Search for: All records

Abstract As behavioural science is increasingly adopted by organizations, there is a growing need to assess the robustness and transferability of empirical findings. Here, we investigate the transferability of insights from various sources of behavioural science knowledge to field settings. Across three pre-registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs,N = 314,824) involving a critical policy domain—COVID-19 booster uptake—we field tested text-based interventions that either increased vaccinations in prior field work (RCT1, NCT05586204), elevated vaccination intentions in an online study (RCT2, NCT05586178) or were favoured by scientists and non-experts (RCT3, NCT05586165). Despite repeated exposure to COVID-19 vaccination messaging in our population, reminders and psychological ownership language increased booster uptake, replicating prior findings. However, strategies deemed effective by prediction or intention surveys, such as encouraging the bundling of COVID-19 boosters and flu shots or addressing misconceptions, yielded no detectable benefits over simple reminders. These findings underscore the importance of testing interventions’ transferability to real-world settings. 

Moral behavior is more prevalent when individuals cannot easily distort their beliefs self-servingly. Do individuals seek to limit or enable their ability to distort beliefs? How do these choices affect behavior? Experiments with over 9,000 participants show prefer- ences are heterogeneous—30 percent of participants prefer to limit belief distortion, while over 40 percent prefer to enable it, even if costly. A random assignment mechanism reveals that being assigned to the preferred environment is necessary for curbing or enabling self-serving behavior. Third parties can anticipate these effects, sug- gesting some sophistication about the cognitive constraints to belief distortion.