Table 4 Evidence assessments for four claims on messaging and language
From: A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19
Claim (number) | Evidence | Level | Direction | Effect size | Summary of evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Leaders and members of the media should highlight bipartisan support for COVID-19-related measures, when they exist, as such endorsements in other contexts have reduced polarization and led to less-biased reasoning (5) | The one reviewed paper directly testing the claim generally supports it, finding that bipartisan policy endorsements reduce polarization in views of, and increase overall support for, COVID mitigation policies | Empirical evidence (such as surveys, laboratory experiments and controlled settings) | Positive | Small | Articles reviewed: 12 | Sample range: 350–10,699 | |
Average review time: 7 h (spread over 1–10 days) | Mean sample: 2,724.2 | Median sample: 1,995 | |||||
There is a need for more targeted public health information within marginalized communities and for partnerships between public health authorities and trusted organizations that are internal to these communities (6) | Empirical evidence for the core of the claim exists; however, there is little evidence available that tests the effectiveness of the suggested approach. Existing studies have suggested a small positive effect of targeted messaging | Empirical evidence (such as surveys, laboratory experiments and controlled settings) | Positive | Small | Articles reviewed: 19 | Sample range: 54–140,184 | |
Average review time: 12 h (spread over 3–8 days) | Mean sample: 16,758.6 | Median sample: 991 | |||||
As negative emotions increase, people may rely on negative information about COVID-19 more than other information to make decisions. In the case of strong emotional reactions, people may also ignore important numerical information such as probabilities and the scope of a problem (11) | No empirical evidence that empirically tested the full claim. Existing evidence has focused more on the second part of the claim, not the first part, and might broadly point towards a small effect | Empirical evidence (such as surveys, laboratory experiments and controlled settings) | Positive | Small | Articles reviewed: 34 | Sample range: 155–125,306 | |
Average review time: 7 h (spread over 3–5 days) | Mean sample: 6,635.4 | Median sample: 1,237 | |||||
Use of the term ‘social distancing’ might imply that one needs to cut off meaningful interactions. A preferable term is ‘physical distancing’ because it allows for the fact that social connection is possible even when people are physically separated (10) | Besides a few small survey studies, support for the claim is purely based on theory and opinion. Therefore, no statement can be made about the potential effect size of this claim in application | No evidence has been identified, only discussion of the theory | NA | NA | Articles reviewed: 8 | Sample range: NA | |
Average review time: 9 h (spread over 3–5 days) | Mean sample: NA | Median sample: NA | |||||
