Conversational technology and reactions to withheld information.

People frequently face decisions that require making inferences about withheld information. The advent of large language models coupled with conversational technology, e.g., Alexa, Siri, Cortana, and the Google Assistant, is changing the mode in which people make these inferences. We demonstrate that conversational modes of information provision, relative to traditional digital media, result in more critical responses to withheld information, including: (1) a reduction in evaluations of a product or service for which information is withheld and (2) an increased likelihood of recalling that information was withheld. These effects are robust across multiple conversational modes: a recorded phone conversation, an unfolding chat conversation, and a conversation script. We provide further evidence that these effects hold for conversations with the Google Assistant, a prominent conversational technology. The experimental results point to participants' intuitions about why the information was withheld as the driver of the effect.

Using curiosity to counter health information avoidance.

OBJECTIVE: Information that is beneficial for health decision-making is often ignored or actively avoided. Countering information avoidance can increase knowledge of disease risk factors and symptoms, aiding early diagnoses and reducing disease transmission. We examine whether curiosity can be a useful tool in increasing demand for, and engagement with, potentially aversive but useful health information. METHODS: Four pre-registered randomized online studies were conducted with 5795 participants recruited from online survey platforms. Curiosity for aversive health information was manipulated by providing a 'curiosity incentive' - identity-related information alongside aversive information - (Study 1), obscuring information (Studies 2 and 3), and eliciting guesses about the information (Studies 2 and 4). Willingness to view four types of aversive health information was elicited: alcohol consumption screening scores (Study 1), colon cancer risk scores (Study 2), cancer risk factors (Study 3), and the sugar content of drinks (Study 4). RESULTS: In Study 1, the curiosity manipulation increased the likelihood that participants viewed information about the riskiness of their drinking. Studies 2 and 3 show that curiosity prompts can counter people's reluctance to learn about and assess their cancer risk. And Study 4 shows that using curiosity prompts to encourage engagement with aversive information (sugar content of drinks) also improves health-related choices (opting for a sugar-free drink alternative). CONCLUSION: Curiosity prompts provide an effective and simple way to increase engagement with aversive health information.

Where next for behavioral public policy?

Our target article distinguishes between policy approaches that seek to address societal problems through intervention at the level of the individual (adopting the "i-frame") and those that seek to change the system within which those individuals live (adopting the "s-frame"). We stress also that a long-standing tactic of corporations opposing systemic change is to promote the i-frame perspective, presumably hoping that i-frame interventions will be largely ineffective and more importantly will be seen by the public and some policy makers as a genuine alternative to systemic change. We worry that the i-frame focus of much of behavioral science has inadvertently reinforced this unhelpful focus on the individual. In this response to commentators, we identify common themes, build on the many constructive suggestions to extend our approach, and reply to concerns. We argue, along with several commentators, that a key role of behavioral public policy is to clarify how to build support for systemic reforms for which there is a broad consensus in the policy community, but which are opposed by powerful special interests.

Create a culture of experiments in environmental programs.

Organizations need a better "learning by doing" approach.

Cognition: A Study in Mental Economy.

In this letter, we argue that an economic perspective on the mind has played-and should continue to play-a central role in the development of cognitive science. Viewing cognition as the productive application of mental resources puts cognitive science and economics on a common conceptual footing, paving the way for closer collaboration between the two disciplines. This will enable cognitive scientists to more readily repurpose economic concepts and analytical tools for the study of mental phenomena, while at the same time, enriching our understanding of the modern economy, which is increasingly driven by mental, rather than physical, production.

The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray.

An influential line of thinking in behavioral science, to which the two authors have long subscribed, is that many of society's most pressing problems can be addressed cheaply and effectively at the level of the individual, without modifying the system in which the individual operates. We now believe this was a mistake, along with, we suspect, many colleagues in both the academic and policy communities. Results from such interventions have been disappointingly modest. But more importantly, they have guided many (though by no means all) behavioral scientists to frame policy problems in individual, not systemic, terms: To adopt what we call the "i-frame," rather than the "s-frame." The difference may be more consequential than i-frame advocates have realized, by deflecting attention and support away from s-frame policies. Indeed, highlighting the i-frame is a long-established objective of corporate opponents of concerted systemic action such as regulation and taxation. We illustrate our argument briefly for six policy problems, and in depth with the examples of climate change, obesity, retirement savings, and pollution from plastic waste. We argue that the most important way in which behavioral scientists can contribute to public policy is by employing their skills to develop and implement value-creating system-level change.

