Center for Social Norms and Behavioral Dynamics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
CESifo, Munich, Germany.
Sci Rep. 2022 May 9;12(1):7575. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-10524-1.
Scientists and policymakers seek to choose effective interventions that promote preventative health measures. We evaluated whether academics, behavioral science practitioners, and laypeople (N = 1034) were able to forecast the effectiveness of seven different messages compared to a baseline message for Republicans and Democrats separately. These messages were designed to nudge mask-wearing attitudes, intentions, and behaviors. When examining predictions across political parties, forecasters predicted larger effects than those observed for Democrats compared to Republicans and made more accurate predictions for Republicans compared to Democrats. These results are partly driven by a lack of nudge effects on Democrats, as reported in Gelfand et al. (J Exp Soc Psychol, 2021). Academics and practitioners made more accurate predictions compared to laypeople. Although forecasters' predictions were correlated with the nudge interventions, all groups overestimated the observed results. We discuss potential reasons for why the forecasts did not perform better and how more accurate forecasts of behavioral intervention outcomes could potentially provide insight that can help save resources and increase the efficacy of interventions.
科学家和政策制定者寻求选择有效的干预措施来促进预防保健措施。我们评估了学者、行为科学从业者和普通民众(N=1034)是否能够预测与基线信息相比,针对共和党人和民主党人分别设计的 7 种不同信息的有效性。这些信息旨在推动戴口罩的态度、意图和行为。在跨党派进行预测时,预测者预测的效果比观察到的对民主党的效果大,对共和党的预测比民主党的更准确。这些结果部分归因于盖尔范德等人报告的对民主党的推动效果缺乏影响(实验社会心理学杂志,2021)。学者和从业者的预测比普通民众更准确。尽管预测者的预测与推动干预措施相关,但所有群体都高估了观察到的结果。我们讨论了预测表现不佳的潜在原因,以及更准确地预测行为干预结果如何能够提供洞察力,从而有助于节省资源并提高干预措施的效果。