ArticlePloS one2026
The People versus Behavioral Science: Alignment between lay and scientific understanding of compliance.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since the beginning of the 21st century, behavioral insights have increasingly been used to inform policy. However, rather than land in a vacuum, such insights arrive in a setting where the citizens they target themselves have lay understanding of what shapes behavior-an understanding that may critically shape their endorsement of such policies. As such, to change behavior through behavioral science, people's lay understanding is of pivotal importance. Yet so far, we know little about how laypersons think about changing behavior, or whether their lay understanding of this aligns with that of science. The present research examines this question by focusing on rule compliance, a frequent target of behavioral influence. In a large-scale survey (N = 3326), we assess participants' lay perceptions of how compliance is shaped by different mechanisms identified in the academic literature, and compare this to empirically observed associations. For this purpose, we focused on behavioral measures against COVID-19-newly introduced rules that applied universally, where behavioral insights were widely utilized to promote compliance, and ample empirical data exists on relevant mechanisms. Our findings revealed that at the aggregate level, there was substantial concordance between participants' lay understanding of how different mechanisms contributed to compliance and empirical evidence-although participants seem to overestimate their impact in absolute terms, and underestimate their variability. While this result need not imply that laypersons individually have an accurate understanding of what shapes compliance, it does suggest that collectively, people's lay understanding of these processes was broadly aligned with a scientific understanding. Moreover, their lay understanding of these processes was associated with their preferences for policies to shape compliance by leveraging these mechanisms. In this way, people's lay understanding may provide a stepping stone for scientifically informed policies-and an important reservoir of experiential knowledge that the science of behavior change can tap into.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.