Social Behavior

Abstract

Social behavior is a type of behavior: action directed at, or shaped by, other members of one's own species. Cognitive psychology treats it not as a single faculty but as the visible output of evolved mental mechanisms—reading others' intentions, tracking who has cooperated, feeling the pull of belonging, conforming to a group—that paid off under group living. The puzzle the field organises around is cooperation: why an animal that could free-ride instead helps, shares, and punishes cheats at a cost to itself. Four mechanisms answer most of it—kin selection, direct and indirect reciprocity, and norm enforcement—each with a cognitive signature in how people represent partners, track reputations, and value a social act. A worked example on the arithmetic of cooperation and three interactive demonstrations develop the account.

Keywords: cooperation, social cognition, reciprocity, conformity, theory of mind

Humans are an obligately social species. We are born helpless, raised in groups, and equipped with a cognitive apparatus—language, theory of mind, a hair-trigger sensitivity to exclusion—that only makes sense against a backdrop of dense interdependence. Social behavior is the observable surface of that apparatus: the greetings, gifts, alliances, snubs, and sanctions through which people act on and with one another.

What makes it a problem for psychology rather than merely a description is that much of it is costly. Helping a stranger, sharing food, punishing a cheat one will never meet again—each spends resources on someone else. A naive account of self-interest predicts none of it, yet it is everywhere. The cognitive science of social behavior is largely the story of how a few mechanisms make such acts pay after all, and of the mental machinery—partner tracking, reputation, empathy, group identity—that those mechanisms require.

What Social Behavior Is

Social behavior is any behavior whose function or form involves other members of the same species. That spans the cooperative (helping, sharing, grooming, teaching), the competitive (aggression, dominance contests, status display), and the affiliative (bonding, play, courtship). The defining feature is not the act but its direction: a social behavior is one whose payoff depends on how a conspecific responds to it.

In the Medical Subject Headings vocabulary, Social Behavior is a descriptor filed directly beneath Behavior. That placement is a clean taxonomic one: social behavior is a proper subset of behavior, distinguished by having a conspecific in the loop. The cognitive account agrees but adds the mechanism MeSH does not—that acting on another organism which can represent the actor, and act back, imposes computational demands a solitary behavior never faces. To behave socially with any sophistication, an animal must model what others see, know, want, and will do, and must do so recursively, because the other is modelling the actor in turn (Tomasello et al., 2005).

The deepest motivational fact about human social behavior is that belonging is a need, not a preference. The need to belong hypothesis holds that humans possess a fundamental drive to form and maintain lasting, positive relationships, and that a wide range of emotional and cognitive phenomena—the pain of rejection, the vigilance for social cues, the readiness to conform—follow from it (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Exclusion is processed less like a disappointment than like a threat, which is why so much social behavior is organised around securing and protecting inclusion.

Types of Social Behavior

Social Behavior is the parent descriptor for a large family of more specific behaviors in the MeSH tree, immediately beneath Behavior. These subtypes cut across the cooperative–competitive spectrum rather than partitioning it neatly: aggression and stereotyping sit at the hostile end, cooperative and helping behaviors at the prosocial end, and categories such as conformity or social identification describe how individual behavior bends to the group. The list is a MeSH indexing classification, built for retrieval rather than as a theory of social behavior, so the categories overlap and are not mutually exclusive—a single act of exclusion can be at once aggression, stereotyping, and marginalization. Table 1 glosses those subtypes that are live topics on this site; the others are indexed in MeSH but not yet covered here.

