--- title: Nudging tags: live-v0.1, behaviour permalink: https://c19vax.scibeh.org/pages/nudging --- {%hackmd 5iAEFZ5HRMGXP0SGHjFm-g %} <!---{%hackmd FnZFg00yRhuCcufU_HBc1w %}--> {%hackmd GHtBRFZdTV-X1g8ex-NMQg %} # Nudging ## Flattening the curve of the "infodemic" Although it is possible to correct misinformation, as we have shown in the [_COVID-19 Vaccine Communication Handbook_](https://sks.to/c19vax), the [_Debunking Handbook 2020_](https://sks.to/db2020), and the [_Conspiracy Theory Handbook_](https://sks.to/conspiracy), this may not be sufficient to stop disinformation from gathering speed, particularly if it is disseminated by highly motivated people for political reasons. (Our [page on the politics of COVID-19 disinformation](https://c19vax.scibeh.org/pages/misinfo_politics) explains this is in more detail.) We must therefore look for additional ways in which we can “flatten the curve of the infodemic, so that bad information can’t spread as far and as fast” ([Ball and Maxmen, 2020](https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01452-z)). Two of those options are _nudges_ and _boosts_. ### What are nudges? Nudges are ways to use the context in which a decision takes place to systematically affect these decisions. For example, employees at Google have access to free food and drink at work. Healthy options, such as sparkling water, are more visible and easier to access than less healthy options, such as sugary drinks. Together with [a number of other nudges](https://hbr.org/2016/03/how-google-uses-behavioral-economics-to-make-its-employees-healthier), Google successfully shifted employees' consumption towards healthier options. Many nudges have been [successfully explored](https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/nudges/) in a variety of settings. ### What are boosts? Boosts resemble nudges in that they have the same goal of systematically affecting decisions. However, unlike nudges, boosts seek to “improve” decisions by reminding people of existing knowledge or beliefs, and encouraging them to use that knowledge in a specific context. For example, a "boost" may be as simple as telling people that they should immediately call an ambulance when they suspect someone has a heart attack---this is not obvious to many people ([Grüne-Yanoff & Hertwig, 2016](https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11023-015-9367-9))! ### Are boosts and nudges manipulative? Both approaches respect behavioural autonomy. They neither incentivize nor limit choice options: people are still free to choose. Specifically, with respect to fighting misinformation, the choice environment can be designed in a way that facilitates proper identification of and interaction with information (without limiting access to information or the right to free speech and media). Such nudges can increase resilience towards misinformation and empower consumers to spot and counter misinformation. One example is Facebook's recent introduction of semi-opaque masks that are overlaid onto material identified as being false: these masks inhibit but do not preclude access to questionable material. According to Facebook, [95% of people do not view the questionable content](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10111806366438811) if they are warned. This is a significant reduction of misinformation compared to when no warning is presented. ### How can nudges and boosts be applied to misinformation? Recent research provides evidence that people may fail to even consider whether news content is accurate before they share it. In consequence, they may share attention-grabbing but false information (e.g., [Pennycook et al., 2020a](https://psyarxiv.com/3n9u8/)). One approach, therefore, is to subtly prompt or nudge people to consider accuracy before sharing content on social media---thereby increasing the salience of truth to change the way that people interact with social media. This approach has been shown to increase the quality of news content that people intend to share on social media, both in the context of COVID-19 misinformation ([Pennycook et al., 2020b](https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797620939054)) and political misinformation ([Pennycook et a., 2020a](https://psyarxiv.com/3n9u8/)). A similar approach asks people to commit to a [_Pro-Truth Pledge_](https://www.protruthpledge.org/) of verifying information before sharing and correcting misinformation. Signatories pledge their "Earnest Efforts To: Share truth, Honor truth, and Encourage truth". It has been found that people who took the pledge posted and shared more accurate news stories on Facebook ([Tsipursky et al., 2018](https://dx.doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i2.856)). <!---Another approach relies on messages designed to encourage application of news literacy principles. While news literacy knowledge has been shown to provide inoculating effects against misinformation (Amazeen & Bucy, 2019; Kahne & Bowyer, 2017), news literacy messages that discussed critical thinking or provided specific tips about spotting misinformation were not effective in reducing misinformation effects regarding the flu vaccine, GMO foods, (Vraga, Bode, & Tully, 2020), or the benefits of sunscreen (Vraga, Tully, & Bode, forthcoming). Yet other research using a similar approach of warning about misinformation and providing concrete steps to identify it were effective (Clayton et al., 2020). An approach that unites the application of knowledge with confidence-building and social norms may be more effective (Vraga et al., 2020). Therefore, while using news literacy messages has theoretical promise based on the nudging or boosting literature, more work is needed to understand which messages work. With respect to Covid-19 misinformation, there is some research testing their effectiveness. - Pennycook et al. (2020) - Greene & Murphy (2020) Research not directly related to Covid-19 misinformation: - Tsipursky & Votta (2019) - Bago et al. (2020) - Clayton et al. (2020) - Pennycook & Rand (2019)---> :::success Would you like to find out more about nudging? We created a search query specifically for this page, which links you to other interesting resources like Twitter threads, blogposts, websites, videos and more. Check out the search query that we generated specifically for this page [here](https://hypothes.is/groups/Jk8bYJdN/behsci?q=fake+news). Would you like to know more about how we generated the search queries and how our underlying knowledge base works? Click [here](https://hackmd.io/B3R70tuNTiGy6wi9HObuSQ) to learn more. ::: ---- <sub>Page contributors: Stephan Lewandowsky, Dawn Holford</sub> {%hackmd GHtBRFZdTV-X1g8ex-NMQg %} {%hackmd TLvrFXK3QuCTATgnMJ2rng %} {%hackmd oTcI4lFnS12N2biKAaBP6w %}
Last changed by  
 
