Assessing the perceived effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions on SARS-Cov-2 transmission risk: an experimental study in Europe.

We conduct a large (N = 6567) online experiment to measure the features of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) that citizens of six European countries perceive to lower the risk of transmission of SARS-Cov-2 the most. We collected data in Bulgaria (n = 1069), France (n = 1108), Poland (n = 1104), Italy (n = 1087), Spain (n = 1102) and Sweden (n = 1097). Based on the features of the most widely adopted public health guidelines to reduce SARS-Cov-2 transmission (mask wearing vs not, outdoor vs indoor contact, short vs 90 min meetings, few vs many people present, and physical distancing of 1 or 2 m), we conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate the public's perceived risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in scenarios that presented mutually exclusive constellations of these features. Our findings indicate that participants' perception of transmission risk was most influenced by the NPI attributes of mask-wearing and outdoor meetings and the least by NPI attributes that focus on physical distancing, meeting duration, and meeting size. Differentiating by country, gender, age, cognitive style (reflective or intuitive), and perceived freight of COVID-19 moreover allowed us to identify important differences between subgroups. Our findings highlight the importance of improving health policy communication and citizens' health literacy about the design of NPIs and the transmission risk of SARS-Cov-2 and potentially future viruses.

Choose as much as you wish: Freedom cues in the marketplace help consumers feel more satisfied with what they choose and improve customer experience.

Consumer satisfaction and customer experience are key predictors of an organization's future market growth, long-term customer loyalty, and profitability but are hard to maintain in marketplaces with abundance of choice. Building on self-determination theory, we experimentally test a novel intervention that leverages consumer need for autonomy. The intervention is a message called a "freedom cue" (FC) which makes it salient that consumers can "choose as much as they wish." A 4-week field experiment in a sporting gear store establishes that FCs lead to greater consumer satisfaction compared to when the store displays no FC. A large (N = 669) preregistered process-tracing experiment run with a consumer panel and a global e-commerce company shows that FCs at point-of-sale improve consumer satisfaction and customer experience compared to an equivalent message that does not make freedom to choose any amount salient. Perceived freedom mediates the effect. FCs do not change the time spent or clicks on the website overall but do change the focus of the choice process. FCs lead to greater focus on what is chosen than on what is not chosen. We discuss practical implications for organizations and future research in consumer choice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Deception about study purpose does not affect participant behavior.

The use of deception in research is divisive along disciplinary lines. Whereas psychologists argue that deception may be necessary to obtain unbiased measures, economists hold that deception can generate suspicion of researchers, invalidating measures and 'poisoning' the participant pool for others. However, experimental studies on the effects of deception, notably false-purpose deception-the most common form of experimental deception-are scarce. Challenges with participant attrition and avoiding confounds with a form of deception in which two related studies are presented as unrelated likely explain this scarcity. Here, we avoid these issues, testing within an experiment to what extent false-purpose deception affects honesty. We deploy two commonly used incentivized measures of honesty and unethical behavior: coin-flip and die-roll tasks. Across two pre-registered studies with over 2000 crowdsourced participants, we found that false-purpose deception did not affect honesty in either task, even when we deliberately provoked suspicion of deception. Past experience of deception also had no bearing on honesty. However, incentivized measures of norms indicated that many participants had reservations about researcher use of false-purpose deception in general-often considered the least concerning form of deception. Together, these findings suggest that while false-purpose deception is not fundamentally problematic in the context of measuring honesty, it should only be used as a method of last resort. Our results motivate further experimental research to study the causal effects of other forms of deception, and other potential spillovers.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in eight European countries: Prevalence, determinants, and heterogeneity.

We examine heterogeneity in COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy across eight European countries. We reveal striking differences across countries, ranging from 6.4% of adults in Spain to 61.8% in Bulgaria reporting being hesitant. We experimentally assess the effectiveness of different messages designed to reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Receiving messages emphasizing either the medical benefits or the hedonistic benefits of vaccination significantly increases COVID-19 vaccination willingness in Germany, whereas highlighting privileges contingent on holding a vaccination certificate increases vaccination willingness in both Germany and the United Kingdom. No message has significant positive effects in any other country. Machine learning-based heterogeneity analyses reveal that treatment effects are smaller or even negative in settings marked by high conspiracy beliefs and low health literacy. In contrast, trust in government increases treatment effects in some groups. The heterogeneity in vaccine hesitancy and responses to different messages suggests that health authorities should avoid one-size-fits-all vaccination campaigns.

Heterogeneity in banker culture and its influence on dishonesty.