Table 1

MeSH Subtypes of Social Behavior Covered on This Site

The descriptor has many more narrower children that MeSH indexes but this site does not yet cover as standalone topics. At the prosocial end they include Altruism, Cooperative Behavior, Helping Behavior, Help-Seeking Behavior, Gift Giving, Empowerment, Social Inclusion, Social Skills, and Social Adjustment. At the group-dynamics end sit Competitive Behavior, Social Dominance, Social Facilitation, Social Identification, Social Conformity, Ceremonial Behavior, Mass Behavior, and Mass Gatherings. A cluster of exclusion and hostility behaviors covers Prejudice, Scapegoating, Dehumanization, Social Discrimination, Social Marginalization, Social Stigma, Social Isolation, Social Defeat, Rejection, Incivility, Permissiveness, and non-sexual Harassment. Others sit apart from any single axis: Deception, Anomie, Shyness, Self-Control, Social Desirability, Psychological Distance, Social Evolution, Whistleblowing, Femininity, and Masculinity.

Social Behavior and Cognition

The cognitive science of social behavior is dominated by one question: how does costly cooperation survive the logic of self-interest? Four mechanisms supply the answer, and because each requires its own mental bookkeeping, together they organise most of what social cognition has to compute (Nowak, 2006; Rand & Nowak, 2013). The sections below take them in turn—reciprocity, the group pull of conformity and identity, and the norm enforcement that stabilises public goods—and connect each to the machinery that makes it possible.

Figure 1

The Four Mechanisms of Cooperation, Ordered by Cognitive Demand

Kinship and reciprocity

The oldest answer is kinship. Kin selection explains help directed at relatives: a gene for altruism can spread if it benefits copies of itself in kin, and Hamilton's rule states the condition precisely—an altruistic act is favored when rb > c, where r is relatedness, b the benefit to the recipient, and c the cost to the actor (Hamilton, 1964). Kin altruism needs little cognition—a cue of familiarity will do—but it is bounded to relatives.

Cooperation among non-kin needs reciprocity. Direct reciprocity—helping now in the expectation of being helped later—pays whenever partners meet again with high enough probability; the condition is w > c/b, where w is the chance of another encounter (Trivers, 1971). This is where the cognitive cost rises sharply: a reciprocator must recognise individuals, remember what each did last time, and condition its behavior on that memory. Indirect reciprocity—helping those with a good reputation, so that bystanders will later help in return—raises the demand again, requiring that reputations be tracked and transmitted, usually through language (Nowak, 2006). Demo 1 makes the direct-reciprocity threshold concrete: it varies the probability of a future encounter and shows when a reciprocating strategy out-earns a defector.

Belonging, conformity, and social identity

Not all social behavior is a cooperation calculation; much of it is the direct expression of the need to belong. One of its most reliable products is conformity. In Asch's classic studies, participants judging which of three lines matched a standard went along with a unanimous majority's obviously wrong answer on about a third of critical trials, even though the task was perceptually trivial alone (Asch, 1956). The effect is not mere gullibility: it reflects two distinct pulls, an informational one (the group may know something I do not) and a normative one (I do not want to stand out), and modern work locates compliance and conformity among the basic levers of social influence (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

The pull of the group is amplified when the group becomes part of the self. Social identity theory holds that people categorise themselves into groups, derive self-esteem from those memberships, and favor the in-group accordingly—a process that can be triggered by even arbitrary, minimal group assignments (Tajfel, 1982). Social identity turns conformity from a momentary accommodation into a stable disposition: once a norm belongs to the in-group, following it is no longer a concession but an expression of who one is. Demo 2 reconstructs the Asch result, letting the size of a unanimous majority vary and reading off how conformity climbs and then plateaus.

Norms, punishment, and public goods

Reciprocity stabilises cooperation between pairs, but much human cooperation is collective—contributing to a shared resource that everyone can use whether or not they paid in. These public goods invite free-riding, and in the laboratory voluntary contributions decay toward zero over repeated rounds as players learn that others are taking a free ride. The decisive finding is that cooperation is rescued when players can punish free-riders at a cost to themselves: with punishment available, contributions rise and stay high, even though punishing is itself a costly act that a narrowly self-interested player should avoid (Fehr & Gächter, 2002).

