Search

Background Educational disparities in health and health behaviours have always been relevant in public health research and are particularly challenging in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. First studies suggest that factors important for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic, such as prevention behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of containment measures, and trust in authorities handling the pandemic, vary by educational status. This study builds on recent debate by examining trends in absolute and relative educational disparities in these factors in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. Methods Data stem from four waves of the GESIS Panel surveyed between March and October 2020 in Germany (15,902 observations from 4,690 individuals). Trends in absolute and relative disparities were examined for preventive behaviour, risk perception, perceived effectiveness of COVID-19 containment measures, and trust in individuals and institutions handling the COVID-19 pandemic by educational status using sex, age, residence, nationality, children under 16 living in household, family status, household size, the Big Five Inventory, and income class as control factors. Descriptive statistics as well as unadjusted and adjusted linear regression models and random effects models were performed. Results We observed an initially rising and then falling trend in preventive behaviour with consistent and significant absolute and relative disparities with a lower preventive behaviour among low educated individuals. Indication of a U-shaped trend with consistent significantly lower values among lower educated individuals was found for risk perception, whereas perceived effectiveness and trust decreased significantly over time but did not significantly vary by educational status. Conclusions Results indicate persistent educational disparities in preventive behaviour and risk perception and a general decline in perceived effectiveness and trust in the first y

A growing number of psychological research findings are initially published as preprints. Preprints are not peer reviewed and thus did not undergo the established scientific quality-control process. Many researchers hence worry that these preprints reach nonscientists, such as practitioners, journalists, and policymakers, who might be unable to differentiate them from the peer-reviewed literature. Across five studies in Germany and the United States, we investigated whether this concern is warranted and whether this problem can be solved by providing nonscientists with a brief explanation of preprints and the peer-review process. Studies 1 and 2 showed that without an explanation, nonscientists perceive research findings published as preprints as equally credible as findings published as peer-reviewed articles. However, an explanation of the peer-review process reduces the credibility of preprints (Studies 3 and 4). In Study 5, we developed and tested a shortened version of this explanation, which we recommend adding to preprints. This explanation again allowed nonscientists to differentiate between preprints and the peer-reviewed literature. In sum, our research demonstrates that even a short explanation of the concept of preprints and their lack of peer review allows nonscientists who evaluate scientific findings to adjust their credibility perception accordingly. This would allow harvesting the benefits of preprints, such as faster and more accessible science communication, while reducing concerns about public overconfidence in the presented findings.

In this White Paper, we outline recommendations from the perspective of health psychology and behavioural science, addressing three research gaps: (1) What methods in the health psychology research toolkit can be best used for developing and evaluating digital health tools? (2) What are the most feasible strategies to reuse digital health tools across populations and settings? (3) What are the main advantages and challenges of sharing (openly publishing) data, code, intervention content and design features of digital health tools? We provide actionable suggestions for researchers joining the continuously growing Open Digital Health movement, poised to revolutionise health psychology research and practice in the coming years. This White Paper is positioned in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how digital health tools have rapidly gained popularity in 2020-2022, when world-wide health promotion and treatment efforts rapidly shifted from face-to-face to remote delivery. This statement is written by the Directors of the not-for-profit Open Digital Health initiative (n = 6), Experts attending the European Health Psychology Society Synergy Expert Meeting (n = 17), and the initiative consultant, following a two-day meeting (19-20th August 2021).

The powerful are immoral! Across four preregistered studies (total N = 2,744), we explored the role of perceived autonomy (control over own resources) and perceived influence (control over others' resources) for this belief. In Study 1, perceived autonomy and influence mediated the effect of power on expected immorality. Likewise, directly manipulating perceived autonomy and influence led to increased expected immorality, increased perceived intentionality of a transgression, and consequently to harsher punishment recommendations (Studies 3 and 4). Interestingly, Study 2 revealed an interaction between autonomy and influence, which we however could not replicate in Study 4. Overall, our findings suggest that both autonomy and influence are associated with immorality and thus likely drive the belief that the powerful are immoral.

Objective: Implicit theories of health describe the extent to which health is perceived as a fixed (entity theory) versus malleable (incremental theory) characteristic. In four studies, it was investigated how these theories correspond to health-related attitudes and behaviours. Design: In Study 1 (N = 130), the relationship of implicit theories of health and health-related behaviours was assessed via self-reports. To investigate their causal influence on health-related attitudes (Study 2; N = 357) and hypothetical food choices (Study 3; N = 351), implicit theories of health were manipulated using fictitious newspaper articles. In Study 4 (N = 235), the relationship of implicit theories and health behaviours in daily life was investigated using experience sampling. Results: Study 1 showed that a stronger incremental theory is positively associated with health behaviours like eating healthily or engaging in physical activity. Studies 2 and 3 revealed that a manipulation of implicit theories of health changes health-related attitudes and hypothetical food choices via an internal health locus of control. Study 4 showed that individuals with a stronger incremental theory reported more health-promoting behaviours in daily life. Conclusion: These findings extend the knowledge about implicit theories as they show that they are highly relevant for health promotion.

Objective: Compared with standard wines, low-alcohol wines may have several social and health benefits. Innovative production processes have led to high-quality light wines. It is, however, unclear how consumers perceive and consume these alcohol-reduced wines. The current study aimed to investigate how people evaluate low-alcohol wine (Sauvignon Blanc) and if the reduction in alcohol and the information that a wine is low in alcohol influences consumption. Design: Randomised controlled trial (RCT). Setting: Participants were invited to a wine tasting and randomised into one of the three conditions: they either tasted a 'new white wine' (12 center dot 5 % alcohol content), a 'new low-alcohol white wine' (8 center dot 0 % alcohol content) or they tasted the low-alcohol wine but were not aware that the wine was reduced in alcohol (low-alcohol, blinded). Participants: Ninety participants (42 % male, mean age = 41 (sd14) years). Results: Mean comparisons showed similar ratings for the low-alcohol conditions and the standard alcohol condition (mean > 5 center dot 6/7). The mean consumed amount across all conditions did not differ (162 (sd71) ml, (F-2,F-86= 0 center dot 43,P> 0 center dot 05)), hence people who tasted the low-alcohol wine consumed approximately 30 % less alcohol. However, participants were willing to pay more for the normal wine compared with the low-alcohol wine, (F-2,F-87= 3 center dot 14,P< 0 center dot 05). Conclusions: Participants did not alter their drinking behaviour in response to the reduced alcohol content, and the low-alcohol wine was perceived positively. There might be an emerging market potential for wine of reduced alcohol content, but consumers may not be willing to pay the same price as for the standard wine.