James Thom, Sarah Bowen, Yuchen Yang, Sanjeev Devarajan, Helen Doran, Marios Zampetis, Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Maria McDonagh, R. McPhedran, Ben Toombs, Ayla Ibrahimi Jarchlo, Alice Rayner, Phil Jones, N. Gold
Many foodborne illness outbreaks originate in food service establishments. We tested two behavioural interventions designed to improve the duration and quality of handwashing. We ran a three-armed parallel trial in a laboratory kitchen, from 7 March to 27 May 2022. Participants were n = 195 workers who handle food. We randomly allocated participants to three groups: Timer – tap-mounted timer that counted seconds while participants washed their hands; Precommitment – agreed to five statements on good hand hygiene before attending the kitchen; and Control. Participants completed a food preparation task under time pressure. Cameras focused on the sink captured handwashing. Outcome measures were number of times participants washed their hands; number of times they washed their hands using soap; number of times they washed using soap and washed the backs of their hands; and mean duration of handwashing attempts using soap. Participants in Timer washed their hands for 1.9 s longer on average than Control (β = 2.20, 95% CI = 0.34-4.06, p = 0.021). Participants in Precommitment washed their hands for 2.5 s longer on average than Control (β = 2.30, 95% CI = 0.33-4.27, p = 0.022). We found no statistically significant differences on any other outcome measure.
{"title":"The effect of timers and precommitments on handwashing: a randomised controlled trial in a kitchen laboratory","authors":"James Thom, Sarah Bowen, Yuchen Yang, Sanjeev Devarajan, Helen Doran, Marios Zampetis, Trisevgeni Papakonstantinou, Maria McDonagh, R. McPhedran, Ben Toombs, Ayla Ibrahimi Jarchlo, Alice Rayner, Phil Jones, N. Gold","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.33","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Many foodborne illness outbreaks originate in food service establishments. We tested two behavioural interventions designed to improve the duration and quality of handwashing. We ran a three-armed parallel trial in a laboratory kitchen, from 7 March to 27 May 2022. Participants were n = 195 workers who handle food. We randomly allocated participants to three groups: Timer – tap-mounted timer that counted seconds while participants washed their hands; Precommitment – agreed to five statements on good hand hygiene before attending the kitchen; and Control. Participants completed a food preparation task under time pressure. Cameras focused on the sink captured handwashing. Outcome measures were number of times participants washed their hands; number of times they washed their hands using soap; number of times they washed using soap and washed the backs of their hands; and mean duration of handwashing attempts using soap. Participants in Timer washed their hands for 1.9 s longer on average than Control (β = 2.20, 95% CI = 0.34-4.06, p = 0.021). Participants in Precommitment washed their hands for 2.5 s longer on average than Control (β = 2.30, 95% CI = 0.33-4.27, p = 0.022). We found no statistically significant differences on any other outcome measure.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"4 26","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139439833","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines how beliefs interact with heterogeneous donation preferences in determining people's donation decisions and choices of revision and observability. We conducted an online experiment eliciting participants’ first-order beliefs, that is, beliefs about an average donor's contribution, with the opportunity of being recognized. We also provided the opportunity for donation revision to a group of randomly selected participants. Our study results show that people's first-order beliefs are positively correlated with their willingness to donate and their actual donations. Moreover, first-order beliefs also interact with people's heterogeneous donation preferences in jointly determining their decisions of donation revision and observability – their tendency to opt in for public recognition. Donors with low first-order beliefs and high donation preferences are most likely to opt in for recognition, but they are unlikely to revise their donations. Donors with high first-order beliefs and low donation preferences are most likely to revise their donations, but they are less likely to choose to be recognized. Donors with low first-order beliefs and low donation preferences display the lowest tendency toward revision and observability.
{"title":"Beliefs, observability and donation revision in charitable giving: evidence from an online experiment","authors":"Guanlin Gao, Xinyan Shi","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.36","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.36","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines how beliefs interact with heterogeneous donation preferences in determining people's donation decisions and choices of revision and observability. We conducted an online experiment eliciting participants’ first-order beliefs, that is, beliefs about an average donor's contribution, with the opportunity of being recognized. We also provided the opportunity for donation revision to a group of randomly selected participants. Our study results show that people's first-order beliefs are positively correlated with their willingness to donate and their actual donations. Moreover, first-order beliefs also interact with people's heterogeneous donation preferences in jointly determining their decisions of donation revision and observability – their tendency to opt in for public recognition. Donors with low first-order beliefs and high donation preferences are most likely to opt in for recognition, but they are unlikely to revise their donations. Donors with high first-order beliefs and low donation preferences are most likely to revise their donations, but they are less likely to choose to be recognized. Donors with low first-order beliefs and low donation preferences display the lowest tendency toward revision and observability.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"57 38","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2024-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139441935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explores the complexities and unintended consequences of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in various professional settings. It highlights key psychological processes encountered by recipients of such disclosures. Notably, it describes the burden of disclosure effect, which paradoxically reduces trust while increasing compliance due to social pressures, and disclosure's expertise cue, where disclosures inadvertently increase trust and persuasiveness by signalling expertise. The paper also outlines best practices for improving COI disclosures, emphasising the need for external third-party involvement and encouraging deliberation. It concludes that effective disclosure depends not only on how recipients process information but also critically on how the disclosure influences the behaviour of advisors, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to managing COIs that goes beyond mere transparency. A version of this paper was presented as a keynote at the Second Annual International Behavioural Public Policy Conference at the University of North Carolina in September 2023.
