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

• Autores: Ruggeri, Kai; Stock, Friederike; Haslam, S. Alexander; Capraro, Valerio; Boggio, Paulo; Ellemers, Naomi; Cichocka, Aleksandra; Douglas, Karen M.; Rand, David G.; van der Linden, Sander; Cikara, Mina; Finkel, Eli J.; Druckman, James N.; Wohl, Michael J. A.; Petty, Richard E.; Tucker, Joshua A.; Shariff, Azim; Gelfand, Michele; Packer, Dominic; Jetten, Jolanda; Van Lange, Paul A. M.; Pennycook, Gordon; Peters, Ellen; Navajas Ahumada, Joaquin Mariano; Papa, Francesca; Galizzi, Matteo M.; Milkman, Katherine L.; Petrović, Marija; Van Bavel, Jay J.; Willer, Robb
• Año de publicación: 2024
• Idioma: inglés
• Tipo de recurso: artículo
• Materia: Policy recommendations; Public policy; Behavioural science; COVID-19
• Institución: Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas

Scientifc evidence regularly guides policy decisions1 , with behavioural science increasingly part of this process2 . In April 2020, an infuential paper3 proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to eforts 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 fnding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy efectiveness. 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 efects and there were no efects for highlighting individual benefts or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct diferences in efects 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 scientifc evidence in policy formulation and prioritization.
Fil: Ruggeri, Kai. New York Air National Guard; Estados Unidos. Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health; Estados Unidos. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Stock, Friederike. Max Planck Institute for Human Development; Alemania. Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; Alemania
Fil: Haslam, S. Alexander. University of Queensland; Australia
Fil: Capraro, Valerio. Università degli Studi di Milano; Italia
Fil: Boggio, Paulo. Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie; Brasil. National Institute of Science and Technology on Social and Affective Neuroscience; Brasil
Fil: Ellemers, Naomi. Utrecht University; Países Bajos. University of Utrecht; Países Bajos
Fil: Cichocka, Aleksandra. University Of Kent; Reino Unido
Fil: Douglas, Karen M.. University Of Kent; Reino Unido
Fil: Rand, David G.. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Estados Unidos
Fil: van der Linden, Sander. University of Cambridge; Estados Unidos
Fil: Cikara, Mina. Harvard University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Finkel, Eli J.. Northwestern University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Druckman, James N.. Northwestern University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Wohl, Michael J. A.. Carleton University; Canadá
Fil: Petty, Richard E.. Ohio State University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Tucker, Joshua A.. University of New York; Estados Unidos
Fil: Shariff, Azim. University of British Columbia; Canadá
Fil: Gelfand, Michele. University of Stanford; Estados Unidos
Fil: Packer, Dominic. Lehigh University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Jetten, Jolanda. University of Queensland; Australia
Fil: Van Lange, Paul A. M.. Universitat zu Köln; Alemania. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países Bajos
Fil: Pennycook, Gordon. Cornell University; Estados Unidos
Fil: Peters, Ellen. University of Oregon; Estados Unidos
Fil: Navajas Ahumada, Joaquin Mariano. Universidad Torcuato Di Tella; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina
Fil: Papa, Francesca. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; Francia
Fil: Galizzi, Matteo M.. The London School of Economics and Political Science; Reino Unido
Fil: Milkman, Katherine L.. University of Pennsylvania; Estados Unidos
Fil: Petrović, Marija. University of Belgrade; Serbia
Fil: Van Bavel, Jay J.. University of New York; Estados Unidos
Fil: Willer, Robb. University of Stanford; Estados Unidos