Historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased.

How people recall the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is likely to prove crucial in future societal debates on pandemic preparedness and appropriate political action. Beyond simple forgetting, previous research suggests that recall may be distorted by strong motivations and anchoring perceptions on the current situation1-6. Here, using 4 studies across 11 countries (total n = 10,776), we show that recall of perceived risk, trust in institutions and protective behaviours depended strongly on current evaluations. Although both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals were affected by this bias, people who identified strongly with their vaccination status-whether vaccinated or unvaccinated-tended to exhibit greater and, notably, opposite distortions of recall. Biased recall was not reduced by providing information about common recall errors or small monetary incentives for accurate recall, but was partially reduced by high incentives. Thus, it seems that motivation and identity influence the direction in which the recall of the past is distorted. Biased recall was further related to the evaluation of past political action and future behavioural intent, including adhering to regulations during a future pandemic or punishing politicians and scientists. Together, the findings indicate that historical narratives about the COVID-19 pandemic are motivationally biased, sustain societal polarization and affect preparation for future pandemics. Consequently, future measures must look beyond immediate public-health implications to the longer-term consequences for societal cohesion and trust.

Infographics on risks associated with COVID-19 and the willingness to get the AstraZeneca vaccine: two randomized online experiments.

BACKGROUND: Germans hesitated to get vaccinated with AstraZeneca in the COVID-19 pandemic after reports of blood clots. METHODS: In two preregistered online experiments with stratified randomization (Study 1 N = 824, Study 2: N = 1,056), we tested whether providing evidence-based benefit-risk information reduces the perceived risk of the AstraZeneca vaccine and the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine and increases the vaccination intention. In Study 1, participants saw no infographic (control) or one of two infographics (low vs. high exposure risk varied by the underlying incidence rates). Study 2 additionally varied the infographic design displaying the risk information (presented as table, circle icons, or manikin-like icons). RESULTS: The infographic decreased the risk perception of the vaccine compared to no infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.31, 95% CI [0.14, 0.48]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.34, 95% CI [0.06, 0.62]), but it did not influence the perceived probability of blood clots due to the AstraZeneca vaccine (Study 2: Cohens d = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.33]). Also, the infographic design did not affect the perceived probability of blood clots (Study 2). The vaccination intention was not affected by viewing the infographic (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.21]; Study 2: Cohens d = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.32]) nor the presented infection rate (Study 1: Cohens d = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.24], Study 2: Cohens d = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.15]) but by risk perceptions, sociodemographic characteristics, confidence in the AstraZeneca vaccine, and preference for alternative vaccines. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence-based benefit-risk information helped putting the risk of vaccinations into perspective. Nevertheless, objective risk information alone did not affect vaccination intention that was low due to the preexisting lacking vaccine confidence.

Exploring pre-pandemic patterns of vaccine decision-making with the 5C model: results from representative surveys in 2016 and 2018.

BACKGROUND: The 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination (Confidence, Complacency, Constraints, Calculation, and Collective Responsibility) facilitate understanding vaccination decisions in specific target groups as well as the general public's informational needs. This study aims to explain pre-pandemic vaccination behaviour (a) in general, (b) for specific vaccines such as influenza, and (c) for certain target groups (e.g. people over the age of 59 years, parents, healthcare workers), using the 5C model and sociodemographic variables. The intention to get an influenza vaccination was also analysed for target groups. METHODS: The 5C, self-reported vaccination behaviour and the intention to vaccinate were collected in two representative telephone surveys in Germany - one in 2016 (n1 = 5,012) and another in 2018 (n2 = 5,054). Parents, people over the age of 59 years, chronically ill people, people with a migratory background, pregnant women and healthcare workers were target groups. RESULTS: Overall, the 5C model had higher explanatory power than sociodemographic variables. The pattern of vaccine hesitancy slightly differed between vaccinations and target groups. Confidence in safety and effectiveness was always a significant predictor. Complacency (the underestimation of disease risks) and Constraints were significant predictors as well. Calculation (of risks and benefits) was important for influenza vaccination intentions. CONCLUSIONS: This work builds an important benchmark for understanding potential changes in vaccine acceptance due to the pandemic. The benchmark can be used in research on potential effects of the pandemic on vaccination behaviours. Intervention designers can also use the results to understand specific audiences and their vaccination decisions.

