Ability to detect fake news predicts sub-national variation in COVID-19 vaccine uptake across the UK (preprint)

Susceptibility to believing false or misleading information is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. However, it is notoriously difficult to study the link between susceptibility to misinformation and consequential real-world behaviors such as vaccine uptake. In this preregistered study, we devise a large-scale socio-spatial model that combines the rigor of a psychometrically validated test of misinformation susceptibility administered to a nationally representative sample of 16,477 individuals with COVID-19 vaccine uptake data of 129 sub-national regions published by the United Kingdom (UK) government, to show that the general ability to detect misinformation strongly and positively predicts regional vaccine uptake in the UK. We put this practically significant correlational effect size into perspective by noting how psychological interventions that reduce individuals' misinformation susceptibility could be associated with additional vaccine uptake.

Evaluating expectations from social and behavioral science about COVID-19 and lessons for the next pandemic (preprint)

Social and behavioral science research proliferated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting the substantial increase in influence of behavioral science in public health and public policy more broadly. This review presents a comprehensive assessment of 742 scientific articles on human behavior during COVID-19. Two independent teams evaluated 19 substantive policy recommendations (“claims”) on potentially critical aspects of behaviors during the pandemic drawn from the most widely cited behavioral science papers on COVID-19. Teams were made up of original authors and an independent team, all of whom were blinded to other team member reviews throughout. Both teams found evidence in support of 16 of the claims; for two claims, teams found only null evidence; and for no claims did the teams find evidence of effects in the opposite direction. One claim had no evidence available to assess. Seemingly due to the risks of the pandemic, most studies were limited to surveys, highlighting a need for more investment in field research and behavioral validation studies. The strongest findings indicate interventions that combat misinformation and polarization, and to utilize effective forms of messaging that engage trusted leaders and emphasize positive social norms.

Letter to the Editors of Psychological Science: Meta-Analysis Reveals that Accuracy Nudges Have Little to No Effect for U.S. Conservatives: Regarding Pennycook et al. (2020) (preprint)

According to recent work, subtly nudging people to think about accuracy can reduce the sharing of COVID-19 misinformation online (Pennycook et al., 2020). The authors argue that inattention to accuracy is a key factor behind the sharing of misinformation. They further argue that “partisanship is not, apparently, the key factor distracting people from considering accuracy on social media” (p. 777). However, our meta-analysis of data from this paper and other similar papers finds that partisanship is indeed a key factor underlying accuracy judgments on social media. Specifically, our meta-analysis suggests that the effectiveness of the accuracy nudge intervention depends on partisanship such that it has little to no effect for U.S. conservatives or Republicans. This changes one of Pennycook and colleague’s (2020) central conclusions by revealing that partisanship matters considerably for the success of this intervention. Further, since U.S. conservatives and Republicans are far more likely to share misinformation than U.S. liberals and Democrats (Guess et al., 2019; Lawson & Kakkar, 2021; Osmundsen, 2021), this intervention may be ineffective for those most likely to spread fake news.

The effects of communicating uncertainty around statistics on public trust: an international study (preprint)

A growing body of research indicates that transparent communication of statistical uncertainty around facts and figures does not undermine credibility. However, the extent to which these findings apply in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic--rife with uncertainties--is unclear. In a large international survey experiment, (Study 1; N = 10,519) we report that communicating uncertainty around COVID-19 statistics in the form of a numeric range (vs. no uncertainty) may lead to slightly lower trust in the number presented but has no impact on trust in the source of the information. We also report the minimal impact of numeric uncertainty on trust is consistent across estimates of current or future COVID-19 statistics (Study 2) and figures relating to environmental or economic research, rather than the pandemic (Study 3). Conversely, we find imprecise statements about the mere existence of uncertainty without quantification can undermine both trust in the numbers and their source - though effects vary across countries and contexts. Communicators can be transparent about statistical uncertainty without concerns about undermining perceptions of their trustworthiness, but ideally should aim to use numerical ranges rather than verbal statements.

