Why and when do people draw upon religious and supernatural solutions to problems? Cognitive scientists and anthropologists have proposed a range of answers, stressing religion and ritual's capacity to alleviate anxiety, create a sense of order, or explain otherwise inexplicable events. Here, we leverage a unique dataset of 3,655 folk cures for 35 diseases, collected in 1937/8 from a mostly rural Irish sample born roughly between 1850 and 1925. Since the diseases vary in theory- relevant ways and the cures vary in the degree to which they include religious and supernatural elements, this dataset facilitates a unique test of these predictions in a premodern western population. In preregistered tests, we find that diseases judged by two doctors to have causes and mechanisms that would be unclear to the patients were more likely to have supernatural/religious treatments. Contra common predictions, severe and disabling diseases did not have more supernatural/religious cures and anxiety- provoking diseases did not have more ritualistic cures.

When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions.

The emergence of COVID-19 dramatically changed social behavior across societies and contexts. Here we study whether social norms also changed. Specifically, we study this question for cultural tightness (the degree to which societies generally have strong norms), specific social norms (e.g. stealing, hand washing), and norms about enforcement, using survey data from 30,431 respondents in 43 countries recorded before and in the early stages following the emergence of COVID-19. Using variation in disease intensity, we shed light on the mechanisms predicting changes in social norm measures. We find evidence that, after the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, hand washing norms increased while tightness and punishing frequency slightly decreased but observe no evidence for a robust change in most other norms. Thus, at least in the short term, our findings suggest that cultures are largely stable to pandemic threats except in those norms, hand washing in this case, that are perceived to be directly relevant to dealing with the collective threat.

Why do people use supernatural concepts to explain and treat illness? We examine how uncertainty around the cause of an illness, severity, and knowledge about past moral behaviour, influences people’s tendency to attribute illness to God and/or witchcraft in Mauritius. We employed a vignette-based experiment that manipulated the content and context of four illnesses, paired with a combination of scaled and open-ended free list questions about the causes and cures for those illnesses. Across our sample (N=530) participants suggested supernatural causes and cures for all illnesses. High uncertainty around the cause of the symptoms increased participants’ claims that it was caused by God. When the sick person had a history of immoral behaviour, participants were more willing to attribute their illness to God and witchcraft, and offered up 4 times more supernatural causes in free lists than when the sick person had no such history. We found no evidence that severity influenced participants’ likelihood of suggesting supernatural causes or cures. Further, when participants gave a supernatural cause, they were more likely to also indicate that the illness had a supernatural cure (e.g., consulting a spiritual healer), suggesting that supernatural causes increase the need for supernatural cures.

While the primary goals of medical treatment are typically to shorten illness or relieve symptoms, we explore the idea that an important additional goal for some patients is to communicate need. Drawing on costly signalling theory, we argue that treatments – and in particular aversive treatments – can help patients legitimize their illness and thereby enable access to crucial support during convalescence. Four pre-registered within-subjects experiments (n = 874) show that participants are more inclined to provide care to people who undergo treatment, especially when that treatment is painful. Results show this incentivizes the use of antibiotic treatments for viral infections as well as risky drug treatments for mental illness. A cross-sectional of 194 chronic pain patients shows that those who experience stigma and doubt over the legitimacy of their illness are more likely to accept aversive treatments. Furthermore, two experiments (n = 653) indicate that subtle manipulations to one’s sense of social support may increase willingness to accept treatment. These results indicate that people make decisions to provide care in part based on the presence/absence of treatment and furthermore that patients’ treatment decision making is informed by the social consequences of their choices. Signalling theory may help explain the surprising longevity of some ineffective and costly medical procedures.

An analysis of 2,500 public-health claims reveals that organizations rarely communicate uncertainties around the benefits of behavioural change. To be ethical, public-health communication should be accurate and transparent.

Abstract Until recently, cultural evolutionary processes rarely generated adaptive solutions to medical problems, and many commonplace treatments were more likely to harm than help. Indeed, medicine played a surprisingly limited role in life-expectancy extension until the late nineteenth century. This chapter reviews features of health and disease, and of cognition and cultural transmission, that might have impeded the evolution of effective medicine (or facilitated the persistence of maladaptive treatments). The beneficial effects of treatments are often subtle relative to changes resulting from immunological and other homeostatic processes: both noise and bias, therefore, make the search for effective treatments challenging. Moreover, biased communication of successful outcomes inflates the reputation of treatments and treatments grounded in intuitive but erroneous biological models that can be sustained irrespective of benefits. Finally, medical treatment can sometimes play an important role in signalling a legitimate need for care. These processes continue to influence medical practice.