Empirical evidence to understand the human factor for effective rapid testing against SARS-CoV-2.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapid antigen point-of-care and home tests are available to laypeople. In four cross-sectional mixed-methods data collections conducted between December 2020 and March 2021 (n = 4,026), we showed that a majority of subjects were willing to test despite mistrust and ignorance regarding rapid tests' validity. Experimental evidence shows that low costs and access to events could increase testing intentions. Mandatory reporting and isolation after positive results were not identified as major barriers. Instead, assuming that testing and isolation can slow down the pandemic and the possibility to protect others were related to greater willingness to get tested. While we did not find evidence for risk compensation for past tests, experimental evidence suggests that there is a tendency to show less mask wearing and physical distancing in a group of tested individuals. A short communication intervention reduced complacent behavior. The derived recommendations could make rapid testing a successful pillar of pandemic management.

Heatwaves and their health risks: knowledge, risk perceptions and behaviours of the German population in summer 2022.

Heatwaves are becoming more common and impact health. We conducted a representative survey in June 2022 in Germany to determine people's knowledge and protective behaviours on heat days. In data from 953 respondents, we found that a large proportion informed themselves about upcoming heat days, but there are considerable gaps in knowledge. While knowledge was not related to taking up protecting behaviour, other predictors were (e.g. risk perception). Health campaigns should therefore not only aim to improve knowledge but also address risk perceptions, facilitate social learning, communicate social norms and remove barriers that prevent protective behaviours.

Explaining Boomerang Effects in Persuasive Health Communication: How Psychological Reactance to Healthy Eating Messages Elevates Attention to Unhealthy Food.

While psychological reactance is often invoked to explain the unintended boomerang effects of persuasive health messages, underlying processes that might explain how reactance affects behavior are rarely studied. We investigated whether messages that elicit reactance can bias attention by increasing the perception of information that potentially facilitates adverse behavior. Participants (N = 998) were assigned to one of three experimental conditions: reading an aggressive and emotional text asking them to stop eating meat (appeal condition); reading a neutral text about the nativeness and benefits of eating less meat (information condition); or completing an unrelated word count task (control condition). After assessing their reactance, participants were asked to identify as many words as possible in a word grid in which some words related to meat. Compared to the other conditions, the appeal condition elicited the greatest reactance. Furthermore, omnivore participants in this condition identified significantly more meat-related words when they reported higher levels of reactance. By showing that psychological reactance elicited by forceful health appeals increases attention to information that may facilitate the admonished behaviors, our findings contribute to an improved understanding of effective health communication.

Vaccination as a social contract.

Most vaccines protect both the vaccinated individual and the society by reducing the transmission of infectious diseases. In order to eliminate infectious diseases, individuals need to consider social welfare beyond mere self-interest-regardless of ethnic, religious, or national group borders. It has therefore been proposed that vaccination poses a social contract in which individuals are morally obliged to get vaccinated. However, little is known about whether individuals indeed act upon this social contract. If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn't vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline. Three preregistered experiments investigated how a person's own vaccination behavior, others' vaccination behavior, and others' group membership influenced a person's generosity toward respective others. The experiments consistently showed that especially compliant (i.e., vaccinated) individuals showed less generosity toward nonvaccinated individuals. This effect was independent of the others' group membership, suggesting an unconditional moral principle. An internal metaanalysis (n = 1,032) confirmed the overall social contract effect. In a fourth experiment (n = 1,212), this pattern was especially pronounced among vaccinated individuals who perceived vaccination as a moral obligation. It is concluded that vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice. Individuals act upon the social contract, and more so the stronger they perceive it as a moral obligation. Emphasizing the social contract could be a promising intervention to increase vaccine uptake, prevent free riding, and, eventually, support the elimination of infectious diseases.

Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Mandatory and voluntary mask policies may have yet unknown social and behavioral consequences related to the effectiveness of the measure, stigmatization, and perceived fairness. Serial cross-sectional data (April 14 to May 26, 2020) from nearly 7,000 German participants demonstrate that implementing a mandatory policy increased actual compliance despite moderate acceptance; mask wearing correlated positively with other protective behaviors. A preregistered experiment (n = 925) further indicates that a voluntary policy would likely lead to insufficient compliance, would be perceived as less fair, and could intensify stigmatization. A mandatory policy appears to be an effective, fair, and socially responsible solution to curb transmissions of airborne viruses.

[Attitudes Toward Influenza Vaccination in Fall/Winter 2021: Results of the COSMO Study]. / Einstellung zur Grippeimpfung im Herbst/Winter 2021: Ergebnisse der COSMO-Studie.

AIM OF THE STUDY: There is a lack of knowledge about attitudes to influenza vaccination in Germany in 2021/2022. Based on the COSMO survey ("COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring"), the aim of this study was to shed some light on this topic. METHODS: Wave 49 (August 10 and 11, 2021) of the COSMO survey (n=967; Germany-wide non-probabilistic quota sample; 18 to 74 years). RESULTS: This year, about one-third of respondents (and health care workers) plan to get a flu shot, and among the at-risk group of people aged 60 and older (up to 74 years in our sample), more than half. Correlates (such as gender: women with a lower likelihood of a planned flu shot) were identified. CONCLUSION: Physicians should inform women in particular about the advantages of influenza vaccination, especially during the pandemic, and communicate data on the proven protective effect of influenza vaccination as convincingly as possible (e. g., using existing brochures).

Information nudges for influenza vaccination: Evidence from a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial in Finland.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most effective means of preventing the spread of infectious diseases. Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, vaccine hesitancy keeps many people from getting vaccinated. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a large-scale cluster randomized controlled trial in Finland to test the effectiveness of centralized written reminders (distributed via mail) on influenza vaccination coverage. The study included the entire older adult population (aged 65 years and above) in 2 culturally and geographically distinct regions with historically low (31.8%, n = 7,398, mean age 75.5 years) and high (57.7%, n = 40,727, mean age 74.0 years) influenza vaccination coverage. The study population was randomized into 3 treatments: (i) no reminder (only in the region with low vaccination coverage); (ii) an individual-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the individual benefits of vaccination; and (iii) an individual- and social-benefits reminder, informing recipients about the additional social benefits of vaccination in the form of herd immunity. There was no control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage as general reminders had been sent in previous years. The primary endpoint was a record of influenza vaccination in the Finnish National Vaccination Register during a 5-month follow-up period (from October 18, 2018 to March 18, 2019). Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically low coverage was 41.8% in the individual-benefits treatment, 38.9% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment and 34.0% in the control treatment group. Vaccination coverage after the intervention in the region with historically high coverage was 59.0% in the individual-benefits treatment and 59.2% in the individual- and social-benefits treatment. The effect of receiving any type of reminder letter in comparison to control treatment group (no reminder) was 6.4 percentage points (95% CI: 3.6 to 9.1, p < 0.001). The effect of reminders was particularly large among individuals with no prior influenza vaccination (8.8 pp, 95% CI: 6.5 to 11.1, p < 0.001). There was a substantial positive effect (5.3 pp, 95% CI: 2.8 to 7.8, p < 0.001) among the most consistently unvaccinated individuals who had not received any type of vaccine during the 9 years prior to the study. There was no difference in influenza vaccination coverage between the individual-benefit reminder and the individual- and social-benefit reminder (region with low vaccination coverage: 2.9 pp, 95% CI: -0.4 to 6.1, p = 0.087, region with high vaccination coverage: 0.2 pp, 95% CI: -1.0 to 1.3, p = 0.724). Study limitations included potential contamination between the treatments due to information spillovers and the lack of control treatment group in the region with high vaccination coverage. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that sending reminders was an effective and scalable intervention strategy to increase vaccination coverage in an older adult population with low vaccination coverage. Communicating the social benefits of vaccinations, in addition to individual benefits, did not enhance vaccination coverage. The effectiveness of letter reminders about the benefits of vaccination to improve influenza vaccination coverage may depend on the prior vaccination history of the population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AEA RCT registry AEARCTR-0003520 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748160.

