Potential social marketing applications for knowledge translation in healthcare: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Knowledge translation has emerged as a practice and a science to bridge the gap between evidence and practice in healthcare. While the field has appropriately borrowed from other related fields to advance its science, there remain fields less mined. One such field with potential relevance to knowledge translation, but limited application to date, is social marketing. This review aims to determine elements of social marketing interventions that could be applied to knowledge translation science. Our objectives are to: (1) summarise the types of studies that have tested social marketing interventions in controlled intervention study designs; (2) describe the social marketing interventions and their effects; and (3) propose strategies for the integration of social marketing interventions into knowledge translation science. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance. For the first and second objectives, all English-language studies published from 1971 onwards will be included if they (1) used a randomised or non-randomised controlled intervention design, and (2) tested a social marketing intervention as defined by five essential social marketing criteria. The research team will address the third objective through discussion and consensus. All screening and extraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Variables extracted will include intervention details using essential and desirable social marketing criteria and the context, mechanism and outcomes of the interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project is a secondary analysis of published papers and does not require ethics approval. We will disseminate our review outputs in knowledge translation journals and present at relevant conferences across the spectrum of the field. We will produce a short and long version of a plain language summary that will be tailored to various groups including implementation scientists and quality improvement researchers. REGISTRATION DETAILS: Open Science Framework Registration link: osf.io/6q834.

Greater traditionalism predicts COVID-19 precautionary behaviors across 27 societies.

People vary both in their embrace of their society's traditions, and in their perception of hazards as salient and necessitating a response. Over evolutionary time, traditions have offered avenues for addressing hazards, plausibly resulting in linkages between orientations toward tradition and orientations toward danger. Emerging research documents connections between traditionalism and threat responsivity, including pathogen-avoidance motivations. Additionally, because hazard-mitigating behaviors can conflict with competing priorities, associations between traditionalism and pathogen avoidance may hinge on contextually contingent tradeoffs. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a real-world test of the posited relationship between traditionalism and hazard avoidance. Across 27 societies (N = 7844), we find that, in a majority of countries, individuals' endorsement of tradition positively correlates with their adherence to costly COVID-19-avoidance behaviors; accounting for some of the conflicts that arise between public health precautions and other objectives further strengthens this evidence that traditionalism is associated with greater attention to hazards.

Social information decreases giving in late-stage fundraising campaigns.

Online fundraisers often showcase information about the number of donations received and the proximity to the campaign goal. This practice follows research on descriptive norms and goal-directed motivation, which predicts higher contributions as the number of donors increases and as the campaign goal is approached. However, across three studies, we demonstrate that when the campaign is close to completion, individuals give more when they see that there are few (vs. many) donors to the campaign. We observe this result across real campaigns on a fundraising website and obtain causal evidence for this effect in two laboratory experiments. We find that this effect is driven in part by an increase in the perceived progress that one's donation makes towards reaching the campaign goal. This work identifies a counterintuitive consequence of norm-based marketing appeals and has important implications for fundraisers.

Liking goes with liking: An intuitive congruence between preference and prominence.

In a series of 8 experiments, we demonstrate the existence of a "labeling effect" wherein people intuitively relate preferred choices to prominently labeled cues (such as heads as opposed to tails in a coin toss) and vice versa. Importantly, the observed congruence is asymmetric-it does not manifest for nonprominent cues and nonpreferred choices. This is because the congruence is driven by a process of evaluative matching: prominent cues are liked, but nonprominent cues are neutral or at most slightly negative in contrast. When we test prominent, yet truly negatively labeled cues, we indeed find a matching with less liked products. We discuss the theoretical contributions to the study of preferences and decision making, as well as demonstrate the practical implications to researchers and practitioners by using this process to assess intuitive preferences and reduce the compromise effect. (PsycINFO Database Record