Background and Objectives:While the primary goals of medical treatment are typically to shorten illness or relieve symptoms, we explore the idea that an important additional goal for some patients is to communicate their needs. Drawing on signalling theory, we argue that undergoing treatments can help patients legitimize their illness and thereby enable access to crucial support during convalescence.Methods and Results:Four pre-registered within-subjects experiments (n = 874) show that participants are more inclined to provide care to people who undergo treatment, especially when that treatment is painful. Results show this incentivizes the use of antibiotic treatments for viral infections as well as drug treatments for mental illness. A cross-sectional study of 194 chronic pain patients shows that those who experience stigma and doubt over the legitimacy of their illness are more likely to accept aversive treatments. Furthermore, two experiments (n = 653) indicate that subtle manipulations of one's sense of social support may increase willingness to accept treatment.Conclusions and Implications:These results indicate that people make decisions to provide care in part based on the presence or absence of treatment and furthermore that patients' treatment decision-making is informed by the social consequences of their choices. Signalling theory may help explain the surprising longevity of some ineffective and costly medical procedures.

Previous work has reported a relation between pathogen-avoidance motivations and prejudice toward various social groups, including gay men and lesbian women. It is currently unknown whether this association is present across cultures, or specific to North America. Analyses of survey data from adult heterosexuals ( N = 11,200) from 31 countries showed a small relation between pathogen disgust sensitivity (an individual-difference measure of pathogen-avoidance motivations) and measures of antigay attitudes. Analyses also showed that pathogen disgust sensitivity relates not only to antipathy toward gay men and lesbians, but also to negativity toward other groups, in particular those associated with violations of traditional sexual norms (e.g., prostitutes). These results suggest that the association between pathogen-avoidance motivations and antigay attitudes is relatively stable across cultures and is a manifestation of a more general relation between pathogen-avoidance motivations and prejudice towards groups associated with sexual norm violations.

This paper discusses the ethics of public health communication. We argue that a number of commonplace tools of public health communication risk qualifying as non-honest and question whether or not using such tools is ethically justified. First, we introduce the concept of honesty and suggest some reasons for thinking it is morally desirable. We then describe a number of common ways in which public health communication presents information about health-promoting interventions. These include the omission of information about the magnitude of benefits people can expect from health-promoting interventions, and failure to report uncertainty associated with the outcomes of interventions. Next we outline some forms of behaviour which are generally recognised by philosophers as being non-honest, including deception, manipulation, and so on. Finally, we suggest that many of the public health communicative practices identified earlier share features with the non-honest behaviours described and suggest this warrants reflection upon whether such non-honesty is justified by the goals of public health communication.

This paper argues that there exists a collective epistemic state of 'Broad Medical Uncertainty' (BMU) regarding the effectiveness of many medical interventions. We outline the features of BMU, and describe some of the main contributing factors. These include flaws in medical research methodologies, bias in publication practices, financial and other conflicts of interest, and features of how evidence is translated into practice. These result in a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of many medical treatments and unduly optimistic beliefs about the benefit/harm profiles of such treatments. We argue for an ethical presumption in favour of openness regarding BMU as part of a 'Corrective Response'. We then consider some objections to this position (the 'Anti-Corrective Response'), including concerns that public honesty about flaws in medical research could undermine trust in healthcare institutions. We suggest that, as it stands, the Anti-Corrective Response is unconvincing.

The original version of this Article contained an error in the author affiliations. Cecilia Reyna was incorrectly associated with ‘Universidad Nacional de Cordoba (UNC). Facultad de Psicologia (UNC), Ciudad Universitaria, Bv. de la Reforma esquina, Enfermera Gordillo s/n, Cordoba, Argentina.’ instead of the correct ‘Instituto de Investigaciones Psicologicas (IIPsi), Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET), CABA, Republica Argentina.’ This has now been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.

Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.

BACKGROUND:Good-quality evidence on hand hygiene compliance among birth attendants in low-resource labor wards is limited. The World Health Organization Hand Hygiene Observation Form is widely used for directly observing behaviors, but it does not support capturing complex patterns of behavior. We developed the HANDS at Birth tool for direct observational studies of complex patterns of hand rubbing/washing, glove use, recontamination, and their determinants among birth attendants. Understanding these behaviors is particularly critical in wards with variable patient volumes or unpredictable patient complications, such as emergency departments, operating wards, or triage and isolation wards during epidemics. Here we provide detailed information on the design and implementation of the HANDS at Birth tool, with a particular focus on low-resource settings. We developed the HANDS at Birth tool from available guidelines, unstructured observation, and iterative refinement based on consultation with collaborators and pilot results. We designed the tool with WOMBAT software, which supports collecting multidimensional time-and-motion data. Our analysis of the tool's performance centered on interobserver agreement and convergent validity and the implications of the data structure for data analysis. The HANDS at Birth tool encompasses various hand actions and context-relevant information. Hand actions include procedures relevant during labor and delivery; hand hygiene or glove actions; and other types of touch. During field implementation, we used the tool for continuous observation of the birth attendant. Interobserver agreement was good (kappa range: 0.7-0.9), and the tool showed convergent validity. Using the HANDS at Birth tool is a feasible way to obtain useful information about compliance with hand hygiene procedures. The tool could be used after simple training and allows for collection of reliable information about the complex pattern of hygiene behaviors. Future studies should explore using this tool to observe behavior in labor wards in other settings and in other types of wards.