How a generally well-accepted measles vaccine mandate may lead to inequities and decreased vaccine uptake: a preregistered survey study in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, a measles vaccine mandate came into effect in March 2020, requiring proof of measles immunization for children attending kindergarten or school and for staff in a variety of facilities. Mandates can be successful if implemented with care and in a context-sensitive manner. They may, however, also lead to inequities and decreased uptake of other vaccines. The aim of this study was to investigate the acceptance and potential unintended consequences of the measles vaccine mandate in Germany. METHODS: As part of a larger evaluation project on the new mandate, we conducted an online survey among parents in August/September 2020. We assessed differences in knowledge about the mandate and the measles vaccine by socio-economic status. We used linear and logistic regression to estimate how reactance to the mandate was associated with vaccination status and vaccination intention against other diseases. We used mediation analysis to measure how trust in institutions had an impact on the attitude towards the mandate, mediated by level of reactance. RESULTS: In total, 4,863 parents participated in the study (64.2% female, mean age = 36.8 years). Of these, 74.1% endorsed a measles vaccine mandate for children. Parents with lower socio-economic status had less knowledge about the mandate and the measles vaccine. The higher parents' levels of reactance, the lower the vaccination intentions and the likelihood for the child to be vaccinated against other diseases. Furthermore, higher institutional trust decreased the level of reactance and increased positive attitudes towards the mandate (partial mediation). CONCLUSIONS: The new measles vaccine mandate in Germany, though well accepted by many, might have unintended consequences. Parents with lower socio-economic status, who know less about the mandate and vaccine, might be less likely to comply with it. The mandate may also lead to some parents omitting other childhood vaccines, as a way to restore their freedom. This could decrease vaccination coverage of other vaccines. Any potential loss of trust might provoke more reactance and lower acceptance of mandates. Policymakers should now expand communication activities on the mandate, monitor trends in vaccination coverage carefully and take measures to strengthen trust.

Ok Google: Using virtual assistants for data collection in psychological and behavioral research.

Because of the increasing popularity of voice-controlled virtual assistants, such as Amazon's Alexa and Google Assistant, they should be considered a new medium for psychological and behavioral research. We developed Survey Mate, an extension of Google Assistant, and conducted two studies to analyze the reliability and validity of data collected through this medium. In the first study, we assessed validated procrastination and shyness scales as well as social desirability indicators for both the virtual assistant and an online questionnaire. The results revealed comparable internal consistency and construct and criterion validity. In the second study, five social psychological experiments, which have been successfully replicated by the Many Labs projects, were successfully reproduced using a virtual assistant for data collection. Comparable effects were observed for users of both smartphones and smart speakers. Our findings point to the applicability of virtual assistants in data collection independent of the device used. While we identify some limitations, including data privacy concerns and a tendency toward more socially desirable responses, we found that virtual assistants could allow the recruitment of participants who are hard to reach with established data collection techniques, such as people with visual impairment, dyslexia, or lower education. This new medium could also be suitable for recruiting samples from non-Western countries because of its wide availability and easily adaptable language settings. It could also support an increase in the generalizability of theories in the future.

Benefits and Pitfalls of Debunking Interventions to Counter mRNA Vaccination Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Misinformation about mRNA vaccination is a barrier in the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, authorities often rely on text-based refutations as a countermeasure. In two experiments (N = 2,444), text-based refutations effectively reduced the belief in misinformation and immunized participants against the impact of a misleading social media post. However, a follow-up (N = 817) questions the longevity of these debunking and prebunking effects. Moreover, the studies reveal potential pitfalls by showing a row of unintended effects of the refutations (lacking effect on intentions, backfire-effects among religious groups, and biased judgments when omitting information about vaccine side effects).

