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

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper 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

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

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

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

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

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

DATA AVAILABILITY : All data and study material are provided either in the Supplementary information or through the two online repositories (OSF and Tableau Public, both accessible via https://psyarxiv.com/58udn). No code was used for analyses in this work.Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper 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.The National Science Foundation; Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (Brazilian Federal Agency for the Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education); the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation | Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development); National Science Foundation grants; the European Research Council; the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.http://www.nature.com/naturehj2024Gordon Institute of Business Science (GIBS)Non

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

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

He Who Seeks Finds (Bodily Signals): Differential Effects of Self-Reported Interoceptive Attention and Accuracy on Subclinical Psychopathology in a German-Speaking Sample

Alterations in interoception have been linked to psychopathology. Recent findings suggest that both the attention to and the accuracy of, interoceptive perceptions may be oppositely related to subclinical symptomatology. Thus, providing well-validated tools that tap onto these interoceptive processes is crucial for understanding the relation between interoceptive processing and subclinical psychopathology. In the current study (N = 642), we aimed to (1) validate the German version of the Interoceptive Attention Scale (IATS; Gabriele et al., 2022), and (2) test the differential association of self-reported interoceptive attention and accuracy with subclinical symptomatology, including alexithymia, depressive, and anxious symptomatology. We observed that a one-factor solution is a well-fitting model for the IATS. Further, the IATS showed good internal consistency, convergent, and divergent validity, but poor test-retest reliability. Self-reported interoceptive attention and accuracy were unrelated to each other. However, IATS scores were positively related to all measures of psychopathology (except depressive symptomatology), whereas self-reported interoceptive accuracy scores showed negative or nonsignificant relations with these. Our data suggest that the IATS is a good instrument to measure self-report interoceptive attention in the German population. Further, we highlight the need to distinguish between constructs of interoception to better understand the relation between interoception and psychopathology

False belief understanding in children and dogs in a nonverbal ambiguous displacement and communication setting

Finding ways to investigate false belief understanding nonverbally is not just important for research in preverbal children, but it is the only way to assess theory of mind-like (ToM) abilities in nonhuman animals. In this preregistered study, we adapted the design from a previous study on dogs (Lonardo et al., 2021) to investigate false belief understanding in children and compare them to dogs. Thirty-two preschool-children (aged 5-6 years) saw the displacement of a reward and also obtained nonverbal cueing information from an adult communicator holding either a true or false belief. In the false belief condition, when the communicator did not know the location of the reward, children picked the baited, but not cued, container more often than the empty one. In the true belief condition, when the communicator witnessed the displacement yet still cued the wrong container, children performed randomly. This behavior pattern is at odds with the one of dogs who followed the cues more often when the human communicator held a false belief. Since our task does not require verbal responses or relational sentence understanding it can also be used in preverbal children as well as to compare ToM-related competences between human and non-human animals, if appropriately adapted. In our study, children behaved in line with existing ToM literature whereas most dogs, but not all, while sensitive to differences between the belief conditions, deviated from children. This difference suggests the need for a more extensive exploration of the evolution of false belief processing and ToM across animals

Bridging the Gap between Interoception and Mental Health: The German Validation of the Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS) and its Relation to Psychopathological Symptom Burden

Processing of internal bodily signals (i.e., interoception), and associated impairments are thought to be implicated in the development of psychopathology. Recent proposals highlight the need to differentiate between dimensions of interoception (i.e., accuracy and attention) to better understand its relation to mental health. In the current study, we validated the German version of the recently developed Interoceptive Accuracy Scale (IAS; Murphy et al., 2020) and investigated its relationship with clinical outcomes, across seven samples from four research centers (Ntotal = 3462). The German IAS version was best explained by a one-factor structure that showed acceptable psychometric properties. Concerning clinical outcomes, we replicated previous findings showing a negative association between IAS scores and measures of alexithymia. Furthermore, we found that IAS scores were negatively related to measures of clinical symptomatology (e.g., anxiety, depressive, and somatoform symptoms) and neurotic traits. These findings suggest that the German validation of the IAS is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring subjective interoceptive accuracy. Results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between dimensions of interoception to understand its modulatory and protective role in the existence of psychopathology

Eating for Two? Protocol of an Exploratory Survey and Experimental Study on Social Norms and Norm-Based Messages Influencing European Pregnant and Non-pregnant Women’s Eating Behavior

The social context is an important factor underlying unhealthy eating behavior and the development of inappropriate weight gain. Evidence is accumulating that powerful social influences can also be used as a tool to impact people’s eating behavior in a positive manner. Social norm-based messages have potential to steer people in making healthier food choices. The research field on nutritional social norms is still emerging and more research is needed to gain insights into why some people adhere to social norms whereas others do not. There are indications stemming from empirical studies on social eating behavior that this may be due to ingratiation purposes and uncertainty reduction. That is, people match their eating behavior to that of the norm set by their eating companion(s) in order to blend in and be part of the group. In this project, we explore nutritional social norms among pregnant women. This population is particularly interesting because they are often subject to unsolicited advice and experience social pressure from their environment. In addition, their pregnancy affects their body composition, eating pattern, and psychosocial status. Pregnancy provides an important window of opportunity to impact health of pregnant women and their child. Nevertheless, the field of nutritional social norms among pregnant women is understudied and more knowledge is needed on whether pregnant women use guidelines from their social environment for their own eating behavior. In this project we aim to fill this research gap by means of an exploratory survey (Study 1) assessing information about social expectations, (mis)perceived social norms and the role of different reference groups such as other pregnant women, family, and friends. In addition, we conduct an online experiment (Study 2) testing to what extent pregnant women are susceptible to social norm-based messages compared to non-pregnant women. Moreover, possible moderators are explored which might impact women’s susceptibility to social norms as well as cultural aspects that co-determine which social norms and guidelines exist. The project’s findings could help design effective intervention messages in promoting healthy eating behavior specifically targeted to European pregnant women.© 2018 Bevelander, Herte, Kakoulakis, Sanguino, Tebbe and Tünt