RATIONALE:Although women in low- and middle-income countries are increasingly encouraged to give birth at facilities, healthcare-associated infection of both the mother and newborn remain common. An important cause of infection is poor hand hygiene. There is a need to understand how environmental, behavioural, and organisational factors influence hygiene practice. OBJECTIVE:To understand variations between facilities and between people in hygiene behaviour and to explore potential intervention targets in four labour wards in Zanzibar. METHODS:Site visits including observation of deliveries and of day-to-day workings of the facilities. Thirty-three semi-structured interviews, totalling more than 46 hours, with birth attendants, orderlies, managerial staff and mothers. Transcribed interviews and observation notes were read and coded by two authors. Themes were developed and analysed in light of existing research. RESULTS:The physical preconditions for hand hygiene were met more regularly in the two highvolume facilities, where soap, water, gloves were almost always available. However, in all of the facilities, hand hygiene appeared impeded by poor ergonomics, like, for example, physical distance between water taps, gloves, or delivery beds. Recontamination of gloved hands following good hand hygiene was commonly observed, a pattern that the birth attendants attributed to high and unpredictable workload and equipment shortages. Interviews and focus groups suggested that birth attendants typically understood when and why hand hygiene should be implemented, and that they were aware of low handwashing rates among co-workers. In poorer performing facilities, managers were less inclined to visit wards and more likely to perceive hand hygiene as beyond their influence. CONCLUSIONS:Observations and interviews suggest improvements in the ergonomic design of delivery rooms, including convenient availability of sinks, soap, hand gel, hand towels and gloves, may be a low-cost way to reduce the infection burden from poor hand hygiene.

Background With an increasing number of women delivering in healthcare facilities in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), healthcare workers’ hand hygiene compliance on labour wards is pivotal to preventing infections. Currently there are no estimates of how often birth attendants comply with hand hygiene, or of the factors influencing compliance in healthcare facilities in LMICs. Methods We conducted a systematic review to investigate the a) level of compliance, b) determinants of compliance and c) interventions to improve hand hygiene during labour and delivery among birth attendants in healthcare facilities of LMICs. We also aimed to assess the quality of the included studies and to report the intra-cluster correlation for studies conducted in multiple facilities. Results We obtained 797 results across four databases and reviewed 71 full texts. Of these, fifteen met our inclusion criteria. Overall, the quality of the included studies was particularly compromised by poorly described sampling methods and definitions. Hand hygiene compliance varied substantially across studies from 0 to 100%; however, the heterogeneity in definitions of hand hygiene did not allow us to combine or compare these meaningfully. The five studies with larger sample sizes and clearer definitions estimated compliance before aseptic procedures opportunities, to be low (range: 1–38%). Three studies described two multi-component interventions, both were shown to be feasible. Conclusions Hand hygiene compliance was low for studies with larger sample sizes and clear definitions. This poses a substantial challenge to infection prevention during birth in LMICs facilities. We also found that the quality of many studies was suboptimal. Future studies of hand hygiene compliance on the labour ward should be designed with better sampling frames, assess inter-observer agreement, use measures to improve the quality of data collection, and report their hand hygiene definitions clearly.

Recent research calls for distinguishing whether the failure to comply with World Health Organisation hand hygiene guidelines is driven by omitting to rub/wash hands, or subsequently recontamination of clean hands or gloves prior to a procedure. This study examined the determinants of these two behaviours. Across the 10 highest-volume labour wards in Zanzibar, we observed 103 birth attendants across 779 hand hygiene opportunities before aseptic procedures (time-and-motion methods). They were then interviewed using a structured cross-sectional survey. We used mixed-effect multivariable logistic regressions to investigate the independent association of candidate determinants with hand rubbing/washing and avoiding glove recontamination. After controlling for confounders, we found that availability of single-use material to dry hands (OR:2.9; CI:1.58-5.14), a higher workload (OR:29.4; CI:12.9-67.0), more knowledge about hand hygiene (OR:1.89; CI:1.02-3.49), and an environment with more reminders from colleagues (OR:1.20; CI:0.98-1.46) were associated with more hand rubbing/washing. Only the length of time elapsed since donning gloves (OR:4.5; CI:2.5-8.0) was associated with avoiding glove recontamination. We identified multiple determinants of hand washing/rubbing. Only time elapsed since washing/rubbing was reliably associated with avoiding glove recontamination. In this setting, these two behaviours require different interventions. Future studies should measure them separately.