Table 6 Evidence assessments for four claims on culture, politics and misinformation
From: A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19
Claim (number) | Evidence | Level | Direction | Effect size | Summary of evidence | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cultures accustomed to prioritizing freedom over security may also have more difficulty coordinating in the face of a pandemic (12) | Clear correlational evidence for an effect in different contexts and on different levels. Studies differ in the cultural dimensions assessed, including freedom–security, tightness–looseness and collectivism–individualism | Widely tested in real-world settings or field studies | Positive | Medium | Articles reviewed: 34 | Sample range: 384–910,006 | |
Average review time: 18 h (spread over 3–14 days) | Mean sample: 64,641.8 | Median sample: 3,569.5 | |||||
Preparing people for misinformation and ensuring they have accurate information and counterarguments against false information before they encounter conspiracy theories, fake news or other forms of misinformation can help to inoculate them against false information (9) | The application of this claim shows robust positive effects in online experiments and real-world applications, although effect sizes vary. Meta-analytic assessments of the effectiveness of the interventions exist | Replicated real-world or field study evidence | Positive | Medium | Articles reviewed: 60 | Sample range: 102–33,480 | |
Average review time: 15 h (spread over 3–6 days) | Mean sample: 4,340.9 | Median sample: 1,554 | |||||
Unmitigated political polarization will disrupt or create other negative effects on attempts to minimize or end the pandemic (14) | Robust findings for the effects of polarization in survey studies, but very few studies including manipulation or intervention. Context is very focused on the USA | Replicated real-world or field study evidence | Positive | Medium | Articles reviewed: 54 | Sample range: 235–447,332 | |
Average review time: 10 h (spread over 2–4 days) | Mean sample: 26,389.5 | Median sample: 3,145.5 | |||||
Fake news, conspiracy theories and misinformation will have a negative effect on vaccine hesitancy (13)a | Consistent evidence from survey data and correlational evidence for the claim indicating small-to-medium effect sizes | Empirical evidence (such as surveys, laboratory experiments and controlled settings) | Positive | Medium | Articles reviewed: 60 | Sample range: 104–26,576 | |
Average review time: 16 h (spread over 3–14 days) | Mean sample: 5,041.9 | Median sample: 2,220 | |||||
