The concept sparked debate regarding its causes, consequences - and even its existence. Thoughtful pieces in the debate include bmj.com/content/371/bm… & bmj.com/content/372/bm…. (2/9)
To study fatigue, we use longitudinal surveys from Sep '20 to July '21 in 8 countries: 🇩🇰🇮🇹🇭🇺🇩🇪🇸🇪🇬🇧🇫🇷🇺🇸. N is nearly 50,000. Fatigue is measured as agreement with the statement: "I do not think I can keep up with the restrictions against the coronavirus for much longer." (3/9)
First, we analyze the development in fatigue over time at the country-level. Fatigue goes up with more stringent restrictions. Also, as time goes by fatigue for a given set of restrictions increase. But the epidemic matters too (see next tweet!). (4/9)
When epidemic severity increases, a given set of restrictions feels less burdenful and fatigue goes down. In other words, when the public sees the meaning with restrictions, they feel they can comply more and longer. (5/9)
Fatigue is associated with the view that policies are too extreme, support for protests, concerns re: democracy, conspiracy beliefs & distrust in the gov. Fatigue doesn't create support for strong leaders (a common form of discontent) - fatigued ppl turn way from them. (6/9)
But what is cause and effect? With repeated data on 10,000 individuals, we can get some causal leverage. Analyses with two-way fixed-effects models suggest that fatigue exerts an effect on these forms of political discontent, making people more distrusting of the system. (7/9)
These findings show that the costs of restrictions are not only economic in nature. In addition, they are political. If restrictions are too harsh given epidemic severity, they create fatigue & undermine trust. Trust is key for pandemic management & a resource to protect. (8/9)
Note this paper is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed. The data and code are available on @OSFramework: osf.io/ax6zv/. Thoughts appreciated. 🙏
To solve problems, the 1st step is problem-identification. This applies to SoMe too.
Don't rely on your intuitions. Don't even assume Facebook knows its impact. We need real research.
Here is a 🧵 on that. The problem is different from what many - even FB - thinks. (1/14)
Our research in @ROPHproject focuses on political hostility, i.e., the promotion of aggressive content in the context of politics. Most people find online debates more hostile than offline debates. The real question is: Why? (2/14)
"The Facebook Files" promotes a common explanation: Nice people can easily be triggered into anger on online platforms. But can they really? No, not according to our research (cambridge.org/core/journals/…). People who are jerks online are also jerks offline. (3/14)
Vent med at formidle, indhente kommentarer & drage konsekvenser til forskningen er offentlig.
🧵(1/6)
I weekenden dækkede Politiken et nyt studie om etnisk profilering, som offentliggøres i denne uge: politiken.dk/indland/art840…. Politiken indhenter kritik fra en ekstern forsker, men det fremgår ikke, at han *ikke* udtaler sig om studiet (jf.:
På baggrund af disse generelle betragtninger afviser @Spolitik studiet (politiken.dk/indland/art840…). @friegronne derimod indkalder til samråd baseret på evidens, som det på dette tidspunkt er svært for offentligheden at vurdere. (3/6)
Due to the skewed risk of covid, people need info on *how* vaccines protect others (herd-immunity) & *why* it is key (empathy).
🧵(1/5)
In our pre-registered Study 1, we measured (a) knowledge about herd-immunity, (b) affective empathy with the most vulnerable and (c) intention to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Vaccine intentions are clearly associated with (a) & (b), even controlling for personality. (2/5)
In our pre-registered Study 2, we experimentally manipulated knowledge and empathy. We find independent effects of these manipulations such that each increase vaccine acceptance. (3/5)
I samarbejde med SST har vi udvalgt 8 påstande om vaccinerne: 4 sande og 4 myter. Undersøgelsen viser, at troen på myter er relativt udbredt. 30-40 % af borgerne er fx usikre på, om vaccinerne påvirker fertiliteten og er testet lige så grundigt som anden medicin. (2/5)
Troen på myter gør en forskel. Der er således en sammenhæng mellem, hvorvidt man er vaccineret, og hvorvidt man kan skelne mellem sande påstande og myter. Vaccinetvivl hænger dermed sammen med oplevede bekymringer. (3/5)
Today, Denmark lifted all restrictions & COVID-19 is no longer deemed a "societal threat".
I led the country's largest behavioral covid-project (@HopeProject_dk) & advised the Danish gov.
Here are my thoughts on how DK got here, what can be learned & what lies ahead.
🧵 (1/14)
In the HOPE-project ("How Democracies Cope With COVID-19", hope-project.dk), we have conducted over 400,000 interviews on covid-related behaviors and attitudes since March '20 in Denmark and 7 other countries. These data form the evidence-base for this thread. (2/13)
The basis for an open society is vaccinations. 86 % of all invited (from 12 years and up) have received 1+ dose. 96 % of everyone above 50 are fully vaccinated. Throughout the pandemic DK has had higher acceptance than many comparable countries. No mandates needed. (3/14)