Crowdsourcing interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines.

Background: COVID-19 booster vaccine uptake rates are behind the rate of primary vaccination in many countries. Governments and non-governmental institutions rely on a range of interventions aiming to increase booster uptake. Yet, little is known how experts and the general public evaluate these interventions. Methods: We applied a novel crowdsourcing approach to provide rapid insights on the most promising interventions to promote uptake of COVID-19 booster vaccines. In the first phase (December 2021), international experts (n = 78 from 17 countries) proposed 46 unique interventions. To reduce noise and potential bias, in the second phase (January 2022), experts (n = 307 from 34 countries) and representative general population samples from the UK (n = 299) and the US (n = 300) rated the proposed interventions on several evaluation criteria, including effectiveness and acceptability, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Findings: Sanctions were evaluated as potentially most effective but least accepted. Evaluations by expert and general population samples were considerably aligned. Interventions that received the most positive evaluations regarding both effectiveness and acceptability across evaluation groups were: a day off work after getting vaccinated, financial incentives, tax benefits, promotional campaigns, and mobile vaccination teams. Interpretation: The results provide useful insights to help governmental and non-governmental institutions in their decisions about which interventions to implement. Additionally, the applied crowdsourcing method may be used in future studies to retrieve rapid insights on the comparative evaluation of (health) policies. Funding: This study received funding from the Austrian Science Fund (SFB F63) and the University of Vienna.

Loss aversion, the endowment effect, and gain-loss framing shape preferences for noninstrumental information.

We often talk about interacting with information as we would with a physical good (e.g., "consuming content") and describe our attachment to personal beliefs in the same way as our attachment to personal belongings (e.g., "holding on to" or "letting go of" our beliefs). But do we in fact value information the way we do objects? The valuation of money and material goods has been extensively researched, but surprisingly few insights from this literature have been applied to the study of information valuation. This paper demonstrates that two fundamental features of how we value money and material goods embodied in Prospect Theory-loss aversion and different risk preferences for gains versus losses-also hold true for information, even when it has no material value. Study 1 establishes loss aversion for noninstrumental information by showing that people are less likely to choose a gamble when the same outcome is framed as a loss (rather than gain) of information. Study 2 shows that people exhibit the endowment effect for noninstrumental information, and so value information more, simply by virtue of "owning" it. Study 3 provides a conceptual replication of the classic "Asian Disease" gain-loss pattern of risk preferences, but with facts instead of human lives, thereby also documenting a gain-loss framing effect for noninstrumental information. These findings represent a critical step in building a theoretical analogy between information and objects, and provide a useful perspective on why we often resist changing (or losing) our beliefs.

Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science.

Policy-makers are increasingly turning to behavioural science for insights about how to improve citizens' decisions and outcomes1. Typically, different scientists test different intervention ideas in different samples using different outcomes over different time intervals2. The lack of comparability of such individual investigations limits their potential to inform policy. Here, to address this limitation and accelerate the pace of discovery, we introduce the megastudy-a massive field experiment in which the effects of many different interventions are compared in the same population on the same objectively measured outcome for the same duration. In a megastudy targeting physical exercise among 61,293 members of an American fitness chain, 30 scientists from 15 different US universities worked in small independent teams to design a total of 54 different four-week digital programmes (or interventions) encouraging exercise. We show that 45% of these interventions significantly increased weekly gym visits by 9% to 27%; the top-performing intervention offered microrewards for returning to the gym after a missed workout. Only 8% of interventions induced behaviour change that was significant and measurable after the four-week intervention. Conditioning on the 45% of interventions that increased exercise during the intervention, we detected carry-over effects that were proportionally similar to those measured in previous research3-6. Forecasts by impartial judges failed to predict which interventions would be most effective, underscoring the value of testing many ideas at once and, therefore, the potential for megastudies to improve the evidentiary value of behavioural science.