This altruistic punishment is a cognitive and emotional achievement, not a cold calculation. It is driven by moral emotions—anger at unfairness—and its execution engages reward-related circuitry: imaging shows that punishing a defector activates the dorsal striatum, as though the sanction were itself rewarding, which is why people pay to deliver it (de Quervain et al., 2004). More broadly, the valuation of social outcomes—others' payoffs, fairness, one's reputation—recruits the same neural value machinery that prices non-social rewards, letting the brain fold social considerations into ordinary decision-making (Ruff & Fehr, 2014). Norm enforcement of this kind, scaled up by culture, is a leading account of how humans came to cooperate in groups far larger than kin or repeated-partner reciprocity could sustain (Henrich, 2016; Tomasello, 2016). Demo 3 runs a public-goods game with and without punishment and shows the two trajectories diverge.

The social-cognitive substrate

Underneath all four mechanisms sits a shared substrate. Reciprocity needs memory for partners; reputation needs a way to represent and communicate what others have done; norm enforcement needs a representation of what ought to happen. All of this rests on shared intentionality—the distinctively human capacity to form joint goals and attend to things together—which Tomasello argues is the cognitive foundation that lets culture, and cooperation at human scale, get off the ground (Tomasello et al., 2005). Much social behavior is also simply learned by watching others: observational social learning transmits behaviors, norms, and attitudes without each individual having to discover them, and is the channel through which a group's social repertoire is passed on (Bandura, 1977). The result is that social behavior, in humans, is less a fixed set of instincts than a culturally transmitted repertoire running on a theory-of-mind engine.

Worked Example

The logic of cooperation can be made numerical with three small calculations, one per mechanism, matching the three demonstrations.

Kin selection (Hamilton's rule). An act is favored when rb > c. For full siblings r = 0.5. Suppose the act costs the actor the equivalent of c = 1 offspring and benefits the sibling by b:

- Benefit b = 3: rb = 0.5 × 3 = 1.5 > 1, so altruism toward the sibling is favored. - Benefit b = 1.5: rb = 0.5 × 1.5 = 0.75 < 1, so it is not.

The same generosity that pays toward a sibling (r = 0.5) fails toward a cousin (r = 0.125) unless the benefit is eight times the cost—which is why kin altruism falls off steeply with genetic distance.

Direct reciprocity (the shadow of the future). Between non-kin who may meet again with probability w each round, cooperation via a reciprocating strategy pays when w > c/b. With c = 1 and b = 3 the threshold is w\* = 1/3 ≈ 0.33:

- Encounters likely, w = 0.6: 0.6 > 0.33, so reciprocal cooperation is sustainable. - Encounters rare, w = 0.2: 0.2 < 0.33, so defection wins and cooperation unravels.

The expected number of future rounds is 1/(1 − w): at w = 0.6 that is 2.5 rounds, enough future shadow to make helping now worthwhile; at w = 0.2 it is only 1.25. Demo 1 plots the two strategies' expected payoffs against w and marks this crossover.

Public goods and punishment. Four players each receive an endowment of 20 units and may contribute to a common pot that is multiplied by 1.6 and split equally—a marginal per-capita return of 1.6/4 = 0.4.

- All four contribute 20: pot = 80, × 1.6 = 128, split four ways = 32 each—better than the 20 kept by contributing nothing collectively. - One free-rides (contributes 0) while three contribute 20: pot = 60, × 1.6 = 96, split = 24 each; the free-rider keeps 20 + 24 = 44, the contributors get 24.

Because 44 > 32, free-riding is individually rational, so contributions decay—the social dilemma. Allowing players to pay, say, 1 unit to fine a free-rider 3 units flips the incentive: a free-rider earning 44 but fined by two others loses 6, dropping to 38 and then below the cooperators once punishment is widespread, so contributing becomes the better choice. Demo 3 runs both regimes and shows contributions collapsing without punishment and recovering with it.

Discussion

Read cognitively, social behavior is the output of a small number of solutions to one recurring problem—how to make interdependence pay—each of which buys cooperation at the price of a specific cognitive demand. Kin selection is cheap but narrow; direct reciprocity widens the circle but requires individual memory; indirect reciprocity widens it further but requires reputation and language; norm enforcement scales cooperation to the size of a culture but requires shared representations of what ought to be done and a willingness to pay to uphold them (Nowak, 2006; Rand & Nowak, 2013). The progression is also a progression in cognitive load, which is one reason the human social mind is as elaborate as it is.

The motivational layer completes the picture. The need to belong supplies the drive that makes the machinery run, so that inclusion is pursued and exclusion avoided almost reflexively (Baumeister & Leary, 1995), and social identity binds the individual to the group so tightly that conformity becomes self-expression (Tajfel, 1982). Together the mechanisms and the motives explain both the best and the worst of social behavior: the same apparatus that produces helping, sharing, and fairness produces in-group favoritism, conformity against the evidence, and the hostile stereotyping of outsiders. They are not two systems but one, aimed by whoever and whatever counts, at the moment, as the in-group.

Current Directions

Three fronts are active. The first is the neurocomputational study of prosocial behavior: rather than asking only whether people help, researchers now model the learning signals by which people learn to benefit others, finding that prosocial learning engages partly distinct valuation and error signals from learning for oneself, and that individual differences in these signals track empathy (Lockwood et al., 2016). The second is social behavior under uncertainty: because other minds are opaque, a great deal of social cognition is now framed as inference under uncertainty—estimating others' intentions, trustworthiness, and likely actions from sparse evidence—which unifies phenomena from trust to impression formation under a common computational logic (FeldmanHall & Shenhav, 2019). The third is collective behavior at scale: the COVID-19 pandemic became a natural laboratory for how norms, identity, trust, and messaging shape mass behavior, and prompted a large synthesis of what the social and behavioral sciences can and cannot say about coordinating behavior across whole populations (Van Bavel et al., 2020).

Common Misconceptions

Cooperation requires suspending self-interest.

Usually not. Kin selection, reciprocity, and reputation each make helping pay, directly or through relatives and future returns. The interesting cases—like paying to punish a cheat one will never meet again—are the exceptions that reveal norm psychology, not the rule (Trivers, 1971; Nowak, 2006).

Conformity is a sign of a weak or unintelligent mind.

Asch's participants were ordinary adults doing a trivial perceptual task, and most conformed at least once. Going along with a group draws on sound informational logic (others may know more) and a real social cost of deviating; it is a feature of normal social cognition, not a defect (Asch, 1956; Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004).

Altruism and selfishness are fixed personality types.

Behavior in cooperation games depends heavily on the structure—whether partners meet again, whether reputations are visible, whether punishment is possible. Change the structure and the same people cooperate or free-ride; social behavior is situated, not just dispositional (Fehr & Gächter, 2002).

Prosocial and antisocial behavior come from separate systems.

The same mechanisms that build in-group cooperation—identity, norm enforcement, reputation—also drive out-group hostility and stereotyping. Favoring the in-group and derogating the out-group are two faces of one group psychology, not independent traits (Tajfel, 1982).

Glossary

Altruism.

Behavior that benefits another at a cost to the actor; the central explanatory puzzle of social behavior, resolved mainly by kinship, reciprocity, and reputation.

Altruistic punishment.

Paying a personal cost to sanction a norm violator, even with no prospect of personal gain; a key stabiliser of large-scale cooperation, driven by moral emotion and experienced as rewarding.

Conformity.

Adjusting one's judgment or behavior toward that of a group, under informational pressure (the group may be right) or normative pressure (the wish not to deviate).

Cooperation.

Behavior in which individuals act together, or bear costs for one another, to a mutual benefit that none could secure alone; the organising problem of the social-behavior literature.

Direct reciprocity.

