An Online Experiment of NHS Information Framing on Mothers' Vaccination Intention of Children against COVID-19.

Children under the age of 5, will likely all be offered vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 soon. Parental concerns over vaccination of children are long standing and could impede the success of a vaccination campaign. In the UK, a trusted source to inform vaccination choices is the NHS website. Here we used a randomized controlled experiment of framing effects in NHS information content for COVID-19 and flu with 550 mothers under the age of 5. We compared both vaccination offers following two commonly used frames in vaccination informational campaigns: alerting to the risks of no vaccination for the child itself vs. those in their community. We find that vaccination intention was twice as high when risks to the child are emphasized, relative to risks to the community. Exploratory analyses suggest that these effects may differ between white and non-white mothers. Whilst communication directed at adult vaccination against COVID-19 generally focuses on risks of infecting others, communication about vaccination of children may benefit from emphasizing risks to the children themselves. This pattern is in line with flu vaccination research from pre-COVID-19 times.

Understanding a national increase in COVID-19 vaccination intention, the Netherlands, November 2020-March 2021.

The intention to get the COVID-19 vaccine increased from 48% (November 2020) to 75% (March 2021) as national campaigning in the Netherlands commenced. Using a mixed method approach we identified six vaccination beliefs and two contextual factors informing this increase. Analysis of a national survey confirmed that shifting intentions were a function of shifting beliefs: people with stronger intention to vaccinate were most motivated by protecting others and reopening society; those reluctant were most concerned about side effects.

Lessons From the UK's Lockdown: Discourse on Behavioural Science in Times of COVID-19.

In recent years behavioural science has quickly become embedded in national level governance. As the contributions of behavioural science to the UK's COVID-19 response policies in early 2020 became apparent, a debate emerged in the British media about its involvement. This served as a unique opportunity to capture public discourse and representation of behavioural science in a fast-track, high-stake context. We aimed at identifying elements which foster and detract from trust and credibility in emergent scientific contributions to policy making. With this in mind, in Study 1 we use corpus linguistics and network analysis to map the narrative around the key behavioural science actors and concepts which were discussed in the 647 news articles extracted from the 15 most read British newspapers over the 12-week period surrounding the first hard UK lockdown of 2020. We report and discuss (1) the salience of key concepts and actors as the debate unfolded, (2) quantified changes in the polarity of the sentiment expressed toward them and their policy application contexts, and (3) patterns of co-occurrence via network analyses. To establish public discourse surrounding identified themes, in Study 2 we investigate how salience and sentiment of key themes and relations to policy were discussed in original Twitter chatter (N = 2,187). In Study 3, we complement these findings with a qualitative analysis of the subset of news articles which contained the most extreme sentiments (N = 111), providing an in-depth perspective of sentiments and discourse developed around keywords, as either promoting or undermining their credibility in, and trust toward behaviourally informed policy. We discuss our findings in light of the integration of behavioural science in national policy making under emergency constraints.

Heterogeneity in Risk-Taking During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence From the UK Lockdown.

In two pre-registered online studies during the COVID-19 pandemic and the early 2020 lockdown (one of which with a UK representative sample) we elicit risk-tolerance for 1,254 UK residents using four of the most widely applied risk-taking tasks in behavioral economics and psychology. Specifically, participants completed the incentive-compatible Balloon Analog Risk Task (BART) and the Binswanger-Eckel-Grossman (BEG) multiple lotteries task, as well as the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking Task (DOSPERT) and the self-reported questions for risk-taking used in the German Socio-economic Panel (SOEP) study. In addition, participants in the UK representative sample answered a range of questions about COVID-19-related risky behaviors selected from the UCL COVID-19 Social Survey and the ICL-YouGov survey on COVID-19 behaviors. Consistently with pre-COVID-19 times, we find that risk tolerance during the UK lockdown (i) was higher in men than in women and (ii) decreased with age. Undocumented in pre-COVID-19 times, we find some evidence for healthier participants displaying significantly higher risk-tolerance for self-reported risk measures. We find no systematic nor robust patterns of association between the COVID-19 risky behaviors and the four risk-taking tasks in our study. Moreover, we find no evidence in support of the so-called "risk compensation" hypothesis. If anything, it appears that participants who took greater risk in real-life COVID-19-relevant risky behaviors (e.g., isolating or taking precautions) also exhibited higher risk-tolerance in our experimental and self-reported risk-taking measures.

A randomised experiment of health, cost and social norm message frames to encourage acceptance of swaps in a simulation online supermarket.

Offering lower-energy food swaps to customers of online supermarkets could help to decrease energy (kcal) purchased and consumed. However, acceptance rates of such food swaps tend to be low. This study aimed to see whether framing lower-energy food swaps in terms of cost savings or social norms could improve likelihood of acceptance relative to framing swaps in terms of health benefits. Participants (n = 900) were asked to shop from a 12-item shopping list in a simulation online supermarket. When a target high-energy food was identified in the shopping basket at check-out, one or two lower-energy foods would be suggested as an alternative (a "swap"). Participants were randomised to only see messages emphasising health benefits (fewer calories), cost benefits (lower price) or social norms (others preferred this product). Data were analysed for 713 participants after exclusions. Participants were offered a mean of 3.17 swaps (SD = 1.50), and 12.91% of swaps were accepted (health = 14.31%, cost = 11.49%, social norms = 13.18%). Swap acceptance was not influenced by the specific swap frame used (all p > .170). Age was significantly and positively associated with swap acceptance (b = 0.02, SE = 0.00, p < .001), but was also associated with smaller decreases in energy change (b = 0.46, SE = .19, p = .014). Overall, offering swaps reduced both energy (kcal) per product (b = -9.69, SE = 4.07, p = .017) and energy (kcal) per shopping basket (t712 = 11.09, p < .001) from pre- to post-intervention. Offering lower-energy food swaps could be a successful strategy for reducing energy purchased by customers of online supermarkets. Future research should explore alternative solutions for increasing acceptance rates of such swaps.