🚨New in @PsychScience 🚨How to encourage distancing and mask use? We show that induction of empathy towards vulnerable groups is effective: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/09…. Due to the skewed risk-profile of #covid19, empathy may be a behavioral key to hinder infection spread. [1/6]
First, we demonstrate that observed empathy for vulnerable groups predict adherence to physical distancing across countries (the US, the UK and Germany). [2/6]
Second, we show that materials that induce empathy towards vulnerable groups increase motivation to adhere to physical distancing. Non-emotional information was not itself enough to increase this motivation, only when coupled with the empathy induction. [3/6]
Third, we replicate these findings for motivations to wear a mask. The factual information was from German national health authorities. Empathy was induced via a story about the experiences of a vulnerable person when she had to interact with non-mask-wearing others. [4/6]
In sum, it may be difficult to motivate distancing and mask-wearing because many, especially young people, do not feel personally at risk, due to the risk-profile of COVID-19. During the 2nd wave of the pandemic, a communication focus on creating empathy might be key. [5/6]
If you want to learn more, you can find our preprint, preregistration and replication materials here (psyarxiv.com/y2cg5/) and here (osf.io/pq3ky/) [6/6]
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Problemstillingen: En frygt i både DK (nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2020-0…) og udlandet (bmj.com/content/370/bm…) er, at mundbind medfører "falsk tryghed", og at folk derfor slækker på andre råd. Hvad viser de danske data? [2/9]
Metode: HOPE-projektet (hope-project.dk) indsamler dagligt 500 repræsentative interviews. Siden 20. juli har vi spurgt til mundbind. Vi spørger også om en række psykologisk og adfærdsmæssige forhold. Derudover undersøger vi effekten af de nye anbefalinger og påbud. [3/9]
Smittetallene stiger og nye restriktioner sættes igang.
Hvad ved vi om danskernes adfærd under coronakrisen; hvad lærte vi under første nedlukning; og hvad er implikationerne for regeringens håndtering, så vi undgår en ny nedlukning? [1/16]
Danskernes bekymring steg henover sommeren, og er på et af de højeste niveauer i mange måneder. Bekymring steg før udmeldinger om nye tiltag. Det viser, at danskerne tager situationen alvorligt. [2/16]
Danskernes opmærksomhed på sundhedsrådene har været konstant henover sommeren. Alligevel steg kontakten til andre i samme periode. Det tyder på, at adfærden kan skride, selvom man gerne vil holde fast, og selvom man er bekymret. [3/16]
For me, the basis for science & democracy is Popper's doctrine of "critical rationalism". Twitter is not a place of reflection, yet reflection is important these days. So, forgive me for this thread on whether the elements of this doctrine is today under strain - or not. [1/9]
"Critical rationalism" is critical because it accepts that the belief in rationalism cannot itself be proven. It is rationalism because it contains a commitment to reason, i.e., "I may be wrong and you may be right, and, by an effort, we may get nearer to the truth" [2/9]
The commitment to reason entails the belief that I and, especially, you are rational. This includes, in part, that arguments are produced not as a means of self-expression but to convey information and that arguments are evaluated independently of the person. [3/9]
New preprint: psyarxiv.com/v45bk/. Are sharers of "fake" news ignorant or motivated by political goals? We combine individual US Twitter & survey data (N > 2300). We find no evidence that "fake" news sharers are ignorant. The best predictor is hatred of the other party. [1/8]
We test whether sharing of links to "fake" news websites reflects (1) ignorance; (2) disruptive sentiments (e.g., trolling); and (3) partisan motivations. We find no evidence for #1. Some evidence for #2. And massive evidence for #3. [2/8]
This is the key figure. Sharers of "fake" news sources on Twitter are not ignorant. They are knowledgable, digitally literate and not low in cognitive reflection. They are not trolls but cynics. Most importantly: They are partisans with strong outparty animosity. [3/8]
Regeringen har taget vigtige skridt for at strække smittekurven på #COVID19dk. Nu venter næste fase. Det kræver en central erkendelse ift. hvordan en epidemi inddæmmes: Problemet er ikke kun de smittedes adfærd. Det er i lige så høj grad de raskes. Det kræver nye værktøjer. [1/6]
Der er to problemer: #1 "Afstand": Ifølge @Lancet er der kun én løsning: At stå sammen om at være spredt (thelancet.com/journals/lance…). Men i et demokrati kan vi ikke lovgive os ud af det. Christiansborg kan kun løse krisen på afstand: Ved at motivere til den rette adfærd. [2/6]
Problem #2: "Hastighed". Hastighed er afgørende, hvis smittekurven skal strækkes (medium.com/@tomaspueyo/co…). Det betyder: Hvis problemer med "compliance" først aflæses i smittetalene er det for sent. [3/6]
Jeg er på @AarhusUni's ekspertliste om #coronavirus (au.dk/om/presse/eksp…). Jeg forsker i psykologien bag smitte og konspirationsteorier. Vores forskning her viser, at @regeringDK bør ændre kommunikationstrategi, hvis det skal lykkes at undgå en epidemi. [1/8] #dkpol#dkmedier
Regeringens kommunikation: Regeringen er blevet beskyldt for overreaktioner af bl.a. sportsverdenen (tv2fyn.dk/svendborg/gog-…). Det er ikke mærkeligt, når regeringen ikke beskriver (1) de scenarier, som motiverer tiltagene, og (2) beslutningskriterier for de næste tiltag. [2/8]
Er det en overreaktion? Nej. Briterne vurderer, at en uhindret epidemi kan ramme op til 80 % af befolkningen, og at 20 % af smittede har behov for hospitalspleje over flere uger (bbc.com/news/health-51…). Problemet er ikke blot sengeplads, men især respiratorer. [3/8]