Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35200290›Full record

ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Can We Do Better Next Time? Italians' Response to the COVID-19 Emergency through a Heuristics and Biases Lens.

Raffaella Misuraca, Ursina Teuscher, Costanza Scaffidi Abbate, Francesco Ceresia, Michele Roccella, Lucia Parisi, Luigi Vetri, Silvana Miceli

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Raffaella MisuracaDepartment of Political Science and International Relations (DEMS), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.
Ursina TeuscherDepartment of Psychology, Portland State University, Portland, OR 97207, USA.
Costanza Scaffidi AbbateDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.
Francesco CeresiaDepartment of Political Science and International Relations (DEMS), University of Palermo, 90134 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-2236-5268
Michele RoccellaDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7371-0228
Lucia ParisiDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.
Luigi VetriOASI, Research Institute-IRCCS, 94018 Troina, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0121-3396
Silvana MiceliDepartment of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the outbreak of COVID-19 in Italy, people often failed to adopt behaviors that could have stopped, or at least slowed down, the spread of this deadly disease. We offer cognitive explanations for these decisions, based on some of the most common heuristics and biases that are known to influence human judgment and decision-making, especially under conditions of high uncertainty. Our analysis concludes with the following recommendations: policymakers can and should take advantage of this established science, in order to communicate more effectively and increase the likelihood that people choose responsible actions in a public health crisis.

Indexed as

biasesCOVID-19decision-makingheuristics

Identifiers

PMID35200290
PMCPMC8869375

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.