Effect of Financial Incentives for Process, Outcomes, or Both on Cholesterol Level Change: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives may improve health behaviors. It is unknown whether incentives are more effective if they target a key process (eg, medication adherence), an outcome (eg, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [LDL-C] levels), or both. Objective: To determine whether financial incentives awarded daily for process (adherence to statins), awarded quarterly for outcomes (personalized LDL-C level targets), or awarded for process plus outcomes induce reductions in LDL-C levels compared with control. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial was conducted from February 12, 2015, to October 3, 2018; data analysis was performed from October 4, 2018, to May 27, 2021, at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia. Participants included 764 adults with an active statin prescription, elevated risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C level, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Interventions: Interventions lasted 12 months. All participants received a smart pill bottle to measure adherence and underwent LDL-C measurement every 3 months. In the process group, daily financial incentives were awarded for statin adherence. In the outcomes group, participants received incentives for achieving or sustaining at least a quarterly 10-mg/dL LDL-C level reduction. The process plus outcomes group participants were eligible for incentives split between statin adherence and quarterly LDL-C level targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: Change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months, determined using intention-to-treat analysis. Results: Of the 764 participants, 390 were women (51.2%); mean (SD) age was 62.4 (10.0) years, 310 (40.6%) had diabetes, 298 (39.0%) had hypertension, and mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 138.8 (37.6) mg/dL. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were -36.9 mg/dL (95% CI, -42.0 to -31.9 mg/dL) among control participants, -40.0 mg/dL (95% CI, -44.7 to -35.4 mg/dL) among process participants, -41.6 mg/dL (95% CI, -46.3 to -37.0 mg/dL) among outcomes participants, and -42.8 mg/dL (95% CI, -47.4 to -38.1 mg/dL) among process plus outcomes participants. In exploratory analysis among participants with diabetes and hypertension, no spillover effects of incentives were detected compared with the control group on hemoglobin A1c level and blood pressure over 12 months. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, process-, outcomes-, or process plus outcomes-based financial incentives did not improve LDL-C levels vs control. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02246959.

Information Avoidance and Information Seeking Among Parents of Children With ASD.

We estimated the effects of information avoidance and information seeking among parents of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) on age of diagnosis. An online survey was completed by 1,815 parents of children with ASD. Children of parents who self-reported that they had preferred "not to know," reported diagnoses around 3 months later than other children. Children of parents who raised concerns that they perceived as having been dealt with adequately reported diagnoses about 4 months earlier, but the children of parents who reported raising concerns repeatedly and felt that those concerns were dealt with inadequately were diagnosed over a year later. These findings suggest that failure of educational and healthcare professionals, in either substituting for parents who avoid information, or supporting those who seek information, can significantly delay the age of diagnosis.

Clinical signs associated with earlier diagnosis of children with autism Spectrum disorder.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to gain new insights into the relationship between clinical signs and age at diagnosis. METHOD: We utilize a new, large, online survey of 1743 parents of children diagnosed with ASD, and use multiple statistical approaches. These include regression analysis, factor analysis, and machine learning (regression tree). RESULTS: We find that clinical signs that most strongly predict early diagnosis are not necessarily specific to autism, but rather those that initiate the process that eventually leads to an ASD diagnosis. Given the high correlations between symptoms, only a few signs are found to be important in predicting early diagnosis. For several clinical signs we find that their presence and intensity are positively correlated with delayed diagnosis (e.g., tantrums and aggression). Even though our data are drawn from parents' retrospective accounts, we provide evidence that parental recall bias and/or hindsight bias did not play a significant role in shaping our results. CONCLUSION: In the subset of children without early deficits in communication, diagnosis is delayed, and this might be improved if more attention will be given to clinical signs that are not necessarily considered as ASD symptoms. Our findings also suggest that careful attention should be paid to children showing excessive tantrums or aggression, as these behaviors may interfere with an early ASD diagnoses.

Primary caregiver decision-making in hematopoietic cell transplantation and gene therapy for sickle cell disease.

BACKGROUND: Improved outcomes and the availability of clinical trials of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) from alternate donors and genetically modified autologous hematopoietic progenitor cells have expanded the applicability of HCT for sickle cell disease (SCD). To understand the perspective of primary caregivers exploring HCT in the current milieu, we asked the research question "What motivates primary caregivers to decide to consider HCT and to seek, and to attend, an HCT consultation?" PROCEDURES: We conducted qualitative interviews with primary caregivers within one week after a consultation for HCT for SCD. Data were analyzed using open and axial coding stages of grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 29 primary caregivers (26 females, age 29 to 64 [median 42] years). Primary caregivers report of SCD complications in their child included at least one in the last year by 23 (82%), few or none by 8 (28%), and pain on ≥3 days a week by 13 (46%) primary caregivers. Qualitative analysis revealed that primary caregivers, (i) learn about curative options through social networks, social media, and the news media; (ii) seek consultation because of their child's diminished quality of life, recent complications, an imminent major medical decision, or anxiety about future severe complications; and (iii) see gene therapy as a new, less invasive, and more acceptable treatment. CONCLUSION: Primary caregivers of children with SCD learn about HCT through social networks, social and news media, and explore HCT as a means to prevent SCD complications and help their child live a normal life.

