Early Indicators of COVID-19 Infection Prevention Behaviors:Machine Learning Identifies Personal and Country-Level Factors

The Coronavirus is highly infectious and potentially deadly. In the absence of a cure or a vaccine, the infection prevention behaviors recommended by the World Health Organization constitute the only measure that is presently available to combat the pandemic. The unprecedented impact of this pandemic calls for swift identification of factors most important for predicting infection prevention behavior. In this paper, we used a machine learning approach to assess the relative importance of potential indicators of personal infection prevention behavior in a global psychological survey we conducted between March-May 2020 (N = 56,072 across 28 countries). The survey data were enriched with society-level variables relevant to the pandemic. Results indicated that the two most important indicators of self-reported infection prevention behavior were individual-level injunctive norms—beliefs that people in the community should engage in social distancing and self-isolation, followed by endorsement of restrictive containment measures (e.g., mandatory vaccination). Society-level factors (e.g., national healthcare infrastructure, confirmed infections) also emerged as important indicators. Social attitudes and norms were more important than personal factors considered most important by theories of health behavior. The model accounted for 52% of the variance in infection prevention behavior in a separate test sample—above the performance of psychological models of health behavior. These results suggest that individuals are intuitively aware that this pandemic constitutes a social dilemma situation, where their own infection risk is partly dependent on the behaviors of others. If everybody engaged in infection prevention behavior, the virus could be defeated even without a vaccine

The JASP guidelines for conducting and reporting a Bayesian analysis

Despite the increasing popularity of Bayesian inference in empirical research, few practical guidelines provide detailed recommendations for how to apply Bayesian procedures and interpret the results. Here we offer specific guidelines for four different stages of Bayesian statistical reasoning in a research setting: planning the analysis, executing the analysis, interpreting the results, and reporting the results. The guidelines for each stage are illustrated with a running example. Although the guidelines are geared towards analyses performed with the open-source statistical software JASP, most guidelines extend to Bayesian inference in general

Using machine learning to identify important predictors of COVID-19 infection prevention behaviors during the early phase of the pandemic

Before vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became available, a set of infection-prevention behaviors constituted the primary means to mitigate the virus spread. Our study aimed to identify important predictors of this set of behaviors. Whereas social and health psychological theories suggest a limited set of predictors, machine-learning analyses can identify correlates from a larger pool of candidate predictors. We used random forests to rank 115 candidate correlates of infection-prevention behavior in 56,072 participants across 28 countries, administered in March to May 2020. The machine-learning model predicted 52% of the variance in infection-prevention behavior in a separate test sample—exceeding the performance of psychological models of health behavior. Results indicated the two most important predictors related to individual-level injunctive norms. Illustrating how data-driven methods can complement theory, some of the most important predictors were not derived from theories of health behavior—and some theoretically derived predictors were relatively unimportant

A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N=10,535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β=0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β=0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

A Many-analysts Approach to the Relation Between Religiosity and Well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported β = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported β = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates

.Using machine learning to identify important predictors of COVID-19 infection prevention behaviors during the early phase of the pandemic

Before vaccines for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) became available, a set of infection-prevention behaviors constituted the primary means to mitigate the virus spread. Our study aimed to identify important predictors of this set of behaviors. Whereas social and health psychological theories suggest a limited set of predictors, machine-learning analyses can identify correlates from a larger pool of candidate predictors. We used random forests to rank 115 candidate correlates of infection-prevention behavior in 56,072 participants across 28 countries, administered in March to May 2020. The machine-learning model predicted 52% of the variance in infection-prevention behavior in a separate test sample—exceeding the performance of psychological models of health behavior. Results indicated the two most important predictors related to individuallevel injunctive norms. Illustrating how data-driven methods can complement theory, some of the most important predictors were not derived from theories of health behavior—and some theoretically derived predictors were relatively unimportant

Using Machine Learning to Identify Important Predictors of COVID-19 Infection Prevention Behaviors During the Early Phase of the Pandemic

Before vaccines for COVID-19 became available, a set of infection prevention behaviors constituted the primary means to mitigate the virus spread. Our study aimed to identify important predictors of this set of behaviors. Whereas social and health psychological theories suggest a limited set of predictors, machine learning analyses can identify correlates from a larger pool of candidate predictors. We used random forests to rank 115 candidate correlates of infection prevention behavior in 56,072 participants across 28 countries, administered in March-May 2020. The machine- learning model predicted 52% of the variance in infection prevention behavior in a separate test sample—exceeding the performance of psychological models of health behavior. Results indicated the two most important predictors related to individual- level injunctive norms. Illustrating how data-driven methods can complement theory, some of the most important predictors were not derived from theories of health behavior—and some theoretically-derived predictors were relatively unimportant

A tutorial on conducting and interpreting a bayesian ANOVA in JASP Tutoriel pour réaliser et interpréter une analyse de variance bayésienne dans JASP

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is the standard procedure for statistical inference in factorial designs. Typically, ANOVAs are executed using frequentist statistics, where p-values determine statistical significance in an all-or-none fashion. In recent years, the Bayesian approach to statistics is increasingly viewed as a legitimate alternative to the p-value. However, the broad adoption of Bayesian statistics-and Bayesian ANOVA in particular-is frustrated by the fact that Bayesian concepts are rarely taught in applied statistics courses. Consequently, practitioners may be unsure how to conduct a Bayesian ANOVA and interpret the results. Here we provide a guide for executing and interpreting a Bayesian ANOVA with JASP, an open-source statistical software program with a graphical user interface. We explain the key concepts of the Bayesian ANOVA using two empirical examples

A many-analysts approach to the relation between religiosity and well-being

The relation between religiosity and well-being is one of the most researched topics in the psychology of religion, yet the directionality and robustness of the effect remains debated. Here, we adopted a many-analysts approach to assess the robustness of this relation based on a new cross-cultural dataset (N = 10, 535 participants from 24 countries). We recruited 120 analysis teams to investigate (1) whether religious people self-report higher well-being, and (2) whether the relation between religiosity and self-reported well-being depends on perceived cultural norms of religion (i.e., whether it is considered normal and desirable to be religious in a given country). In a two-stage procedure, the teams first created an analysis plan and then executed their planned analysis on the data. For the first research question, all but 3 teams reported positive effect sizes with credible/confidence intervals excluding zero (median reported beta = 0.120). For the second research question, this was the case for 65% of the teams (median reported beta = 0.039). While most teams applied (multilevel) linear regression models, there was considerable variability in the choice of items used to construct the independent variables, the dependent variable, and the included covariates