage in social distancing, whereas autonomous motivation was associated with less defiance and more short- and long-term intentions to social distance. Overall, this work highlights the potential harm of using shaming and pressuring language in public health communication, with implications for the current and future global health challenges

Carbon dioxide emissions under different soil tillage systems in mechanically harvested sugarcane

Soil tillage and other methods of soil management may influence CO2 emissions because they accelerate the mineralization of organic carbon in the soil. This study aimed to quantify the CO2 emissions under conventional tillage (CT), minimum tillage (MT) and reduced tillage (RT) during the renovation of sugarcane fields in southern Brazil. The experiment was performed on an Oxisol in the sugarcane-planting area with mechanical harvesting. An undisturbed or no-till (NT) plot was left as a control treatment. The CO2 emissions results indicated a significant interaction (p < 0.001) between tillage method and time after tillage. By quantifying the accumulated emissions over the 44 days after soil tillage, we observed that tillage-induced emissions were higher after the CT system than the RT and MT systems, reaching 350.09 g m−2 of CO2 in CT, and 51.7 and 5.5 g m−2 of CO2 in RT and MT respectively. The amount of C lost in the form of CO2 due to soil tillage practices was significant and comparable to the estimated value of potential annual C accumulation resulting from changes in the harvesting system in Brazil from burning of plant residues to the adoption of green cane harvesting. The CO2 emissions in the CT system could respond to a loss of 80% of the potential soil C accumulated over one year as result of the adoption of mechanized sugarcane harvesting. Meanwhile, soil tillage during the renewal of the sugar plantation using RT and MT methods would result in low impact, with losses of 12% and 2% of the C that could potentially be accumulated during a one year period

In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits: experimental evidence from 84 countries

The COVID-19 pandemic highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., “If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others”) or potential gains (e.g., “If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others”)? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions