ArticlePDF Available

It's Not All About Me: Motivating Hand Hygiene Among Health Care Professionals by Focusing on Patients


Abstract and Figures

Diseases often spread in hospitals because health care professionals fail to wash their hands. Research suggests that to increase health and safety behaviors, it is important to highlight the personal consequences for the actor. However, because people (and health care professionals in particular) tend to be overconfident about personal immunity, the most effective messages about hand hygiene may be those that highlight its consequences for other people. In two field experiments in a hospital, we compared the effectiveness of signs about hand hygiene that emphasized personal safety ("Hand hygiene prevents you from catching diseases") or patient safety ("Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases"). We assessed hand hygiene by measuring the amount of soap and hand-sanitizing gel used from dispensers (Experiment 1) and conducting covert, independent observations of health care professionals' hand-hygiene behaviors (Experiment 2). Results showed that changing a single word in messages motivated meaningful changes in behavior: The hand hygiene of health care professionals increased significantly when they were reminded of the implications for patients but not when they were reminded of the implications for themselves.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychological Science
22(12) 1494 –1499
© The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission:
DOI: 10.1177/0956797611419172
In 1847, Ignaz Semmelweis required health care professionals
at the Vienna General Hospital to wash their hands, and death
rates due to childbed fever decreased from 18.3% to 1.3%.
Since then, extensive research has demonstrated that hand
hygiene plays a critical role in preventing the spread of infec-
tions and diseases (Backman, Zoutman, & Marck, 2008). Nev-
ertheless, it is common for health care professionals to wash
their hands less than half as often as recommended, and many
interventions for improving hand hygiene among health care
professionals have proven ineffective (Gawande, 2004;
Whitby et al., 2007). How can psychological science guide the
development of messages to address this pressing problem?
Messages about health and safety are thought to be effec-
tive when they highlight personal risks for the actor. Research-
ers have speculated that health care professionals “are probably
driven to wash their hands by their need to protect themselves
more than [by their need to protect] their patients” (Korniewicz
& El-Masri, 2010, p. 88). According to this line of logic, mes-
sages aimed at health care professionals should emphasize
how hand hygiene protects them personally. Such messages
are believed to activate basic motivations related to survival
and self-protection (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). As Williams
and Noyes (2007) summarized, safety behavior “is dependent
on individuals believing that the risk is likely to affect them,
that it will have serious consequences for them” (p. 21, empha-
sis in original).
However, research on overconfidence has shown that indi-
viduals consistently overestimate their immunity (Dunning,
Heath, & Suls, 2004). This illusion of invulnerability is com-
mon among health care professionals. As two physicians
explained, “I’m a doctor, I’m protected,” and “We doctors
wear magic white coats. We destroy disease. . . . How could it
ever attack us?” (Klitzman, 2006, p. 547).
Overconfidence is likely to be fueled by both motivational
and cognitive processes. First, to maintain a sense of security
while working in hazardous environments, health care profes-
sionals may need to convince themselves that they are pro-
tected. According to research on motivated reasoning (Kunda,
1990) and confirmation biases (Nickerson, 1998), health
care professionals may search for information that seems to
verify their personal safety and may discount information that
Corresponding Author:
Adam M. Grant, University of Pennsylvania, 3620 Locust Walk, Suite 2000
SH/DH, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6370
It’s Not All About Me: Motivating Hand
Hygiene Among Health Care Professionals
by Focusing on Patients
Adam M. Grant1 and David A. Hofmann2
1Management Department, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and
2Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Diseases often spread in hospitals because health care professionals fail to wash their hands. Research suggests that to increase
health and safety behaviors, it is important to highlight the personal consequences for the actor. However, because people
(and health care professionals in particular) tend to be overconfident about personal immunity, the most effective messages
about hand hygiene may be those that highlight its consequences for other people. In two field experiments in a hospital, we
compared the effectiveness of signs about hand hygiene that emphasized personal safety (“Hand hygiene prevents you from
catching diseases”) or patient safety (“Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases”).
We assessed hand hygiene by
measuring the amount of soap and hand-sanitizing gel used from dispensers (Experiment 1) and conducting covert, independent
observations of health care professionals’ hand-hygiene behaviors (Experiment 2). Results showed that changing a single word
in messages motivated meaningful changes in behavior: The hand hygiene of health care professionals increased significantly
when they were reminded of the implications for patients but not when they were reminded of the implications for themselves.
social influences, motivation, health, cooperation
Received 5/27/11; Revision accepted 7/12/11
Research Report
Hospital Hand Hygiene 1495
suggests they are at risk. Indeed, research has shown that peo-
ple tend to respond defensively to information that poses a
threat to their personal health or safety: People are likely to
scrutinize such messages for flaws rather than accept the infor-
mation they contain (Liberman & Chaiken, 1992).
Second, although health care professionals are frequently
exposed to diseases, they contract relatively few. When they
do get sick, it is not clear that poor hand hygiene is the culprit.
Thus, it may be easy for health care professionals to recall
instances in which they failed to wash their hands without get-
ting sick, but difficult for them to recall episodes in which fail-
ing to wash their hands made them ill. According to research
on the availability heuristic (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974),
because the ease with which an event comes to mind serves as
a cue for its likelihood (Schwarz et al., 1991), health care pro-
fessionals should perceive that failing to wash their hands
poses little personal risk. Consequently, messages emphasiz-
ing the personal consequences of hand hygiene for health care
professionals may fall on deaf ears.
