Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34388215›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Nudging in the time of coronavirus? Comparing public support for soft and hard preventive measures, highlighting the role of risk perception and experience.

Levente Dudás, Richárd Szántó

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Levente DudásDepartment of Decision Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-9050-6061
Richárd SzántóDepartment of Decision Sciences, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0003-2770-2996

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of researching public support for preventive policies have been amplified by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a representative sample of the Hungarian population, we investigated the support for commonly used preventive measures (social distancing, hand hygiene and wearing masks) comparing two different policy tools (nudges and regulations). Because of the high risk and unfamiliarity of the pandemic, the respondents' risk perception and experience with the disease was also assessed. All preventive measures were generally supported and, contrary to the findings of previous nudge research, there was no clear pattern whether regulations or nudges are preferred. People with higher level of risk perception supported both types of policies more but slightly favoured the regulations. Those who had contact with the disease (either themselves or a close friend or family member contracting COVID-19) reported a higher level of risk perception. When the person themselves was afflicted, this higher levels of risk perception did not translate to a higher level of support, moreover, it even decreased support for the regulations according to regression analysis. In case of a loved one contracting the disease, there was an increased support for both types of measures, but that is explained by the higher risk perception.

Indexed as

AttitudePublic OpinionAdolescentAdultCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19FemaleHumansHungaryMaleMiddle AgedRisk-Taking

Identifiers

PMID34388215
PMCPMC8362989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.