Cooperation sustained between the same two individuals over repeated encounters—a cost borne now and repaid later—viable when the probability of meeting again exceeds the cost-to-benefit ratio.

Inclusive fitness.

An individual's reproductive success plus its effect on the reproduction of relatives, weighted by relatedness; the quantity kin selection maximises and the basis of Hamilton's rule.

Indirect reciprocity.

Cooperation based on reputation—helping those known to have helped others, so bystanders will later help in return; it requires that reputations be tracked and communicated.

Kin selection.

The evolution of altruism toward genetic relatives, favored when relatedness times benefit exceeds cost (Hamilton's rule, rb > c); cognitively cheap but limited to kin.

Need to belong.

The hypothesised fundamental human drive to form and keep lasting positive relationships; a direct motivator of social behavior and the source of the pain of exclusion.

Prosocial behavior.

Voluntary behavior intended to benefit others—helping, sharing, comforting, donating; the positive pole of social behavior and a focus of current neurocomputational study.

Public goods game.

An experimental task in which players choose how much to contribute to a shared pot that benefits all; the standard laboratory model of collective cooperation and free-riding.

Reciprocal altruism.

Trivers's account of cooperation among non-kin, in which a cost borne now is repaid by the recipient later; the basis of direct reciprocity and its memory demands.

Shared intentionality.

The capacity to form joint goals and jointly attend to things with others; argued to be the distinctively human cognitive foundation of culture and large-scale cooperation.

Social cognition.

The mental processes by which people perceive, interpret, remember, and act on information about other people and social situations; the computational substrate of social behavior.

Social dilemma.

Any situation in which the individually rational choice, if made by everyone, leaves all worse off than mutual cooperation would; the public-goods game is the canonical example.

Social learning.

Acquiring behaviors, norms, and attitudes by observing others rather than by individual trial and error; the channel through which a group's social repertoire is transmitted.

Social norm.

A shared expectation about how members of a group should behave; its representation and enforcement are what scale cooperation beyond kin and repeated partners.

Theory of mind.

The ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, desires, intentions—to oneself and others; the engine on which reciprocity, reputation, and norm psychology all run.

Key Researchers

Roy F. Baumeister

(School of Psychology, University of Queensland). Proposed, with Mark Leary, the need-to-belong hypothesis, reframing a wide range of social behavior as the product of a fundamental drive for lasting interpersonal attachment. ORCID · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Jay J. Van Bavel

(Department of Psychology and Neural Science, New York University). A leading contemporary social neuroscientist of group identity and collective behavior, who has synthesised how identity, norms, and trust shape behavior at population scale. ORCID · Faculty · Google Scholar

Ernst Fehr

(Department of Economics, University of Zurich). A founder of the experimental study of fairness and altruistic punishment, whose public-goods work showed that costly sanctioning of free-riders stabilises human cooperation. ORCID · Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

W. D. Hamilton

(1936–2000) (Department of Zoology, University of Oxford). Formalised inclusive fitness and kin selection, giving the genetical theory of social behavior its founding equation, Hamilton's rule. Wikipedia

Martin A. Nowak

(Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University). Synthesised the mathematics of cooperation into five mechanisms—kin selection, direct and indirect reciprocity, and network and group structure—unifying the field's evolutionary accounts. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Henri Tajfel

(1919–1982) (Department of Psychology, University of Bristol). Originated social identity theory, showing that mere categorisation into groups—even arbitrary ones—is enough to produce in-group favoritism and intergroup bias. Wikipedia

Michael Tomasello

(Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Duke University). Argued that shared intentionality—the capacity for joint goals and joint attention—is the distinctively human cognitive foundation of cooperation, culture, and morality. Faculty · Google Scholar · Wikipedia

Robert Trivers

(1943–2026) (Department of Anthropology, Rutgers University). Developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, explaining how cooperation among non-kin can evolve when partners interact repeatedly, and with it much of the logic of social exchange. Wikipedia

Frequently Asked Questions

What is social behavior?