The social sciences are going through what has been described as a 'reproducibility crisis'1,2. Highly influential findings derived from accessible populations, such as laboratories and crowd-sourced worker platforms, are not always replicated. Less attention has been given to replicating findings that are derived from inaccessible populations, and recent high-profile replication attempts explicitly excluded such populations3. Pioneering experimental work4 offered a rare glimpse into banker culture and found that bankers, in contrast to other professionals, are more dishonest when they think about their job. Given the importance of the banking sector, and before academics or policy-makers rely on these findings as an accurate diagnosis of banking culture, an exploration of their generalizability is warranted. Here we conduct the same incentivized task with bankers and non-bankers from five different populations across three continents (n = 1,282 participants). In our banker studies in the Middle East and Asia Pacific (n = 148 and n = 620, respectively), we observe some dishonesty, although-in contrast to the original study4-this was not significantly increased among bankers primed to think about their work compared to bankers who were not primed. We also find that inducing non-banking professionals to think about their job does not have a significant effect on honesty. We explore sampling and methodological differences to explain the variation in findings in relation to bankers and identify two key points. First, the expectations of the general population regarding banker behaviour vary across jurisdictions, suggesting that banking culture in the jurisdiction of the original study4 may not be consistent worldwide. Second, having approached 27 financial institutions, many of which expressed concerns of adverse findings, we expect that only banks with a sound culture participated in our study. The latter introduces possible selection bias that may undermine the generalizability of any similar field study. More broadly, our study highlights the complexity of undertaking a high-fidelity replication of sensitive, highly publicized fieldwork with largely inaccessible populations resulting from institutional and geographical barriers. For policy-makers, this work suggests that caution should be exercised in generalizing the findings of the original study4 to other populations.

Risk attitudes and personality traits predict perceptions of benefits and risks for medicinal products: a field study of European medical assessors.

BACKGROUND: Risk attitudes and personality traits are known predictors of decision making among laypersons, but very little is known of their influence among experts participating in organizational decision making. METHODS: Seventy-five European medical assessors were assessed in a field study using the Domain Specific Risk Taking scale and the Big Five Inventory scale. Assessors rated the risks and benefits for a mock "clinical dossier" specific to their area of expertise, and ordinal regression models were used to assess the odds of risk attitude or personality traits in predicting either the benefit or the risk ratings. RESULTS: An increase in the "conscientiousness" score predicted an increase in the perception of the drug's benefit, and male assessors gave higher scores for the drug's benefit ratings than did female assessors. Extraverted assessors saw fewer risks, and assessors with a perceived neutral-averse or averse risk profile saw greater risks. CONCLUSIONS: Medical assessors perceive the benefits and risks of medicines via a complex interplay of the medical situation, their personality traits and even their gender. Further research in this area is needed to determine how these potential biases are managed within the regulatory setting.

Risk perception of prescription drugs: results of a survey among experts in the European regulatory network.

BACKGROUND: Experts are perceived to be veridical and to focus only on objective data when evaluating risk. Only a few research studies have attempted to characterize the subjectivity in risk evaluation among experts. OBJECTIVE: The hypothesis of this study is that expert evaluation of a pharmaceutical drug can be partly explained by dimensions that describe the drug and by individual characteristics. DESIGN: Seventy-five medical assessors in 9 EU countries evaluated a list of 28 pharmaceutical drugs using 4 scales: risk, benefit, seriousness of harm, and patients' knowledge of the risk. They were also given a mock "clinical dossier" and asked to rate it on 8 dimensions: risk, benefit, worry, magnitude of the exposure, scientific knowledge of the risk, familiarity of the risk, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability. RESULTS: Female assessors perceived significantly higher benefits than men for a large number of the 28 drugs. Principal component analysis of the ratings for the clinical dossiers revealed 2 underlying components: seriousness of harm and scientific evidence. A regression model predicting the risk perception of the drug showed that the variables seriousness of harm (benefit, worry, magnitude of exposure, ethical concerns, and risk acceptability), years of regulatory experience, gender, and type of drug explained 54% of the variability among assessors. CONCLUSION: Assessors' view of the risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs is influenced by worry for patient safety, magnitude of patient exposure, and ethical concerns. These dimensions may influence their perceptions of benefit and risk acceptability. Senior assessors are more risk averse than junior assessors, and female assessors seem to be sensitive to the promise of benefit from medicines and consequently may be less risk averse than male assessors.