Research on persuasion reveals that for a message to reso-
nate with an audience, it must be relevant to that audience’s
perspective (Cialdini, 2003; Clary & Snyder, 1999; Rothman
& Salovey, 1997). We hypothesized that health care profes-
sionals would be more motivated to wash their hands by mes-
sages highlighting patient consequences than by messages
highlighting personal consequences. Whereas people tend to
overestimate their own invulnerability, for both motivational
and cognitive reasons, they are less susceptible to this bias
when estimating the vulnerability of other people (Dunning
et al., 2004). Moreover, the fact that patients are by definition
a vulnerable population may make their risks salient to health
care professionals, who are trained to err in favor of caution
when treating patients (Gigerenzer, Gaissmaier, Kurz-Milcke,
Schwartz, & Woloshin, 2008).
Thus, messages aimed at health care professionals should
be most effective when they emphasize how hand-hygiene
practices can protect patients’ health rather than personal
health. We tested this hypothesis in two field experiments in a
hospital by subtly manipulating the content of signs about
hand hygiene and testing their influence with unobtrusive
measures (Webb, Campbell, Schwartz, & Sechrest, 1966). To
measure the signs’ effects, we used two strong, complemen-
tary assessment techniques recommended by The Joint
Commission (2009) as part of the Consensus Measurement in
Hand Hygiene project: objective measurements of the use of
hand-hygiene products and independent observations of adher-
ence to safe hand-hygiene practices.
Experiment 1
We compared the effects of signs emphasizing personal conse-
quences, patient consequences, or neither on the hand-hygiene
behaviors of health care professionals in a U.S. hospital. Our
focus on signs was based on evidence that small variations in
the content of messages can produce powerful changes in mind-
sets and behaviors (Cialdini, 2003; Crum & Langer, 2007). We
assessed hand hygiene by measuring the percentage of soap and
hand-sanitizing gel used from dispensers in hospital units; this
technique was both objective and unobtrusive (The Joint Com-
mission, 2009). Our sample comprised 66 dispensers available
for physicians and nurses in the hospital, and we measured the
amount of soap and gel used during 2-week periods before and
after we introduced our signs. To measure baseline product use,
we had an environmental-services team fill the bag in each dis-
penser with soap or gel and weigh each bag 2 weeks later. This
team, which was blind to our hypotheses, then refilled the dis-
pensers before we began the experiment. To minimize demand
characteristics and cross-contamination, we did not inform
employees at the hospital that research was underway.
We randomly assigned one of three signs to each dispenser.
The personal-consequences sign read, “Hand hygiene prevents
you from catching diseases.” The patient-consequences sign
read, “Hand hygiene prevents patients from catching diseases.”
The control sign, which was developed by hospital managers,
read, “Gel in, wash out.” Except for these subtle differences in
wording, the signs were identical. One sign was posted above
each dispenser by a safety professional. After 2 weeks, the
environmental-services team weighed each bag again. Because
the bags were of different sizes, we report our dependent mea-
sure as the percentage by weight of soap or gel used.
Results and discussion
Table 1 reports the mean percentage of soap or gel used from
the dispensers in each condition, before and after the signs
were introduced. A repeated measures analysis of variance on
the amount of hand-hygiene product used showed a significant
interaction between time (pretest, posttest) and condition
Table 1. Mean Percentage (by Weight) of Hand-Hygiene Products Used as a Function of
Condition in Experiment 1
Condition Pretest product usage Posttest product usage
Control (n = 21) 38.24% (24.90) 40.13% (24.43)
Personal consequences (n = 23) 35.49% (28.18) 33.98% (19.65)
Patient consequences (n = 22) 37.25% (36.46) 54.18% (18.33)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses.
1496 Grant, Hofmann
(personal consequences, patient consequences, control), F(2,
63) = 3.30, p = .04, η2 = .09, prep = .89. Paired-samples t tests
showed a significant increase from pretest to posttest in the
amount of hand-hygiene product used from dispensers with the
patient-consequences sign (37.25% to 54.18%), t(21) = 2.72,
p = .01, d = 0.59, prep = .96, but not from dispensers with the
personal-consequences sign (35.49% to 33.98%), t(22) = −0.27,
p = .79, or the control sign (38.24% to 40.13%), t(20) = 0.64,
p = .53. Tukey’s multiple comparison test showed no significant
differences between conditions in the pretest use of hand-
hygiene product, but in the posttest, the amount of hand-hygiene
product used from dispensers with the patient-consequences
sign was significantly greater than the amount used from dis-
pensers with the personal-consequences sign (p < .01, d = 1.06,
prep = .97) or the control sign (p < .05, d = 0.65, prep = .89).
Although these results are encouraging, they are subject to
two key limitations. First, health care professionals may have
been influenced by a sign near one dispenser but used hand-
hygiene products from a different dispenser. Second, it is pos-
sible that the effects were influenced either by a small number
of health care professionals who used large quantities of hand-
hygiene products or by patients who gained access to the
dispensers. To address these potential confounds, in Experi-
ment 2, we assigned the personal-consequences and patient-
consequences signs to separate hospital units and asked
experts to directly observe health care professionals’ hand-
hygiene behaviors.
Experiment 2
Nine months after Experiment 1, we conducted a second
experiment in different units of the same hospital, using the
same personal- and patient-consequences signs. We enlisted
three experts—a physician in charge of patient safety, an
infectious-disease specialist, and a lead nurse manager—
to organize hospital units into matched pairs on the basis of
similar types of patients, health conditions, and professional
specialties. The three experts achieved consensus on
four matched pairs of units: pediatric and neonatal intensive
care units (ICUs), cardiac and neurological critical care
units (CCUs), cardiology and chest-pain units, and general-
observation and medical-teaching units. We assigned the
personal-consequences sign to four of the units (pediatric ICU,
cardiac CCU, cardiology, and general observation) and the
patient-consequences sign to the other four units (neonatal
ICU, neurological CCU, chest pain, and medical teaching).
We measured hand hygiene using observations of the
behaviors of health care professionals. For each unit, the
patient-safety team identified one expert observer with profes-
sional training and certifications in nursing. The observers
were blind to our hypotheses and conducted their observations
covertly, thereby minimizing demand characteristics and
reducing the likelihood that the observed health care profes-
sionals would be aware that research was underway and that
their behavior was being tracked. Following the guidelines
recommended by the Consensus Measurement in Hand
Hygiene project team (The Joint Commission, 2009), we
asked the observers to count health care professionals’ oppor-
tunities for hand hygiene and to indicate whether the health
care professional in each instance adhered to safe hand-
hygiene practices. We defined an opportunity for hand hygiene
as occurring before or after contact with a patient. To ensure
that only health care professionals’ behavior was included in
the data, the observers recorded the date of each hand-hygiene
opportunity and the type of practitioner involved. Observers
identified three types of practitioners: nurses (59% of observa-
tions), physicians (17% of observations), and ancillary staff
(technicians, nutritionists, social workers, pharmacists, and
transporters; 24% of observations).
We collected pretest data over a 2-week period, during which
the observers identified 322 hand-hygiene opportunities (the
practitioners adhered to hand-hygiene guidelines in 259 of these
instances). After the pretest, medical-safety professionals posted
the signs in their assigned units. The ratios of signs to patient
beds were equivalent in the two conditions: .80 for units
assigned to the personal-consequences condition (57 signs, 71
beds) and .79 for units assigned to the patient-consequences
condition (69 signs, 87 beds). The observers identified 245
hand-hygiene opportunities during the 2-week posttest period
(the practitioners adhered to hand-hygiene guidelines in 212 of
these instances). We tested whether hand-hygiene adherence
increased on units with the patient-consequences sign but not on
units with the personal-consequences sign.
Results and discussion
Table 2 reports the percentage of instances in which health care
practitioners adhered to safe hand-hygiene practices in each con-
dition, before and after the signs were introduced. A contingency-
table analysis showed that hand-hygiene adherence increased
Table 2. Adherence to Safe Hand-Hygiene Practices as a Function of Condition in
Experiment 2
hand-hygiene adherence
hand-hygiene adherence
Personal consequences 80.00% (96/120) 79.71% (55/69)
Patient consequences 80.69% (163/202) 89.20% (157/176)
Hospital Hand Hygiene 1497
significantly on units with the patient-consequences sign
(80.69% to 89.20%), χ2(1, N = 378) = 5.25, p = .02, d = 0.33,
prep = .93. In contrast, hand-hygiene adherence did not change
significantly on units with the personal-consequences sign
(80.00% to 79.71%), χ2(1, N = 189) = 0.04, p = .85. During the
pretest period, the units assigned to the personal- and patient-
consequences conditions did not differ significantly in hand-
hygiene adherence, χ2(1, N = 322) = 0.02, p = .88. However,
during the posttest period, hand-hygiene adherence was signifi-
cantly greater on units with the patient-consequences sign than
on units with the personal-consequences sign, χ2(1, N = 245) =
3.83, p = .05, d = 0.36, prep = .88.
Although the units were matched and then randomly
assigned to condition, we reanalyzed the data to control for
unit; the same pattern of results emerged. To examine whether
the observed effects of the patient-consequences sign were due
to unique characteristics of the high-risk units or of the health
care professionals who worked in such units, we compared the
higher-risk units (ICUs and CCUs) with the lower-risk units.
Binary logistic regression analyses showed no significant
differences between unit types in the effects of the patient-
consequences sign (b = 0.31, SE = 0.62, Wald z = 0.25, p = .62)
or of the personal-consequences sign (b = 0.19, SE = 0.88,
Wald z = 0.05, p = .83); this result suggests that the effects
were robust across units. We also investigated whether the
effects varied by practitioner type (see Table 3). The patient-
consequences sign significantly increased hand hygiene for
physicians, marginally increased it for nurses, and did not affect
the hand-hygiene behavior of ancillary staff. The personal-
consequences sign had no significant effects.
General Discussion
Together, these findings suggest that messages about patient
consequences, rather than personal consequences, can encour-
age hand hygiene among health care professionals. Our results
have important theoretical and practical implications for the
design of persuasive communications about health and safety.
In theoretical terms, whereas research has typically focused on
the effects of highlighting the personal consequences of
health- and safety-related behaviors (Williams & Noyes,
2007), our studies demonstrate the value of highlighting the
consequences of such behaviors for other people. Psycholo-
gists have long recognized that seemingly innocuous situa-
tional forces, such as time pressure, can impede prosocial
behaviors even among good Samaritans with the best of inten-
tions (Darley & Batson, 1973). It is tempting to conclude that
capturing the attention of busy health care professionals to
encourage hand hygiene depends on appealing to their imme-
diate self-interest (Korniewicz & El-Masri, 2010). However,
our research reveals that reminders of prosocial consequences
may have a greater influence on the hand-hygiene behavior of
health care professionals than reminders of personal conse-
quences do (see also Grant, 2008).
In practical terms, the significant effects of our subtle
experimental manipulation on a difficult-to-change dependent
variable have substantial real-world implications (Prentice &
Miller, 1992). Over 2-week periods, the patient-consequences
signs produced an increase of more than 45% in the amount of
hand-hygiene product used per dispenser (Experiment 1) and
an increase of more than 10% in hand-hygiene behavior
among health care professionals before and after contact with
patients (Experiment 2). These results are particularly mean-
ingful given that the few hand-hygiene interventions known to
be successful tend to rely on expensive technologies and large-
scale cultural changes (Pittet et al., 2000; Whitby et al., 2007).
A key limitation of both studies is that they lasted for only
2 weeks. Because the effects of hand-hygiene interventions
are often short-lived (Pittet et al., 2000), an examination of
their sustainability is of critical importance. If they fade
because of habituation and desensitization, researchers should
explore strategies for maintaining novelty, such as rotating
messages or incorporating photos of patients into messages.
Nevertheless, 2 weeks of increased adherence to safe hand-
hygiene practices can have considerable effects. Applying the
findings of Pittet et al. (2000) and Rosenthal, Guzman, and
Safdar (2005), we estimated the number of infections pre-
vented in the patient-consequences condition in each study to
Table 3. Results of Analyses of Adherence to Safe Hand-Hygiene Practices in Experiment 2
Hand-hygiene adherence
Type of practitioner
and condition Pretest Posttest χ2(1) p d prep
Personal consequences 81.43% (57/70) 83.87% (26/31) 0.09 .77
Patient consequences 79.53% (101/127) 88.39% (99/112) 3.43 .06 0.33 .86
Personal consequences 72.73% (16/22) 87.50% (14/16) 1.22 .27
Patient consequences 72.41% (21/29) 92.86% (26/28) 4.12 .04 0.76 .89
Ancillary staff
Personal consequences 85.19% (23/27) 68.18% (15/22) −2.01 .16
Patient consequences 89.13% (41/46) 88.89% (32/36) −0.00 .97
1498 Grant, Hofmann
be between two and nine; these infections would have cost the
hospital between $9,000 and $30,000 per study (see Chen,
Chou, & Chou, 2005). This prevention of infections is a sub-
stantial return on investment, given the minimal costs of print-
ing and posting signs. If the increased hand-hygiene adherence
were sustained for a year across the hospital, the potential ben-
efits could include the prevention of more than 100 infections
and a savings of more than $300,000.
Future research should test perceived vulnerability and other
mediating mechanisms. For example, the patient-consequences
sign highlighted the implications for a group, whereas the
personal-consequences sign highlighted the implications for
an individual. Did the responsiveness to messages about
patient consequences reflect utilitarian reasoning, whereby
health care professionals aimed to promote the greatest good
for the greatest number of people? Given that individuals are
more likely to help a single person than to help multiple peo-
ple (Kogut & Ritov, 2007; Slovic, 2007), the opposite seems
likely. Signs might catalyze greater empathy by mentioning “a
patient” or “the patient in this room” instead of “patients”
(Goldstein, Cialdini, & Griskevicius, 2008). However, the
effects of this change in wording might be mitigated by health
care professionals’ perception of patients as part of a unitary,
cohesive group (Burson, Smith, & Faro, 2010). To investigate
these issues, future studies should systematically vary group
size. Nevertheless, if group size is a contributing factor, it may
be an explanatory mechanism rather than a confound: Hand-
hygiene behaviors can protect only one self, but many other
people. This fact accentuates the value of examining whether
patients are perceived as being part of a uniquely vulnerable
and valued population. Would similar effects emerge if signs
highlighted other groups affected by hand hygiene, such as
nurses, physicians, or health care professionals in general?
We also recommend combining quantity-based measures
of the use of hand-hygiene products and frequency-based
observational measures with quality-based measures, such as
microbiological tests and assessments of infection rates.
Finally, future research should investigate the implications of
our findings for other health, safety, and prosocial behaviors in
different populations. Are people more likely to improve their
exercise and eating habits, to quit smoking, to purchase life
insurance, to wear seat belts and helmets, to protect the envi-
ronment, or to take prescription medication when they are
reminded of the consequences of these behaviors for their
families rather than for themselves?
In conclusion, our findings suggest that health and safety
messages should focus not on the self, but rather on the target
group that is perceived as most vulnerable. As Levitt and
Dubner (2009) suggested, “When a doctor fails to wash his
own hands, his own life isn’t the one that is primarily endangered.
[The life endangered is that of] the next patient he treats”
(p. 207). Merely emphasizing the consequences for patients
motivates health care professionals to take more everyday health-
protective action. From the perspective of a health care profes-
sional, safety behavior is not necessarily “all about me.”
The authors thank Jessica Dixon, Janine Jones, Meera Kelley,
and Betty Woodard for assistance with data collection and Associate
Editor Julie Fitness, Noah Eisenkraft, Francesca Gino, and two
anonymous reviewers for feedback.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with
respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.
Backman, C., Zoutman, D. E., & Marck, P. B. (2008). An integrative
review of the current evidence on the relationship between hand
hygiene interventions and the incidence of health care-associated
infections. American Journal of Infection Control, 36, 333–348.
Burson, K., Smith, R., & Faro, D. (2010, November). The influence
of entitativity on charitable giving. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for Judgment and Decision Making,
St. Louis, MO.
Chen, Y. Y., Chou, Y. C., & Chou, P. (2005). Impact of nosocomial
infection on cost of illness and length of stay in intensive care
units. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, 26, 281–287.
Cialdini, R. B. (2003). Crafting normative messages to protect the
environment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12,
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer:
Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 156–159.
Crum, A. J., & Langer, E. J. (2007). Mind-set matters: Exercise and
the placebo effect. Psychological Science, 18, 165–171.
Darley, J. M., & Batson, C. D. (1973). From Jerusalem to Jericho: A
study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behav-
ior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 100–108.
Dunning, D., Heath, C., & Suls, J. M. (2004). Flawed self-assessment:
Implications for health, education, and the workplace. Psycho-
logical Science in the Public Interest, 5, 69–106.
Gawande, A. (2004). Notes of a surgeon: On washing hands. New
England Journal of Medicine, 350, 1283–1286.
Gigerenzer, G., Gaissmaier, W., Kurz-Milcke, E., Schwartz, L. M., &
Woloshin, S. (2008). Helping doctors and patients make sense of
health statistics. Psychological Science, 8, 53–96.
Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B., & Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room
with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmen-
tal conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35,
Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job per-
formance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary condi-
tions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 108–124.
The Joint Commission. (2009). Measuring hand hygiene adher-
ence: Overcoming the challenges. Retrieved from http://www
Klitzman, R. (2006). Post-residency disease and the medical self:
Identity, work, and health care among doctors who become
patients. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 49, 542–552.
Hospital Hand Hygiene 1499
Kogut, T., & Ritov, I. (2007). “One of us”: Outstanding willingness to
help save a single identified compatriot. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 104, 150–157.
Korniewicz, D. M., & El-Masri, M. (2010). Exploring the factors
associated with hand hygiene compliance of nurses during rou-
tine clinical practice. Applied Nursing Research, 23, 86–90.
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological
Bulletin, 108, 480–498.
Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2009). Superfreakonomics: Global
cooling, patriotic prostitutes, and why suicide bombers should
buy life insurance. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Liberman, A., & Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of person-
ally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 18, 669–679.
Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenome-
non in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2, 175–220.
Pittet, D., Hugonnet, S., Harbarth, S., Mourouga, P., Sauvan, V.,
Touveneau, S., & Perneger, T. (2000). Effectiveness of a hospital-
wide programme to improve compliance with hand hygiene. The
Lancet, 356, 307–312.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992). When small effects are
impressive. Psychological Bulletin, 112 , 160–164.
Rosenthal, V. D., Guzman, S., & Safdar, N. (2005). Reduction in nos-
ocomial infection with improved hand hygiene in intensive care
units of a tertiary care hospital in Argentina. American Journal of
Infection Control, 33, 392–397.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to moti-
vate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychologi-
cal Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., Strack, F., Klumpp, G., Rittenauer-Schatka,
H., & Simons, A. (1991). Ease of retrieval as information:
Another look at the availability heuristic. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 61, 195–202.
Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numb-
ing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2, 79–95.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty:
Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D. T., Schwartz, R. D., & Sechrest, L. (1966).
Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sci-
ences. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Whitby, M., Pessoa-Silva, C. L., McLaws, M.-L., Allegranzi, B., Sax,
H., Larson, E., . . . Pittet, D. (2007). Behavioural considerations
for hand hygiene practices: The basic building blocks. Journal of
Hospital Infection, 65, 1–8.
Williams, D. J., & Noyes, J. M. (2007). How does our perception
of risk influence decision-making? Implications for the design
of risk information. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science,
8, 1–35.
... A summary of these assessments is provided in Supplementary Appendix D. In terms of overall risk of bias, there were concerns regarding the risk of bias in the majority of studies (96/105). Most cluster-RCTs were judged to be at low risk of bias (N ¼ 4) apart from one in which concerns over the randomization process were raised [60]. All nonrandomized studies of interventions were judged to be at moderate or high risk of bias. ...
Full-text available
Background Direct observation of hand hygiene compliance is the “gold standard” despite limitations and potential for bias. Previous literature highlights poorer hand hygiene compliance amongst physicians than nurses and suggests that covert monitoring may give better compliance estimates than overt monitoring. Aim This review aimed to explore differences in compliance between physicians and nurses further, and to analyse if compliance estimates differed when observations were covert rather than overt. Methods A systematic search of databases PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL and CINAHL was performed. Experimental or observational studies in hospital settings in high-income countries published in English from 2010 onwards were included if estimates for both physicians and nurses using direct observation were reported. The search yielded 4814 studies, of which 105 were included. Findings The weighted pooled compliance rate for nurses was 52% (95% CI 47% to 57%) and for doctors was 45% (95% CI 40% to 49%). Heterogeneity was considerable (I²=99%). The majority of studies were at moderate or high risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis of low risk of bias studies suggests higher compliance for nurses than physicians for both overt (difference of 7%, 95% CI for the difference 0.8% to 13.5%, p=0.027) and covert (difference of 7%, 95% CI 3% to 11%, p=0.0002) observation. Considerable heterogeneity was found in all analyses. Conclusion Wide variability in compliance estimates and differences in the methodological quality of hand hygiene studies were identified. Further research with meta-regression should explore sources of heterogeneity and improve the conduct and reporting of hand hygiene studies.
... Yet people in positions of power also often have role-based goals that are incompatible with bias (e.g., helping children to grow). Is it possible to elevate foundational professional goals, such as the goal of service, in education, criminal justice, and advertising (Grant & Hofmann, 2011)? Would this improve outcomes among the people who are served and mitigate disparities that result from bias? ...
Full-text available
It has become common practice to conceptualize bias as an automatic response, cultivated through exposure to bias in society. From this perspective, combating bias requires reducing a proclivity for bias within individuals, as in many implicit-bias training efforts common in schools and corporations. We introduce an alternative approach that begins with the presumption that people are inherently complex, with multiple, often contradictory, selves and goals. When the person is conceptualized this way, it is possible to ask when biased selves are likely to emerge and whether this bias can be sidelined—that is, whether situations can be altered in potent ways that elevate alternative selves and goals that people will endorse and for which bias would be nonfunctional. Using both classic and contemporary examples, we show how sidelining bias has led to meaningful improvements in real-world outcomes, including higher academic achievement and reduced school suspensions, less recidivism to jail, and less stereotyping in mass advertisements.
... 10,14 Similarly, Grant & Hoffman demonstrated that messages focused on patient safety make medical professionals more likely to comply with hand hygiene recommendations than messages focused on their own safety. 16 This work corroborates a large body of social psychological research showing that people are motivated to conform to social norms, particularly in situations of uncertainty. 10,17 Nevertheless, the effectiveness of PS appeals in promoting COVID-19 preventive behaviors is unknown, and existing evidence is mixed. ...
BACKGROUND The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies have attempted to counter these negative effects with communication strategies that promote pro-social values and hope. However, there is little empirical evidence on the comparative effectiveness of these strategies. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the comparative effectiveness of pro-social and hope-promoting messages in reassuring the public and motivating COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors. METHODS An online factorial experiment was conducted in which a diverse sample of the US public was randomized to read COVID-19 informational messages containing alternative framing language: pro-social (PS), hope-promoting (HP), or no additional framing (Control). Participants then completed surveys measuring COVID-19 worry and intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing intentions and vaccination. RESULTS COVID-19 worry was unexpectedly higher in the HP than in the Control and PS conditions. Intentions for COVID-19 risk-reducing behaviors did not differ between groups; however, intentions for COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the HP than in the Control condition, and this effect was mediated by COVID-19 worry. CONCLUSIONS It appears that hope-promoting communication strategies may be more effective than Pro-social strategies in motivating risk-reducing behaviors, in some contexts, but with the paradoxical cost of promoting worry.
... Yet, we observed that an optimized selection of nudges includes those that decrease vaccination efforts (i.e., digital forms; peer vaccination; mobile vaccination post) and provide (digital) reminders, and excludes rewards. A potential explanation could be that healthcare workers appreciate strategies that largely resonate with their "other-regarding" perspective on influenza vaccination (Grant & Hofmann, 2011;Van den Hoven, 2021). Highly accepted nudges (e.g., peer vaccination) may better reinforce feelings of social collectiveness, whereas rewards may arguably undermine altruistic motives and seem patronizing. ...
Full-text available
Nudges have been proposed as an effective tool to stimulate influenza vaccination uptake in healthcare workers. However, the success of such nudges in practice is heavily reliant on their acceptance by the intended healthcare worker population, which has not been thoroughly examined to date. This study investigated healthcare workers’ acceptability of diverse influenza vaccination nudges implemented in a real-world vaccination campaign and explored the relationship between nudge acceptability and vaccination uptake. A cross-sectional study was conducted among 244 Dutch hospital employees, following a hospital-wide influenza vaccination nudging intervention. A survey assessed healthcare workers’ perceived acceptability of ten distinct influenza vaccination nudges, along with their vaccination status and relevant covariates (e.g., general perceptions regarding influenza vaccination of healthcare workers). Influenza vaccination nudges in general were deemed acceptable, with reward-based nudges being the least accepted, while digital vaccination forms, a mobile vaccination post, peer vaccination, and digital vaccination reminders were most appreciated. A higher overall acceptance of these nudges was associated with a greater likelihood of being vaccinated, particularly in healthcare workers with favorable perceptions of influenza vaccination usefulness. Our findings suggest that influenza vaccination nudges are an accepted means to systematically promote immunization of healthcare workers, and thus present a viable strategy for public health policies aimed at this group.
