Nudging to increase hand hygiene during the COVID-19 pandemic: A field experiment.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic has made a significant impact on citizens all around the world. In order to prevent the spread of the virus, one of the most important measures is practicing hand hygiene. We see nudging, a technique from behavioural economics, as a possible way to increase hand hygiene without relying on mandatory measures. In this field experiment, we test two nudge types that previously have been applied successfully, a salience nudge and a gain frame nudge, in a new context (i.e., shopping street). Four hundred nineteen shoppers were observed during a counterbalanced experiment in three stores, where a disinfectant dispenser was accompanied by a salience nudge, gain frame nudge, or no nudge. Data on dispenser usage was analysed using mixed models to account for groups entering the store. When compared to the control condition, no significant effect of either nudge on participants using the disinfectant was found. This could be caused by the increased attention for hand hygiene during COVID-19, because the baseline for practicing hand hygiene in our study was much higher than that in previous pre-COVID-19 studies. Alternatively, it is possible that shoppers already disinfected their hands before leaving the house, as advised by the government. Our results suggest that stores, and governments, should look for other measures than the tested nudges to improve hand hygiene in the shopping street during the COVID-19 pandemic, either combining different nudges and/or using less subtle methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it