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.
... Empathy is not an exhausting psychological feat when you have good emotional regulation skills because empathizing with negative emotions is not as likely to generate personal distress (Batson et al. 1987;Eisenberg et al. 1994). Finally, we can improve empathy by targeting norms from one's ingroup (Grant and Hofmann 2011;Grant 2008) or aspects of one's identity (Klein and Hodges 2001) that support empathy. For example, emphasizing one's religious identity or their goals and ideals as, say, a teacher encourages people to reframe their role in the interaction and in doing so nudges them to extend empathy further. ...
Full-text available
... Mitarbeiter/innen, die in solchen Situationen kritische Themen ansprechen, tun dies aus einem bestimmten Selbstverständnis und dem Gefühl der Verantwortung heraus, das zum Teil gespeist wird aus dem Verhältnis, dass Mitarbeiter zu ihrer Arbeit und ihrer Organisation haben (Ashford und Barton 2007;Meyerson, 2008). Führungskräfte können dies fördern, indem sie die Identifikation der Mitarbeiter mit der Organisation und ihrem Beruf steigern oder diese mit dem Abwenden von Schaden für andere verknüpfen (siehe Grant & Hofmann, 2011;van Dick und Schuh 2023 in diesem Buch). Mitarbeiter, deren Selbstverständnis verknüpft ist mit dem Wohl der Organisation und ihren Stakeholdern (z.B. ...
... Luttrell and Petty [14] have shown that people perceive "others-focused messaging" about social distancing as more persuasive than self-focused messaging and posited that this is because others-focused messages serve as moral arguments for adopting behaviors [10]. For example, health professionals were more likely to comply with hand hygiene recommendations when presented with messages that focused on patient safety as opposed to their own safety [16]. In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, empirical research has yielded conflicting results. ...
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has engendered widespread fear and skepticism about recommended risk-reducing behaviors including vaccination. Health agencies are faced with the need to communicate to the public in ways that both provide reassurance and promote risk-reducing behaviors. Communication strategies that promote pro-social values and hope are being widely employed, however, the existing research on the persuasiveness of these strategies has offered mixed evidence. There is also very little research examining the comparative effectiveness of pro-social and hope-promoting 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 messages which adapted existing COVID-19 information from a public website produced by a state government public health department to include 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 behaviors 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.
COVID-19 salgını; yalnızca önemli sağlık sorunları ortaya çıkarmakla kalmamış, insan davranışı ile halk sağlığı sonuçları arasındaki karmaşık ilişkiyi de ortaya çıkarmıştır. Davranışsal iktisat alanı, salgının davranışsal yönlerini anlamak için değerli bilgiler sunmaktadır. Buna ek olarak politika yapıcılara salgının etkisini etkili bir şekilde azaltmaları için bir çerçeve sağlamaktadır. Bu çalışmanın amacı, COVID-19 ile davranışsal iktisadın ilişkisini, davranışsal iktisat ile ilgili temel kavramları ve bunların pandemi müdahale stratejilerindeki uygulamalarını vurgulamaktır. Literatür incelendiğinde COVID-19 döneminde davranışsal iktisat ilkelerinden olan; çerçeveleme, bilişsel önyargılar, varsayılan seçenekler, teşvik etme ve dürtmenin doğru kullanımıyla salgının yönünü pozitif şekilde değiştirebileceği görülmektedir. Davranışsal iktisat sayesinde, salgının yayılmasının önüne geçmek için aşı, el yıkama, sosyal mesafe ve maske kullanımına teşvik etmek de etkili olacaktır. İnsanların başkalarının davranışlarından etkilenme, dürtme gibi davranışsal iktisat ilkelerinin etkisi altında olduğu düşünüldüğünde, insan davranışlarının değiştirilmesine yardımcı olacaktır. Salgının zorluklarını aşarken, davranışsal iktisadı halk sağlığı girişimlerine entegre etmek, davranışı şekillendirmede ve kalıcı sağlık davranışına teşvik etmede etkili olacağı düşünülmektedir.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives are value-creating initiatives designed to enhance the social welfare of those whose lives are affected by a firm’s operations and to produce positive social outcomes. The ultimate goal of CSR initiatives is to satisfy unmet needs of people and society and provide vital benefits to those in need. While prior research has yielded many useful insights advancing our understanding of CSR initiatives, it has not always been holistic in its approach. We offer a comprehensive analysis of CSR initiatives that can be distinguished in two important ways. First, we expand the breadth of prior research by applying findings across a diverse set of literatures (economics, psychology, organizational behavior, and marketing) to four key constituents for a CSR initiative: 1) beneficiary organizations; 2) firms responsible for the CSR initiative; 3) customers of the responsible firms; and 4) employees of the responsible firms. Second, we expand the depth of prior research by examining the potential motivations and outcomes for each constituent type, as well as addressing interactions, tradeoffs, and synergies across all four constituent groups. Our analysis reviews published research, provides an organizing conceptual framework, identifies gaps in the literature, and provides specific future research propositions. The insights gained from our analysis can guide policy decision-making and inform research programs studying CSR initiatives.
Critics of empathy argue that empathy is exhausting, easily manipulated, exacerbates rather than relieves conflict, and is too focused on individual experiences. Apparently, empathy not only fails to stop negative acts like sadism, bullying, and terrorism, it motivates and promotes such acts. These scholars argue that empathy will not save us from partisanship and division. In fact, it might make us worse off. I will argue that empathy exhibits bias in the ways critics describe because empathy is motivated . Conceiving of empathy as motivated leads to surprising conclusions about our tools for moral decision‐making.
Full-text available
A better understanding of educators’ perspectives of emerging education technology, specifically tools that incorporate AI, is essential to unlock the full potential benefits of these innovations. While prior research has primarily emphasized technological advancements, it has overlooked the profound influence of social, psychological, and cultural factors in shaping educators’ perceptions, trust, and adoption of educational technology. As increasingly powerful AI tools emerge, their design must be rooted in a deep understanding of educators' needs and perspectives. It is only with the acceptance and trust of educators that these innovative solutions can elevate learning outcomes, academic achievements, and educational equity.
Full-text available
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.
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.
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