... Although often effective, traditional interventions are typically costly and comparatively difficult to implement. Only few studies have assessed the efficacy of milder interventions based on specific behavioral insights to promote good HH practice [30,31]. In this work, we have addressed HH compliance by healthcare professionals in the hospital using a combined nudge intervention (localized dispensers, visual reminders, and gain-framed posters). ...
Hand hygiene among professionals plays a crucial role in preventing healthcare-associated infections, yet poor compliance in hospital settings remains a lasting reason for concern. Nudge theory is an innovative approach to behavioral change first developed in economics and cognitive psychology, and recently spread and discussed in clinical medicine. To assess a combined nudge intervention (localized dispensers, visual reminders, and gain-framed posters) to promote hand hygiene compliance among hospital personnel. A quasi-experimental study including a pre-intervention phase and a post-intervention phase (9 + 9 consecutive months) with 117 professionals overall from three wards in a 350-bed general city hospital. Hand hygiene compliance was measured using direct observations by trained personnel and measurement of alcohol-based hand-rub consumption. Levels of hand hygiene compliance were low in the pre-intervention phase: 11.44% of hand hygiene opportunities prescribed were fulfilled overall. We observed a statistically significant effect of the nudge intervention with an increase to 18.71% (p < 0.001) in the post-intervention phase. Improvement was observed in all experimental settings (the three hospital wards). A statistical comparison across three subsequent periods of the post-intervention phase revealed no significant decay of the effect. An assessment of the collected data on alcohol-based hand-rub consumption indirectly confirms the main result in all experimental settings. Behavioral outcomes concerning hand hygiene in the hospital are indeed affected by contextual, nudging factors to a significant extent. If properly devised, nudging measures can provide a sustainable contribution to increase hand hygiene compliance in a hospital setting.
... Knowledge of the cognitive biases, emotional responses and social norms and networks which affect threat and risk perception may assist us in choosing tools to persuade the public of the safety of vaccines. Examples include the insight that source credibility may affect the credibility of risk communications (Brinol & Petty, 2009), and that the framing of messages can affect public acceptance (Grant & Hofmann, 2011). It may also be that these insights can help us in combatting misinformation and conspiracy theories (Jolley & Douglas, 2014). ...
Full-text available
Once vaccines against COVID-19 became available in many countries, a new challenge has emerged – how to increase the number of people who vaccinate? Different policies are being considered and implemented, including behaviourally informed interventions (i.e., nudges). In this study, we have experimentally examined two types of nudges on representative samples of two countries – descriptive social norms (Israel) and saliency of either the death experience from COVID-19 or its symptoms (UK). To increase the legitimacy of nudges, we have also examined the effectiveness of transparent nudges, where the goal of the nudge and the reasons of its implementation (expected effectiveness) were disclosed. We did not find evidence that informing people that the vast majority of their country-people intend to vaccinate enhanced vaccination intentions in Israel. We also did not find evidence that making the death experience from COVID-19, or its hard symptoms, salient enhanced vaccination intentions in the UK. Finally, transparent nudges as well did not change the results. We further provide evidence for the reasons why people choose not to vaccinate, and whether different factors such as gender, belief in conspiracy theories, political ideology, and risk perception, play a role in people's intentions to vaccinate or susceptibility to nudges.
We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 users of Canada's exposure-notification app, COVID Alert. We identified several types of users' mental models for the app. Participants' concerns were found to correlate with their level of understanding of the app. Compared to a centralized contact-tracing app, COVID Alert was favored for its more efficient notification delivery method, its higher privacy protection, and its optional level of cooperation. Based on our findings, we suggest decision-makers rethink the app's privacy-utility trade-off and improve its utility by giving users more control over their data. We also suggest technology companies build and maintain trust with the public. Further, we recommend increasing diagnosed users' motivation to notify the app and encouraging exposed users to follow the guidelines. Last, we provide design suggestions to help users with Unsound and Innocent mental models to better understand the app.
Behavioral public administration theory suggests that seemingly irrelevant word choice manipulations can influence behavior. We contend that the power of words has frequently been overlooked in the COVID-19 crisis. Given that most decisions mobilize System 1 cognition, words can be an important tool in pursuing socially-desirable outcomes. Beyond their substantive content, words choice matters because language operates largely via automatic processes. Based on findings from this literature, words can be harnessed to induce behavioral change aligned with public health objectives. We elucidate several mechanisms through which these effects are likely to occur and suggests concrete applications to the COVID-19 crisis.
Full-text available
Conservative voters have difficulties distinguishing fake from real news. In Hungarian representative data ( N = 991) we found voters of the reigning populist, conservative party rated misinformation more accurate than real ones independently from the news’ political leaning and content. The question arises: what can psychological science do to make government supporters more motivated and capable in the long run to identify misinformation in this cultural, political, and historical context? Designing scalable misinformation-reducing interventions that have a sustainable effect in the long term is a challenge researchers are struggling to surmount. The present work demonstrates a social psychological randomized controlled trial intervention in which young adults ( N = 473) were placed in an expert role and were requested to write a letter to digitally less competent relatives explaining six strategies that can help them to discern misinformation. Compared to the active control group, there was an immediate ( d = 0.27) and four weeks later a general long-term effect ( d = 0.30) on distinguishing fake news from real ones. This long-term effect was especially salient among participants who support the conservative populist government ( d = 0.48). The present work is among the first providing comprehensive quantitative analysis on the gravity of the misinformation problem in an Eastern European country with a pioneering intervention attempt that can be appropriate to a context where misinformation appears regularly in the mainstream media.
