The BWA behaviour change database: December 2020 update

BehaviourWorks Australia (BWA) researchers at the Monash Sustainable Development Institute (MSDI) have spent several years curating a database of over 6,000 behaviour change publications. This database is used to inform many of our research projects and is now available for others to use.

The papers added this month address some of the following questions:

How do people across the world differ in their preferences for interpersonal distance? How do liberals and conservatives differ in their levels of compassion toward other humans and animals? How much are our responses to the pandemic driven by political affiliation?

How do magicians use nudges to make us pick the card they want? Are people more likely to sacrifice a brother or friend than a stranger in order to save five others of the same type? How did males and females differ in their response to the pandemic and did general differences reduce or increase?

Read on for the answers!

How do people across the world differ in their preferences for interpersonal distance?

Human spatial behavior has been the focus of hundreds of previous research studies. However, the conclusions and generalizability of previous studies on interpersonal distance preferences were limited by some important methodological and sampling issues. The objective of the present study was to compare preferred interpersonal distances across the world and to overcome the problems observed in previous studies. We present an extensive analysis of interpersonal distances over a large data set (N = 8,943 participants from 42 countries). We attempted to relate the preferred social, personal, and intimate distances observed in each country to a set of individual characteristics of the participants, and some attributes of their cultures. Our study indicates that individual characteristics (age and gender) influence interpersonal space preferences and that some variation in results can be explained by temperature in a given region. We also present objective values of preferred interpersonal distances in different regions, which might be used as a reference data point in future studies.

How do liberals and conservatives differ in their levels of compassion toward other humans and animals?

Do clashes between ideologies reflect policy differences or something more fundamental? The present research suggests they reflect core psychological differences such that liberals express compassion toward less structured and more encompassing entities (i.e., universalism), whereas conservatives express compassion toward more well-defined and less encompassing entities (i.e., parochialism). Here we report seven studies illustrating universalist versus parochial differences in compassion. Studies 1a-1c show that liberals, relative to conservatives, express greater moral concern toward friends relative to family, and the world relative to the nation. Studies 2a-2b demonstrate these universalist versus parochial preferences extend toward simple shapes depicted as proxies for loose versus tight social circles. Using stimuli devoid of political relevance demonstrates that the universalist-parochialist distinction does not simply reflect differing policy preferences. Studies 3a-3b indicate these universalist versus parochial tendencies extend to humans versus nonhumans more generally, demonstrating the breadth of these psychological differences.

(The following are some of the more interesting illustrations/graphs showing differences between conservatives and liberals )

 How much are our responses to the pandemic driven by political affiliation?

The COVID-19 pandemic is a global crisis that has forced governments around the world to implement large-scale interventions such as school closures and national lockdowns. Previous research has shown that partisanship plays a major role in explaining public attitudes towards these policies and beliefs about the severity of the crisis. However, the cognitive roots of this phenomenon remain poorly understood. In principle, partisan gaps in policy support could emerge from cost-benefit analyses from individuals with dissimilar perceptions about the severity of the pandemic, as proposed by rational models of partisan behavior. Alternatively, polarized responses may be driven by social identity motives that are unrelated to individual beliefs, as predicted by theories of tribal partisanship. Here, we tested the predictions of these two models across four experiments (N=1980) performed in four different countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Brazil, and the United States). Participants forecasted the number of COVID-19 deaths in their country after considering either a high or low number. Then, they rated their agreement with a series of interventions. This anchoring procedure, which experimentally induced a large variability in the forecasted number of deaths, did not modify policy preferences. Instead, we observed that partisanship independently modulated the optimism of forecasts and participants’ support for COVID-19 policies. These results, which are against the predictions of the rational partisanship model, have strong policy implications. In particular, our findings suggest that communication strategies aimed at informing the public about the severity of the pandemic will not substantially change levels of support for COVID-19 interventions. See less

How do magicians use nudges to make us pick the card they want?

Past research demonstrates that unconscious primes can affect people’s decisions. However, these free choice priming paradigms present participants with very few alternatives. Magicians’ forcing techniques provide a powerful tool to investigate how natural implicit primes can unconsciously influence decisions with multiple alternatives. We used video and live performances of the mental priming force. This technique uses subtle nonverbal and verbal conversational primes to influence spectators to choose the three of diamonds. Our results show that a large number of participants chose the target card while reporting feeling free and in control of their choice. Even when they were influenced by the primes, participants typically failed to give the reason for their choice. These results show that naturally embedding primes within a person’s speech and gestures effectively influenced people’s decision making. This raises the possibility that this form of mind control could be used to effectively manipulate other mental processes. See less

Are people more likely to sacrifice a brother or friend than a stranger in order to save five others of the same type?

Prominent evolutionary theories of morality maintain that the adaptations that underlie moral judgment and behavior function, at least in part, to deliver benefits (or prevent harm) to others. These explanations are based on the theories of kin selection and reciprocal altruism, and they predict that moral systems are designed to maximize Hamiltonian inclusive fitness. In sharp contrast, however, moral judgment often appears Kantian and rule-based. To reconcile this apparent discrepancy, some theorists have claimed that Kantian moral rules result from mechanisms that implement simple heuristics for maximizing welfare. To test this idea, we conducted a set of studies in which subjects (N=1,290) decided whether they would kill one person to save five others, varying the relationship of the subject with the others involved (strangers, friends, brothers). Are participants more likely to observe the Kantian rule against killing in decisions about brothers and friends, rather than strangers? We found the reverse. Subjects reported greater willingness to kill a brother or friend than a stranger (in order to save five others of the same type). These results suggest that the rule-based structure of moral cognition is not explained by kin selection, reciprocity, or other altruism theories.

How did males and females differ in their response to the pandemic and did general differences reduce or increase?

Behavioral gender differences are known to exist for a wide range of human activities including the way people communicate, move, provision themselves, or organize leisure activities. Using mobile phone data from 1.2 million devices in Austria (15% of the population) across the first phase of the COVID-19 crisis, we quantify gender-specific patterns of communication intensity, mobility, and circadian rhythms. We show the resilience of behavioral patterns with respect to the shock imposed by a strict nation-wide lock-down that Austria experienced in the beginning of the crisis with severe implications on public and private life. We find drastic differences in gender-specific responses during the different phases of the pandemic. After the lock-down gender differences in mobility and communication patterns increased massively, while sleeping patterns and circadian rhythms tend to synchronize. In particular, women had fewer but longer phone calls than men during the lock-down. Mobility declined massively for both genders, however, women tend to restrict their movement stronger than men. Women showed a stronger tendency to avoid shopping centers and more men frequented recreational areas. After the lock-down, males returned back to normal quicker than women; young age-cohorts return much quicker. Differences are driven by the young and adolescent population. An age stratification highlights the role of retirement on behavioral differences. We find that the length of a day of men and women is reduced by one hour. We discuss the findings in the light of gender-specific coping strategies in response to stress and crisis.

To access the database of over 6,000 behaviour change publications, please use this link. For further information about BehaviourWorks please email: [email protected]