Information gaps for risk and ambiguity.

We apply a model of preferences about the presence and absence of information to the domain of decision making under risk and ambiguity. An uncertain prospect exposes an individual to 1 or more information gaps, specific unanswered questions that capture attention. Gambling makes these questions more important, attracting more attention to them. To the extent that the uncertainty (or other circumstances) makes these information gaps unpleasant to think about, an individual tends to be averse to risk and ambiguity. Yet in circumstances in which thinking about an information gap is pleasant, an individual may exhibit risk- and ambiguity-seeking. The model provides explanations for source preference regarding uncertainty, the comparative ignorance effect under conditions of ambiguity, aversion to compound risk, and a variety of other phenomena. We present 2 empirical tests of one of the model's novel predictions, which is that people will wager more about events that they enjoy (rather than dislike) thinking about. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Effect of Patient Financial Incentives on Statin Adherence and Lipid Control: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Financial incentives can improve medication adherence and cardiovascular disease risk, but the optimal design to promote sustained adherence after incentives are discontinued is unknown. Objective: To determine whether 6-month interventions involving different financial incentives to encourage statin adherence reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels from baseline to 12 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: This 4-group, randomized clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 to July 2018 among several large US insurer or employer populations and the University of Pennsylvania Health System. The study population included adults with elevated risk of cardiovascular disease, suboptimal LDL-C control, and evidence of imperfect adherence to statin medication. Data analysis was performed from July 2017 to June 2019. Interventions: The interventions lasted 6 months during which all participants received daily medication reminders and an electronic pill bottle. Statin adherence was measured by opening the bottle. For participants randomized to the 3 intervention groups, adherence was rewarded with financial incentives. The sweepstakes group involved incentives for daily adherence. In the deadline sweepstakes group, incentives were reduced if participants were adherent only after a reminder. The sweepstakes plus deposit contract group split incentives between daily adherence and a monthly deposit reduced for each day of nonadherence. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was change in LDL-C level from baseline to 12 months. Results: Among 805 participants randomized (199 in the simple daily sweepstakes group, 204 in the deadline sweepstakes group, 201 in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group, and 201 in the control group), the mean (SD) age was 58.5 (10.3) years; 519 participants (64.5%) were women, 514 (63.9%) had diabetes, and 273 (33.9%) had cardiovascular disease. The mean (SD) baseline LDL-C level was 143.2 (42.5) mg/dL. Measured adherence at 6 months (defined as the proportion of 180 days with electronic pill bottle opening) in the control group (0.69; 95% CI, 0.66-0.72) was lower than that in the simple sweepstakes group (0.84; 95% CI, 0.81-0.87), the deadline sweepstakes group (0.86; 95% CI, 0.83-0.89), and the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (0.87; 95% CI, 0.84-0.90) (P < .001 for each incentive group vs control). LDL-C levels were measured for 636 participants at 12 months. Mean LDL-C level reductions from baseline to 12 months were 33.6 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.4-38.8 mg/dL) in the control group, 32.4 mg/dL (95% CI, 27.3-37.6 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes group, 33.2 mg/dL (95% CI, 28.1-38.3 mg/dL) in the deadline sweepstakes group, and 36.5 mg/dL (95% CI, 31.3-41.7 mg/dL) in the sweepstakes plus deposit contract group (adjusted P > .99 for each incentive group vs control). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with the control group, different financial incentives improved measured statin adherence but not LDL-C levels. This result points to the importance of directly measuring health outcomes, rather than simply adherence, in trials aimed at improving health behaviors. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01798784.

Do physician incentives increase patient medication adherence?

