Physical health mindsets and information avoidance.

Health mindsets refer to beliefs about the malleability (growth mindset) versus stability (fixed mindset) of physical health and have gained traction as a predictor of health beliefs and behaviors. Across two studies, we tested whether health mindsets were associated with avoiding personalized health risk information. In Study 2, we also tested whether conceptually-related constructs of internal and chance health locus of control, health self-efficacy, fatalism, and genetic determinism were associated with information avoidance. Health mindsets were manipulated in Study 1 (college students, n = 284; 79.58% female; Mage = 19.74) and measured in Study 2 (participants recruited through MTurk, n = 735; 42.04% female; Mage = 35.78). In both studies, participants viewed a prediabetes infographic and were informed they could learn their prediabetes risk by completing an online risk calculator. Behavioral obligation was also manipulated in both studies to test whether an additional behavioral requirement associated with learning one's risk would exacerbate any negative impact of health mindsets on avoidance rates. All participants then indicated their interest in learning their prediabetes risk (avoidance intentions) and decided whether to complete the online risk calculator (avoidance behavior). In Study 1, there was no impact of health mindsets, behavioral obligation, or their interaction on avoidance intentions or behavior. Study 2 similarly did not provide consistent evidence for an association of health mindsets, behavioral obligation, or their interaction with avoidance intentions or behavior. However, in Study 2, internal health locus of control was consistently associated with both intentions and behavior. Health information avoidance may be a barrier to prevention and early detection of disease. To encourage individuals to learn potentially important health information, public health interventions might seek to increase people's beliefs that their own actions play a role in their health outcomes. Interventions may also seek to increase people's knowledge about and skills regarding improving their health outcomes, which may influence health locus of control beliefs.

Experimental tests of hypothetical lottery incentives on unvaccinated adults' COVID-19 vaccination intentions.

OBJECTIVE: In May 2021, U.S. states began implementing "vaccination lotteries" encouraging COVID-19 vaccination. Drawing from Prospect Theory and math cognition research, we tested several monetary lottery structures and their framing to determine which would best motivate unvaccinated adults. METHOD: In two online experiments, U.S. adults were asked to imagine that their state implemented a vaccination lottery. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 589) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions varying the monetary amount and number of winners, holding constant a $5 million total payout. In Experiment 2, participants (N = 274) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (Message Framing: Gain versus Loss) by 2 (Numeric Framing: Big versus Small) factorial design; in all conditions, five people would each win $1 million. Participants rated their baseline vaccination willingness (1 = not at all to 4 = very) and postmanipulation COVID-19 vaccination intentions "if their state offered this incentive" (0 = definitely would not to 100 = definitely would). RESULTS: Intentions did not differ across conditions (Experiment 1: F[11, 561] = 1.29, p = .224, ηp² = .03; Experiment 2: Message Framing, F[1, 266)] = .01, p = .940, ηp² = .000; Numeric Framing, F[1, 266] = 1.40, p = .237, ηp² = .01; Interaction, F[1, 266] = 1.40, p = .238, ηp² = .01). When participants were shown a list of 12 lottery structures and asked which they preferred, participants on average preferred options that awarded less money to more people. However, 41.9% of participants across both experiments indicated they would not vaccinate for any lottery-based monetary incentive. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple lottery structures could be equally (un)motivating for unvaccinated adults. Structures that distribute incentives across more people or alternative public health strategies should be considered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Field experiment of signs promoting hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. public was encouraged to practice good hand hygiene, such as hand washing or the use of hand sanitizer. Young adults reported lower levels of hand hygiene compared to adults of other ages. The aim of the current study was to test the effectiveness of different messages to promote hand sanitizer use among young adults. METHOD: Over a 6-week period, we examined whether 3 brief messages (gain-frame, static descriptive norms, dynamic descriptive norms), placed next to sanitizer dispensers in university residence halls, predicted dispenser use in comparison to dispensers with no sign. Amount of sanitizer usage was measured 3 times per week via the weight of dispenser units. We tracked and controlled for the number of positive COVID-19 cases in residence halls because we expected it might influence sanitizer usage. RESULTS: Compared to no signage, dispensers with signs had 35% greater usage, with the static descriptive norms sign associated with greatest usage (46% compared to no sign), although differences did not reach conventional levels of significance. The strongest predictor of sanitizer use was a residence hall's degree of COVID-19 risk based on the hall's case positivity. CONCLUSIONS: Dispensers with signs had higher use than those without signs, but this difference was not statistically significant. We conclude that compared to prior research, "nudges" such as evidence-based messaging may have had less of an effect on health behavior engagement due to methodological differences across studies or characteristics of the COVID-19 context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).