{"title":"The paradox of disclosure: shifting policies from revealing to resolving conflicts of interest","authors":"Sunita Sah","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.37","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.37","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This paper explores the complexities and unintended consequences of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in various professional settings. It highlights key psychological processes encountered by recipients of such disclosures. Notably, it describes the burden of disclosure effect, which paradoxically reduces trust while increasing compliance due to social pressures, and disclosure's expertise cue, where disclosures inadvertently increase trust and persuasiveness by signalling expertise. The paper also outlines best practices for improving COI disclosures, emphasising the need for external third-party involvement and encouraging deliberation. It concludes that effective disclosure depends not only on how recipients process information but also critically on how the disclosure influences the behaviour of advisors, underscoring the need for a holistic approach to managing COIs that goes beyond mere transparency. A version of this paper was presented as a keynote at the Second Annual International Behavioural Public Policy Conference at the University of North Carolina in September 2023.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"79 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138945472","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Similarly to other domains of the social sciences, behavioural science has grappled with a crisis concerning the effect sizes of research findings. Different solutions have been provided to answer this challenge. This paper will discuss analytical strategies developed in the context of computational social science, namely causal tree and forest, that will benefit behavioural scientists in harnessing heterogeneity of treatment effects in RCTs. As a mixture of theoretical and data-driven approaches, these techniques are well suited to exploit the rich information provided by large studies conducted using RCTs. We discuss the characteristics of these methods and their methodological rationale and provide simulations to illustrate their use. We simulate two scenarios of RCTs-generated data and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects using causal tree and causal forest methods. Furthermore, we outlined a potential theoretical use of these techniques to enrich behavioural science ecological validity by introducing the notion of behavioural niche.
{"title":"Harnessing heterogeneity in behavioural research using computational social science","authors":"Giuseppe A. Veltri","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.35","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.35","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Similarly to other domains of the social sciences, behavioural science has grappled with a crisis concerning the effect sizes of research findings. Different solutions have been provided to answer this challenge. This paper will discuss analytical strategies developed in the context of computational social science, namely causal tree and forest, that will benefit behavioural scientists in harnessing heterogeneity of treatment effects in RCTs. As a mixture of theoretical and data-driven approaches, these techniques are well suited to exploit the rich information provided by large studies conducted using RCTs. We discuss the characteristics of these methods and their methodological rationale and provide simulations to illustrate their use. We simulate two scenarios of RCTs-generated data and explore the heterogeneity of treatment effects using causal tree and causal forest methods. Furthermore, we outlined a potential theoretical use of these techniques to enrich behavioural science ecological validity by introducing the notion of behavioural niche.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"14 21","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138601826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Companies face increasing pressure to adopt social responsibility initiatives while simultaneously providing shareholder value. However, consumers may respond negatively to ‘win-win’ initiatives that benefit society while bringing financial gain to the corporation, producing a backlash effect. Previous researchers have attributed this backlash effect to the violation of a communal relationship norm that companies trigger in consumers when communicating their win-win initiatives. We propose the alternative hypothesis that the backlash derives from people's deception aversion. We find evidence supporting deception aversion in three preregistered studies showing that companies are evaluated negatively when their actions differ from those implied by their stated prosocial policy and not, as predicted by the communal norm violation hypothesis, when they merely earn a profit. Our results suggest that companies should not fear that earning a profit from prosocial activities will carry reputational risk, so long as they are transparent.
{"title":"Deception aversion, communal norm violation and consumer responses to prosocial initiatives","authors":"Despoina Alempaki, Andrea Isoni, Daniel Read","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.32","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Companies face increasing pressure to adopt social responsibility initiatives while simultaneously providing shareholder value. However, consumers may respond negatively to ‘win-win’ initiatives that benefit society while bringing financial gain to the corporation, producing a backlash effect. Previous researchers have attributed this backlash effect to the violation of a communal relationship norm that companies trigger in consumers when communicating their win-win initiatives. We propose the alternative hypothesis that the backlash derives from people's deception aversion. We find evidence supporting deception aversion in three preregistered studies showing that companies are evaluated negatively when their actions differ from those implied by their stated prosocial policy and not, as predicted by the communal norm violation hypothesis, when they merely earn a profit. Our results suggest that companies should not fear that earning a profit from prosocial activities will carry reputational risk, so long as they are transparent.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"113 14","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138608532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
{"title":"Bounded Rationality: Heuristics, Judgement, and Public Policy Sanjit Dhami and Cass R. Sunstein. MIT Press, 2022, 533 pp.","authors":"Alejandro Hortal","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.29","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.29","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"1 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135479850","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Boosts and nudges are two separate types of behavioral public policies, distinguished by the mechanisms through which they operate. We investigated whether this theoretical distinction translates into different effects when instances of these policy types are implemented in the context of energy consumption. In a long-term field randomized controlled trial, we competitively tested boosts against nudges. We found that boosts outperform nudges throughout a seven-month period in a student dormitory setting – both in terms of accumulated energy savings, as well as in keeping consumption consistently low during the experimental period. Furthermore, we explored the processes behind the boosts and nudges through a number of mechanistic markers and showed that the tested interventions indeed are instances of the respective types.