Modelling the risk-benefit impact of H1N1 influenza vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Shortly after the H1N1 influenza virus reached pandemic status in June 2009, the benefit-risk project team at the European Medicines Agency recognized this presented a research opportunity for testing the usefulness of a decision analysis model in deliberations about approving vaccines soon based on limited data or waiting for more data. Undertaken purely as a research exercise, the model was not connected to the ongoing assessment by the European Medicines Agency, which approved the H1N1 vaccines on 25 September 2009. METHODS: A decision tree model constructed initially on 1 September 2009, and slightly revised subsequently as new data were obtained, represented an end-of-September or end-of-October approval of vaccines. The model showed combinations of uncertain events, the severity of the disease and the vaccines' efficacy and safety, leading to estimates of numbers of deaths and serious disabilities. The group based their probability assessments on available information and background knowledge about vaccines and similar pandemics in the past. RESULTS: Weighting the numbers by their joint probabilities for all paths through the decision tree gave a weighted average for a September decision of 216 500 deaths and serious disabilities, and for a decision delayed to October of 291 547, showing that an early decision was preferable. CONCLUSIONS: The process of constructing the model facilitated communications among the group's members and led to new insights for several participants, while its robustness built confidence in the decision. These findings suggest that models might be helpful to regulators, as they form their preferences during the process of deliberation and debate, and more generally, for public health issues when decision makers face considerable uncertainty.

Helping patients choose: how to improve the design of comparative scorecards of hospital quality.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the public understand comparative quality information as presented on NHS Choices, the Department of Health website in England. We explore what quality information people value, how they understand different measures of quality, and their preferences for different types of information. METHOD: Seven focus groups were conducted. RESULTS: Participants' preferences for types of information changed at different stages of the focus groups. Participants attempted to compare hospitals option-wise, building up an overall picture of the hospital's performance. Faced with abundance of conflicting criteria, participants attempted to make trade offs, but found it difficult. Older and less numerate participants used summative measures to overcome this difficulty. Some indicators were poorly understood and the multiplicity of formats and labels was confusing. Missing data were mistrusted. CONCLUSION: The presentation of information affects what information people value, how they understand and process it. The design of scorecards is crucial in order to support use of scorecards for informed patient choice. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We offer guidelines for changing presentation of comparative quality information with the aim to improve its use by patients when choosing between hospitals, especially online.

Different cognitive processes underlie human mate choices and mate preferences.

Based on undergraduates' self-reports of mate preferences for various traits and self-perceptions of their own levels on those traits, Buston and Emlen [Buston PM, Emlen ST (2003) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8805-8810] concluded that modern human mate choices do not reflect predictions of tradeoffs from evolutionary theory but instead follow a "likes-attract" pattern, where people choose mates who match their self-perceptions. However, reported preferences need not correspond to actual mate choices, which are more relevant from an evolutionary perspective. In a study of 46 adults participating in a speed-dating event, we were largely able to replicate Buston and Emlen's self-report results in a pre-event questionnaire, but we found that the stated preferences did not predict actual choices made during the speed-dates. Instead, men chose women based on their physical attractiveness, whereas women, who were generally much more discriminating than men, chose men whose overall desirability as a mate matched the women's self-perceived physical attractiveness. Unlike the cognitive processes that Buston and Emlen inferred from self-reports, this pattern of results from actual mate choices is very much in line with the evolutionary predictions of parental investment theory.

"A 30% chance of rain tomorrow": how does the public understand probabilistic weather forecasts?

The weather forecast says that there is a "30% chance of rain," and we think we understand what it means. This quantitative statement is assumed to be unambiguous and to convey more information than does a qualitative statement like "It might rain tomorrow." Because the forecast is expressed as a single-event probability, however, it does not specify the class of events it refers to. Therefore, even numerical probabilities can be interpreted by members of the public in multiple, mutually contradictory ways. To find out whether the same statement about rain probability evokes various interpretations, we randomly surveyed pedestrians in five metropolises located in countries that have had different degrees of exposure to probabilistic forecasts--Amsterdam, Athens, Berlin, Milan, and New York. They were asked what a "30% chance of rain tomorrow" means both in a multiple-choice and a free-response format. Only in New York did a majority of them supply the standard meteorological interpretation, namely, that when the weather conditions are like today, in 3 out of 10 cases there will be (at least a trace of) rain the next day. In each of the European cities, this alternative was judged as the least appropriate. The preferred interpretation in Europe was that it will rain tomorrow "30% of the time," followed by "in 30% of the area." To improve risk communication with the public, experts need to specify the reference class, that is, the class of events to which a single-event probability refers.