Full-text available
Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand. The author reviews evidence of such a bias in a variety of guises and gives examples of its operation in several practical contexts. Possible explanations are considered, and the question of its utility or disutility is discussed.
Full-text available
Confirmation bias, as the term is typically used in the psychological literature, connotes the seeking or interpreting of evidence in ways that are partial to existing beliefs, expectations, or a hypothesis in hand. The author reviews evidence of such a bias in a variety of guises and gives examples of its operation in several practical contexts. Possible explanations are considered, and the question of its utility or disutility is discussed. When men wish to construct or support a theory, how they torture facts into their service! (Mackay, 1852/ 1932, p. 552) Confirmation bias is perhaps the best known and most widely accepted notion of inferential error to come out of the literature on human reasoning. (Evans, 1989, p. 41) If one were to attempt to identify a single problematic aspect of human reasoning that deserves attention above all others, the confirma- tion bias would have to be among the candidates for consideration. Many have written about this bias, and it appears to be sufficiently strong and pervasive that one is led to wonder whether the bias, by itself, might account for a significant fraction of the disputes, altercations, and misun- derstandings that occur among individuals, groups, and nations.
Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue individual victims whose needy plight comes to their attention. These same good people, however, often become numbly indifferent to the plight of individuals who are "one of many" in a much greater problem. Why does this occur? The answer to this question will help us answer a related question that is the topic of this paper: Why, over the past century, have good people repeatedly ignored mass murder and genocide? Every episode of mass murder is unique and raises unique obstacles to intervention. But the repetitiveness of such atrocities, ignored by powerful people and nations, and by the general public, calls for explanations that may reflect some fundamental deficiency in our humanity - a deficiency that, once identified, might possibly be overcome. One fundamental mechanism that may play a role in many, if not all, episodes of mass-murder neglect involves the capacity to experience affect, the positive and negative feelings that combine with reasoned analysis to guide our judgments, decisions, and actions. I shall draw from psychological research to show how the statistics of mass murder or genocide, no matter how large the numbers, fail to convey the true meaning of such atrocities. The reported numbers of deaths represent dry statistics, "human beings with the tears dried off," that fail to spark emotion or feeling and thus fail to motivate action. Recognizing that we cannot rely only upon our moral feelings to motivate proper action against genocide, we must look to moral argument and international law. The 1948 Genocide Convention was supposed to meet this need, but it has not been effective. It is time to examine this failure in light of the psychological deficiencies described here and design legal and institutional mechanisms that will enforce proper response to genocide and other forms of mass murder.
Many decisions are based on beliefs concerning the likelihood of uncertain events such as the outcome of an election, the guilt of a defendant, or the future value of the dollar. Occasionally, beliefs concerning uncertain events are expressed in numerical form as odds or subjective probabilities. In general, the heuristics are quite useful, but sometimes they lead to severe and systematic errors. The subjective assessment of probability resembles the subjective assessment of physical quantities such as distance or size. These judgments are all based on data of limited validity, which are processed according to heuristic rules. However, the reliance on this rule leads to systematic errors in the estimation of distance. This chapter describes three heuristics that are employed in making judgments under uncertainty. The first is representativeness, which is usually employed when people are asked to judge the probability that an object or event belongs to a class or event. The second is the availability of instances or scenarios, which is often employed when people are asked to assess the frequency of a class or the plausibility of a particular development, and the third is adjustment from an anchor, which is usually employed in numerical prediction when a relevant value is available.
Perceptions of risk are an inherent part of the decision-making process. What is more, risk perception can be understood as an individual's assessment of risk, and the adequacy of any risk assessment is reliant on the adequacy of the accessible risk information. Consequently, one way to understand the effect of risk perception on decision-making, and the approach taken in this literature review, is to understand how risk information is communicated and received by an individual. A number of factors are identified that have been found to influence perceptions of risk, which are related to the design of risk messages: the message (colour, signal word, surround shape, and the framing effect), the source of the message (credibility and trust), and the target of the message (risk target). It is concluded that, in order to design effective risk communications, and to facilitate decision-making and safe behaviour, these factors need to be considered, in a context-dependent manner.
Why do significant numbers of people engage in the unpaid helping activities known as volunteerism? Drawing on functional theorizing about the reasons, purposes, and motivations underlying human behavior, we have identified six personal and social functions potentially served by volunteering. In addition to developing an inventory to assess these motivational functions, our program of research has explored the role of motivation in the processes of volunteerism, especially decisions about becoming a volunteer in the first place and decisions about continuing to volunteer.
Subectsfor whom a health threat was relvant or irrelevant were recruited and matched on prior beliefs in the health threat. Following exposure to either a low- or a high-threat message, high-relvance subjects were less likely to believe in the threat. Consistent with earlier work, no evidence was found to suggest that defensive inattention to the messages mediated subjects' final beliefs. Instead, processing measures suggested that highrelevance subects processed threatening parts of both messages in a biased fashion. The relationship between biased judgment and biased processing is discussed, as are the difficulties in documenting the latter