{"title":"Boosting vs. nudging sustainable energy consumption: a long-term comparative field test in a residential context","authors":"Yavor Paunov, Till Grüne-Yanoff","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.30","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.30","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Boosts and nudges are two separate types of behavioral public policies, distinguished by the mechanisms through which they operate. We investigated whether this theoretical distinction translates into different effects when instances of these policy types are implemented in the context of energy consumption. In a long-term field randomized controlled trial, we competitively tested boosts against nudges. We found that boosts outperform nudges throughout a seven-month period in a student dormitory setting – both in terms of accumulated energy savings, as well as in keeping consumption consistently low during the experimental period. Furthermore, we explored the processes behind the boosts and nudges through a number of mechanistic markers and showed that the tested interventions indeed are instances of the respective types.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"21 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135169619","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Political scientists have proposed that party cues can be used to compensate for the public's well-documented lack of substantive political knowledge, but some critics have argued that applying party cues is more difficult than assumed. We argue that this debate has proven intractable in part because scholars have used ambiguous normative criteria to evaluate judgments. We use a unique task and clear normative criteria to evaluate the use of party cues in making political judgments among two samples: a sample of state legislators and an online sample of the public. We find that the public sample performs poorly when using cues to make judgments. State legislators make much more accurate judgments on average than even the most attentive segment of the public and are more likely to place less weight on irrelevant cues when making judgments, although there is evidence that both samples performed worse with the inclusion of non-diagnostic cues. We conclude with a discussion of the relevance of the results, which we interpret as showing that party cue use is more difficult than theorized, and discuss some practical implications of the findings.
{"title":"Political expertise, ecological rationality and party cues","authors":"Daniel E. Bergan, Dustin Carnahan, Isabel Virtue","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.28","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political scientists have proposed that party cues can be used to compensate for the public's well-documented lack of substantive political knowledge, but some critics have argued that applying party cues is more difficult than assumed. We argue that this debate has proven intractable in part because scholars have used ambiguous normative criteria to evaluate judgments. We use a unique task and clear normative criteria to evaluate the use of party cues in making political judgments among two samples: a sample of state legislators and an online sample of the public. We find that the public sample performs poorly when using cues to make judgments. State legislators make much more accurate judgments on average than even the most attentive segment of the public and are more likely to place less weight on irrelevant cues when making judgments, although there is evidence that both samples performed worse with the inclusion of non-diagnostic cues. We conclude with a discussion of the relevance of the results, which we interpret as showing that party cue use is more difficult than theorized, and discuss some practical implications of the findings.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135405680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Why are take up rates incomplete or low when the relevant opportunities are unambiguously advantageous to people who are eligible for them? How can public officials promote higher take up of opportunities? All over the world, these are challenges of the first order. There are three primary barriers to take up: learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs. These costs lower the net expected benefit of opportunities, and reduce participation in otherwise advantageous programs. Fully rational agents would consider these costs in their take up decisions, and in light of behavioral biases, such costs loom especially large and may seem prohibitive. Experimental and other evidence suggest methods for reducing the barriers to take up and the effects of behavioral biases. Use of such methods has the potential to significantly increase access to a wide range of opportunities that would increase individual well-being and social welfare.
{"title":"Take up","authors":"Dafna F. Bearson, Cass R. Sunstein","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.21","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.21","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why are take up rates incomplete or low when the relevant opportunities are unambiguously advantageous to people who are eligible for them? How can public officials promote higher take up of opportunities? All over the world, these are challenges of the first order. There are three primary barriers to take up: learning costs, compliance costs, and psychological costs. These costs lower the net expected benefit of opportunities, and reduce participation in otherwise advantageous programs. Fully rational agents would consider these costs in their take up decisions, and in light of behavioral biases, such costs loom especially large and may seem prohibitive. Experimental and other evidence suggest methods for reducing the barriers to take up and the effects of behavioral biases. Use of such methods has the potential to significantly increase access to a wide range of opportunities that would increase individual well-being and social welfare.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135591959","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
此内容的摘要不可用，因此提供了预览。有关如何访问此内容的信息，请使用上面的获取访问链接。
{"title":"Reviewers: Behavioural Public Policy 2023","authors":"","doi":"10.1017/bpp.2023.26","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2023.26","url":null,"abstract":"An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.","PeriodicalId":29777,"journal":{"name":"Behavioural Public Policy","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135536609","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：