The effects of quality of evidence communication on perception of public health information about COVID-19: two randomised controlled trials (preprint)

Background: The quality of evidence about the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical health interventions is often low, but little is known about the effects of communicating indications of evidence quality to the public. Methods: In two blinded, randomised, controlled, online experiments, US participants (total n=2140) were shown one of several versions of an infographic illustrating the effectiveness of eye protection in reducing COVID-19 transmission. Their trust in the information, understanding, feelings of effectiveness of eye protection, and the likelihood of them adopting it were measured. Findings: Compared to those given no quality cues, participants who were told the quality of the evidence on eye protection was "low", rated the evidence less trustworthy (p=.001), and rated it as subjectively less effective (p=.020). The same effects emerged compared to those who were told the quality of the evidence was "high", and in one of the two studies, those shown "low" quality of evidence said they were less likely to use eye protection (p=.005). Participants who were told the quality of the evidence was "high" showed no significant differences on these measures compared to those given no information about evidence quality. Interpretation: Without quality of evidence cues, participants responded to the evidence about the public health intervention as if it was high quality and this affected their subjective perceptions of its efficacy and trust in the provided information. This raises the ethical dilemma of weighing the importance of transparently stating when the evidence base is actually low quality against evidence that providing such information can decrease trust, perception of intervention efficacy, and likelihood of adopting it.

Effect of information about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and side effects on behavioural intentions: two online experiments (preprint)

The success of mass COVID-19 vaccination campaigns rests on widespread uptake. However, although vaccinations provide good protection, they do not offer full immunity and while they likely reduce transmission of the virus to others, the extent of this remains uncertain. This produces a dilemma for communicators who wish to be transparent about benefits and harms and encourage continued caution in vaccinated individuals but not undermine confidence in an important public health measure. In two large pre-registered experimental studies on quota-sampled UK public participants we investigate the effects of providing transparent communication--including uncertainty--about vaccination effectiveness on decision-making. In Study 1 (n = 2,097) we report that detailed information about COVID-19 vaccines, including results of clinical trials, does not have a significant impact on beliefs about the efficacy of such vaccines, concerns over side effects, or intentions to receive a vaccine. Study 2 (n = 2,217) addressed concerns that highlighting the need to maintain protective behaviours (e.g. social distancing) post-vaccination may lower perceptions of vaccine efficacy and willingness to receive a vaccine. We do not find evidence of this: transparent messages did not significantly reduce perceptions of vaccine efficacy, and in some cases increased perceptions of efficacy. We again report no main effect of messages on intentions to receive a vaccine. The results of both studies suggest that transparently informing people of the limitations of vaccinations does not reduce intentions to be vaccinated but neither does it increase intentions to engage in protective behaviours post-vaccination.

Predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance across time and countries (preprint)

Understanding the drivers of vaccine acceptance is crucial to the success of COVID-19 mass vaccination campaigns. Across 25 national samples from 12 different countries we examined the psychological correlates of willingness to receive a COVID-19 vaccine (total N = 25,334), with a focus on risk perception and trust in a number of relevant actors, both in general and specifically regarding the COVID-19 pandemic. Male sex, trust in medical and scientific experts and worry about the virus emerge as the most consistent predictors of reported vaccine acceptance across countries. In a subset of samples we show that these effects are robust after controlling for attitudes towards vaccination in general. Our results indicate that the burden of trust largely rests on the shoulders of the scientific and medical community, with implications for how future COVID-19 vaccination information should be communicated to maximize uptake.

Standards for evidence in policy decision-making (preprint)

Benefits from applying scientific evidence to policy have long been recognized by experts on both ends of the science-policy interface. The COVID-19 pandemic declared in March 2020 urgently demands robust inputs for policymaking, whether biomedical, behavioral, epidemiological, or logistical. Unfortunately, this need arises at a time of growing misinformation and poorly vetted facts repeated by influential sources, meaning there has never been a more critical time to implement standards for evidence. In this piece, we present a framework to limit risks while also providing a reasonable pathway for applying breakthroughs in treatments and policy solutions, stemming the harm already impacting the well-being of populations around the world. Final version here: go.nature.com/2zdTQIs

Social norms motivate COVID-19 preventive behaviors (preprint)

In this working paper, we used a large national survey of American adults (N = 3,933) to estimate the effect of perceived social norms among friends and family (i.e., how often friends and family perform preventive behaviors, and whether they think it is important for the respondent to do so) on people’s own COVID-19 preventive behaviors. We found that perceived norms within these close relationships are often strongly associated with the adoption of preventive behavior--in some cases more than doubling the odds that an individual will engage in a given behavior.

Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response (preprint)

The COVID-19 pandemic represents a massive global health crisis. Because the crisis requires large-scale behaviour change and places significant psychological burdens on individuals, insights from the social and behavioural sciences can be used to help align human behavior with the recommendations of epidemiologists and public health experts. Here we discuss evidence from a selection of research topics relevant to pandemics, including work on navigating threats, social and cultural influences on behaviour, science communication, moral decision-making, leadership, and stress and coping. In each section, we note the nature and quality of prior research, including uncertainty and unsettled issues. We identify several insights for effective response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and also highlight important gaps researchers should move quickly to fill in the coming weeks and months.