SciBeh C19 Vax
Team web space for the covid-19 vaccine Wiki
3246

Read more

Argument quality and fallacies

Arguments can be good or bad, and that difference is not just a matter of subjective preference. Rather, argumentation research has spent centuries identifying how and why some arguments are stronger than others. This includes understanding why some arguments (so-called ‘fallacies’) can fool the unwary into thinking they provide good reasons for believing or doing something when, in fact, they do not.

3/8/2024
Vaccine Deniers

Attitudes towards vaccines span a whole range, from full endorsement to complete rejection:<sub>Source: UNICEF</sub>

3/8/2024
Politics of COVID-19 Misinformation

The politics of misinformation related to COVID-19 In many countries, COVID-19 and measures to address it, including vaccination, have become heavily politicized with important negative effects in the public's willingness to be vaccinated and follow the WHO and government relevant guidelines. In this unit, we present findings that illustrate the politicization of Covid-19 and its disastrous effects (vaccine hesitancy, disobedience in measures like mask wearing etc.), as documented in research from all around the world. Then, we discuss the most significant factors that have contributed to this phenomenon (psychological characteristics of people, motivated misinformation by malevolent agents, conflicts of interest between countries and companies etc.). The politicization of COVID-19: evidence and effects A clear factor that affects beliefs and attitudes regarding Covid-19 is political ideology and partisanship. In a multi-country study conducted before Covid-19 vaccines were available, significant differences were found between countries, indicating that trust in government was a strong predictor of vaccine acceptance (Lazarus et al., 2021): people who trust their government are much more likely to accept getting vaccinated than those who do not. Many more studies have investigated the effect of partisan differences and epistemological attitudes on vaccine hesitancy in specific countries. After more than two years since the pandemic struck, a clear consensus has been formed: political partisanship significantly affects people's beliefs regarding Covid-19 and their attitudes towards vaccine and behavioral measures, often leading to science denialism and believing in conspiracy theories. America Beliefs In the United States, a worrisome partisan gap in perceptions regarding COVID-19 and responses to relevant government measures emerged between conservatives / republicans and progressives / democrats. For example, an analysis of over 1.1 million survey responses collected daily between April and September of 2020 found that levels of concern have come to deviate sharply between Republicans and Democrats over time, regardless of the incidence of the disease in respondents' local areas, as has individuals’ willingness to stay-at-home and reduce mobility in order to help contain the pandemic (Clinton et al., 2020). Similarly, Calvillo et al. (2020) found that U.S. conservatives tended to view the virus as less severe, and often believed that the spread of the virus was a conspiracy. Similarly, a longitudinal study on COVID attitudes identified a decrease in the willingness to vaccinate among Republicans, while Democrats attitudes remained stable (Fridman et al., 2021).

3/8/2024
Conspiracy theories

Pandemics have always been a fertile breeding ground for conspiracy theories, and the COVID-19 pandemic is no exception. When people suffer a loss of control or feel threatened, they become more vulnerable to believing conspiracies.

3/8/2024
Read more from SciBeh C19 Vax
Published on HackMD