Allocation of COVID-19 vaccination: when public prioritisation preferences differ from official regulations.

As vaccines against COVID-19 are scarce, many countries have developed vaccination prioritisation strategies focusing on ethical and epidemiological considerations. However, public acceptance of such strategies should be monitored to ensure successful implementation. In an experiment with N=1379 German participants, we investigated whether the public's vaccination allocation preferences matched the prioritisation strategy approved by the German government. Results revealed different allocations. While the government had top-prioritised vulnerable people (being of high age or accommodated in nursing homes for the elderly), participants preferred exclusive allocation of the first available vaccines to medical staff and personnel caring for the elderly. Interestingly, allocation preferences did not change when participants were told how many individuals were included in each group. As differences between allocation policies and public preferences can affect trust in the government and threaten the social contract between generations, we discuss possible strategies to align vaccination prioritisations.

Money is not everything: experimental evidence that payments do not increase willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Rapid, large-scale uptake of new vaccines against COVID-19 will be crucial to decrease infections and end the pandemic. In a recent article in this journal, Julian Savulescu argued in favour of monetary incentives to convince more people to be vaccinated once the vaccine becomes available. To evaluate the potential of his suggestion, we conducted an experiment investigating the impact of payments and the communication of individual and prosocial benefits of high vaccination rates on vaccination intentions. Our results revealed that none of these interventions or their combinations increased willingness to be vaccinated shortly after a vaccine becomes available. Consequently, decision makers should be cautious about introducing monetary incentives and instead focus on interventions that increase confidence in vaccine safety first, as this has shown to be an especially important factor regarding the demand for the new COVID-19 vaccines.

Determinants of physician attitudes towards the new selective measles vaccine mandate in Germany.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, a mandatory policy on measles vaccination came into effect in March 2020. Physicians, as the main vaccine providers, have a crucial role in implementing it. Mandatory vaccination changes the preconditions under which patient-provider communication on vaccines occurs. Physicians might or might not favor vaccine mandates depending on, among other factors, their attitudes towards vaccines and capabilities as vaccine providers. The aim of this study was to investigate in different subgroups of physicians the association between various factors and their attitudes towards a mandatory policy. METHODS: In total, 2229 physicians participated in a mixed-mode online/paper-pencil survey. Respondents were general practitioners, pediatricians, gynecologists, and internists. Primary determinants were the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination, communication self-efficacy, patient clientele, projected consequences of the mandate and sociodemographic characteristics. Associations between outcomes and determinants were examined using linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Approximately 86% of physicians were in favor of the measles vaccine mandate for children. Regarding the 5C model, physicians were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they scored higher on confidence and collective responsibility, and lower on complacency and calculation. They were more in favor of vaccine mandates when they had higher communication self-efficacy and a more vaccine-positive patient clientele. Pediatricians were less in favor of mandates for children (80.0%) than other physician subgroups (87.1%). They were also less convinced that a mandate would result in more children getting vaccinated (59.3%) than other physician subgroups (78.3%). When controlled for these expected consequences, being a pediatrician no longer lowered the attitude towards the mandate. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians in Germany are predominantly in favor of a measles vaccine mandate. Whether or not physicians believe the mandate to be effective in increasing vaccine coverage affects their attitude towards the mandate. In pediatricians, this belief explains their less positive attitude towards the mandate. In addition, physicians need adequate support to communicate well with patients, especially those who are hesitant, to booster their communication self-efficacy. To increase acceptance of vaccine mandates, the 5C model can be used, e.g., collective responsibility can be communicated, to avoid anger stemming from a negative attitude to mandates.

The four weeks before lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany: a weekly serial cross-sectional survey on risk perceptions, knowledge, public trust and behaviour, 3 to 25 March 2020.

BackgroundDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, public perceptions and behaviours have had to adapt rapidly to new risk scenarios and radical behavioural restrictions.AimTo identify major drivers of acceptance of protective behaviours during the 4-week transition from virtually no COVID-19 cases to the nationwide lockdown in Germany (3-25 March 2020).MethodsA serial cross-sectional online survey was administered weekly to ca 1,000 unique individuals for four data collection rounds in March 2020 using non-probability quota samples, representative of the German adult population between 18 and 74 years in terms of age × sex and federal state (n = 3,910). Acceptance of restrictions was regressed on sociodemographic variables, time and psychological variables, e.g. trust, risk perceptions, self-efficacy. Extraction of homogenous clusters was based on knowledge and behaviour.ResultsAcceptance of restrictive policies increased with participants' age and employment in the healthcare sector; cognitive and particularly affective risk perceptions were further significant predictors. Acceptance increased over time, as trust in institutions became more relevant and trust in media became less relevant. The cluster analysis further indicated that having a higher education increased the gap between knowledge and behaviour. Trust in institutions was related to conversion of knowledge into action.ConclusionIdentifying relevant principles that increase acceptance will remain crucial to the development of strategies that help adjust behaviour to control the pandemic, possibly for years to come. Based on our findings, we provide operational recommendations for health authorities regarding data collection, health communication and outreach.

[Public trust in institutions in the first half of the Corona pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project]. / Vertrauen der Bevölkerung in staatliche Institutionen im ersten Halbjahr der Coronapandemie: Erkenntnisse aus dem Projekt COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO).

BACKGROUND: In the coronavirus pandemic, two institutions play a central role in the evidence-based classification of events for politics and the population. The Robert Koch Institute (RKI) coordinates the fight against the pandemic, prepares well-founded recommendations for medical professionals, the media and the population, and advises politicians. The Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA) informs the population and institutions. GOALS: The COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) project monitors whether and how trust in institutions changes over the pandemic. Which population groups show trust and how this is related to attitudes, risk perception and behaviour are analysed. METHODS: Cross-sectional studies with approximately N = 1000 respondents per survey were conducted since March 2020 to investigate risk perception, behaviour, acceptance of measures and trust in institutions. RESULTS: Trust in the RKI and BZgA was generally high but declined over the course of the pandemic. Higher trust for both institutions was associated with higher age of respondents, higher education, higher risk perception and higher acceptance of measures. Behaviours such as physical distancing and handwashing were shown more frequently. Men and the chronically ill showed lower trust. DISCUSSION: The results show that trust should be further promoted. This could be achieved, among other things, by taking into account the population's perspective (e.g. through COSMO) in the development and justification of strategies and measures. Communication strategies and recommendations for action should aim to support and relieve people with high-risk perceptions.

Will COVID-19-related economic worries superimpose health worries, reducing nonpharmaceutical intervention acceptance in Germany? A prospective pre-registered study.

Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI) such as stay-at-home orders aim at curbing the spread of the novel coronavirus, SARS-COV-2. In March 2020, a large proportion of the German population supported such interventions. In this article, we analyse whether the support for NPI dwindle with economic worries superimposing virus-related worries in the months to follow. We test seven pre-registered1 hypotheses using data from the German COSMO survey (Betsch, Wieler, Habersaat, et al. 2020), which regularly monitors behavioural and psychological factors related to the pandemic. The present article covers the period from March 24, 2020 to July 7, 2020 (Ntotal  = 13,094), and, in addition, includes a validation study providing evidence for the reliability and validity of the corresponding COSMO measures (N = 612). Results revealed that virus-related worries decreased over time, whereas economic worries remained largely constant. Moreover, the acceptance of NPIs considerably decreased over time. Virus-related worries were positively associated with acceptance of NPIs, whereas this relationship was negative regarding economic worries (albeit smaller and less consistent). Unexpectedly, no interactions between virus-related worries and economic worries were found. We conclude that individual differences in virus-related and economic threat perceptions related to COVID-19 play an important role in the acceptance of NPIs.