Social behavior is any behavior directed at, or shaped by, other members of one's own species—helping, sharing, competing, dominating, affiliating, conforming. What makes a behavior social is that its payoff depends on how another individual responds, which is why it demands cognitive machinery for modelling and predicting others that solitary behavior does not.

Why do people help others at a cost to themselves?

Four mechanisms make costly helping pay off over the long run: kin selection (helping relatives who share one's genes), direct reciprocity (helping those who will reciprocate), indirect reciprocity (building a reputation that attracts help from others), and norm enforcement (groups that reward cooperation and punish free-riding). Genuinely one-shot anonymous altruism is the interesting residue these mechanisms do not fully explain.

What is Hamilton's rule?

Hamilton's rule states the condition under which altruism toward a relative is evolutionarily favored: rb > c, where r is the genetic relatedness between actor and recipient, b is the benefit to the recipient, and c is the cost to the actor. It explains why helpfulness toward kin falls off steeply as relatedness decreases.

Why do people conform to a group even when the group is wrong?

Conformity reflects two pressures. Informational pressure is the reasonable inference that a unanimous group may know something the individual does not. Normative pressure is the social cost of being the lone dissenter. In Asch's line-judgment studies both pressures were enough to make ordinary adults endorse an obviously wrong answer about a third of the time.

What is altruistic punishment and why does it matter?

Altruistic punishment is paying a personal cost to sanction someone who has violated a cooperative norm, with no expectation of personal gain. It matters because it stabilises cooperation in groups too large for reciprocity: in public-goods experiments, contributions collapse without punishment and stay high when punishment is available. It is driven by moral emotion and engages the brain's reward circuitry.

Is social behavior learned or innate?

Both, and inseparably. The mechanisms and motives—the need to belong, sensitivity to reciprocity and fairness, the capacity for shared intentionality—are part of the evolved human endowment, but the specific norms, behaviors, and attitudes they operate on are largely learned by observing others and transmitted culturally. Human social behavior is a culturally supplied repertoire running on an evolved cognitive engine.

How is social behavior related to social cognition?

Social cognition is the set of mental processes—perceiving, interpreting, remembering, and reasoning about other people—that make social behavior possible. Reciprocity needs memory for partners, reputation needs representation and communication, and norm enforcement needs a notion of what ought to happen. Social behavior is the observable output; social cognition is the computation behind it.

What is social identity, and how does it shape behavior?

Social identity is the part of a person's self-concept derived from the groups they belong to. Social identity theory shows that once people categorise themselves into a group, they favor the in-group and can discriminate against out-groups, even when the groups are arbitrary and newly formed. It turns transient conformity into a durable disposition and underlies both group solidarity and intergroup hostility.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice-Hall.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015

de Quervain, D. J.-F., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A., & Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305(5688), 1254–1258. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1100735

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415(6868), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1038/415137a

FeldmanHall, O., & Shenhav, A. (2019). Resolving uncertainty in a social world. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(5), 426–435. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0590-x

Hamilton, W. D. (1964). The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4

Henrich, J. (2016). The secret of our success: How culture is driving human evolution, domesticating our species, and making us smarter. Princeton University Press.

Lockwood, P. L., Apps, M. A. J., Valton, V., Viding, E., & Roiser, J. P. (2016). Neurocomputational mechanisms of prosocial learning and links to empathy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(35), 9763–9768. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1603198113

Nowak, M. A. (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133755

Rand, D. G., & Nowak, M. A. (2013). Human cooperation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(8), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.06.003

Ruff, C. C., & Fehr, E. (2014). The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 15(8), 549–562. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3776

Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245

Tomasello, M., Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (2005). Understanding and sharing intentions: The origins of cultural cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28(5), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X05000129

Tomasello, M. (2016). A natural history of human morality. Harvard University Press.

Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), 35–57. https://doi.org/10.1086/406755

Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., ... Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z