OBJECTIVE: To test the effectiveness of physician incentives for increasing patient medication adherence in three drug classes: diabetes medication, antihypertensives, and statins. DATA SOURCES: Pharmacy and medical claims from a large Medicare Advantage Prescription Drug Plan from January 2011 to December 2012. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a randomized experiment (911 primary care practices and 8,935 nonadherent patients) to test the effect of paying physicians for increasing patient medication adherence in three drug classes: diabetes medication, antihypertensives, and statins. We measured patients' medication adherence for 18 (6) months before (after) the intervention. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We obtained data directly from the health insurer. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We found no evidence that physician incentives increased adherence in any drug class. Our results rule out increases in the proportion of days covered by medication larger than 4.2 percentage points. CONCLUSIONS: Physician incentives of $50 per patient per drug class are not effective for increasing patient medication adherence among the drug classes and primary care practices studied. Such incentives may be more likely to improve measures under physicians' direct control rather than those that predominantly reflect patient behaviors. Additional research is warranted to disentangle whether physician effort is not responsive to these types of incentives, or medication adherence is not responsive to physician effort. Our results suggest that significant changes in the incentive amount or program design may be necessary to produce responses from physicians or patients.

Assessment of Patient and Caregiver Attitudes and Approaches to Decision-Making Regarding Bone Marrow Transplant for Sickle Cell Disease: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Bone marrow transplant (BMT) is a potentially curative treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD). Patient and caregiver attitudes toward BMT for SCD and the willingness to accept risks of BMT vary, but these attitudes are not well understood. Objective: To understand patient and caregiver perceptions of and attitudes toward BMT for SCD and decision-making about BMT. Design, Setting, and Participants: Qualitative study of interview transcripts from a convenience sample. Transcripts were from adults with SCD and caregivers of patients with SCD recruited from national and regional SCD conferences, symposia, and sickle cell clinics in 2 cities. Interview transcripts were used from the needs assessment phase to develop a patient-decision aid in 2013 to 2014 (group 1) and from the baseline point in 2015 to 2016 (group 2) of the parent trial, a randomized clinical trial of adults and caregivers of patients with SCD to evaluate the effectiveness of a patient decision aid. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participant perspectives on decision-making regarding BMT for SCD. Results: Fifty-seven transcripts from adults with SCD and 50 transcripts from caregivers of patients with SCD were included. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of adults with SCD was 34 (21-50) years in group 1 and 30 (23-38) years in group 2. The median (IQR) age of caregivers was 42.5 (31-52) years in group 1 and 41 (35-46.5) years in group 2. Most transcripts from adults with SCD (75.0% in group 1 and 72.4% in group 2) and caregivers of patients with SCD (76.7% in group 1 and 85.0% in group 2) were from female participants. Bone marrow transplant was perceived as a treatment option associated with serious risks. Reported attitudes toward BMT occurred on a continuum ranging from unfavorable to favorable. Participants reported serious decisional dilemma regarding BMT for SCD. Most participants expressed interest in learning about BMT or curative treatments. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative study found a continuum in attitudes toward BMT for SCD and highlights the complexity of decision-making in BMT for SCD. Patients and families with SCD expressed an interest in learning about BMT. Future prospective studies of patient decision-making regarding BMT, especially in the context of emerging curative and novel disease-modifying therapies for SCD, are warranted.

Video-observed therapy and medication adherence for tuberculosis patients: randomised controlled trial in Moldova.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of video-observed therapy (VOT) for treating tuberculosis (TB) has not been measured in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where >95% of TB cases and deaths occur. In this study, we analyse the effectiveness and patient cost-difference of VOT compared to clinic-based directly observed therapy (DOT) in improving medication adherence in Moldova, a LMIC in Eastern Europe. METHODS: The study was a two-arm individually randomised trial with 197 TB patients (n=99 DOT control group; n=98 VOT treatment group; multidrug-resistant TB cases were excluded). The primary outcome was observed medication adherence, measured by the number of days that a patient failed to be observed adhering to medication for every 2-week period during the course of their treatment. RESULTS: VOT significantly decreased nonadherence by 4 days (95% CI 3.35-4.67 days, p<0.01) per 2-week period: 5.24 days missed per 2-week period for DOT and 1.29 days for VOT. VOT patients spent MDL 504 (∼EUR 25) (95% CI MDL 277-730, p<0.01) and 58 h (95% CI 48-68 h, p<0.01) less on their treatment. In addition, VOT increased self-reported satisfaction with treatment. We found no significant results pertaining to treatment success, patient wellbeing or patient employment status and some evidence of an increase in side-effects. DISCUSSION: In this trial, VOT increased observed medication adherence for TB patients in Moldova, a LMIC, when compared to clinic-based DOT. Additionally, VOT significantly reduced the time and money patients spent on their treatment.