Field testing the transferability of behavioural science knowledge on promoting vaccinations

As behavioural science is increasingly adopted by organizations, there is a growing need to assess the robustness and transferability of empirical findings. Here, we investigate the transferability of insights from various sources of behavioural science knowledge to field settings. Across three pre-registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs, N = 314,824) involving a critical policy domain—COVID-19 booster uptake—we field tested text-based interventions that either increased vaccinations in prior field work (RCT1, NCT05586204), elevated vaccination intentions in an online study (RCT2, NCT05586178) or were favoured by scientists and non-experts (RCT3, NCT05586165). Despite repeated exposure to COVID-19 vaccination messaging in our population, reminders and psychological ownership language increased booster uptake, replicating prior findings. However, strategies deemed effective by prediction or intention surveys, such as encouraging the bundling of COVID-19 boosters and flu shots or addressing misconceptions, yielded no detectable benefits over simple reminders. These findings underscore the importance of testing interventions’ transferability to real-world settings. The authors field test the transferability of behavioural science knowledge on promoting COVID-19 booster uptake. Interventions effective in past field work improve uptake, but those deemed effective in surveys measuring intentions or predictions do not.