IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/hlthec/v26y2017is3p66-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Behavioural consequences of vaccination recommendations: An experimental analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Böhm
  • Nicolas W. Meier
  • Lars Korn
  • Cornelia Betsch

Abstract

Annual vaccination is the most effective way to prevent seasonal influenza. However, globally, the recommendations vary from country to country, ranging from universal recommendations, risk‐group‐specific recommendations, to no recommendation at all. Due to high diversity both in recommendation practice and country‐specific preconditions, it is difficult to determine the effect of different recommendations on vaccine uptake. This incentivised laboratory experiment (N = 288) tests the behavioural consequences of different recommendations in a repeated interactive vaccination game. The participants are part of heterogeneous groups, comprised of low‐ and high‐risk type of players. They receive either a universal, risk‐group‐specific or no recommendation prior to their vaccination decisions. Results show that individuals are sensitive to the recommendations. In detail, a risk‐group‐specific recommendation increases vaccine uptake of high‐risk types. However, at the same time, it decreases vaccine uptake of low‐risk types. The results imply that when the proportion of low‐risk types in a population is considerably larger than the high‐risk group, a risk‐group‐specific (vs. universal) recommendation comes at the cost of decreased social benefit of vaccination due to the overall lower vaccine uptake. Policy decision‐making should therefore complement epidemiological considerations with potential positive and negative behavioural consequences of vaccination recommendations.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Böhm & Nicolas W. Meier & Lars Korn & Cornelia Betsch, 2017. "Behavioural consequences of vaccination recommendations: An experimental analysis," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 66-75, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:s3:p:66-75
    DOI: 10.1002/hec.3584
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3584
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/hec.3584?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cornelia Betsch & Robert Böhm & Lars Korn & Cindy Holtmann, 2017. "On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 1-6, March.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:771-781 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Paolo Crosetto & Ori Weisel & Fabian Winter, 2012. "A flexible z-Tree implementation of the Social Value Orientation Slider Measure (Murphy et al. 2011) - Manual -," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-062, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    4. Noah J. Goldstein & Robert B. Cialdini & Vladas Griskevicius, 2008. "A Room with a Viewpoint: Using Social Norms to Motivate Environmental Conservation in Hotels," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 35(3), pages 472-482, March.
    5. Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE 2.0 - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Working Paper Series in Economics 10, University of Cologne, Department of Economics.
    6. Ben Greiner, 2004. "The Online Recruitment System ORSEE - A Guide for the Organization of Experiments in Economics," Papers on Strategic Interaction 2003-10, Max Planck Institute of Economics, Strategic Interaction Group.
    7. Böhm, Robert & Betsch, Cornelia & Korn, Lars, 2016. "Selfish-rational non-vaccination: Experimental evidence from an interactive vaccination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 183-195.
    8. Bonaccio, Silvia & Dalal, Reeshad S., 2006. "Advice taking and decision-making: An integrative literature review, and implications for the organizational sciences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 101(2), pages 127-151, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matteo M. Galizzi & Krystal W. Lau & Marisa Miraldo & Katharina Hauck, 2022. "Bandwagoning, free‐riding and heterogeneity in influenza vaccine decisions: An online experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(4), pages 614-646, April.
    2. Amnon Maltz & Adi Sarid, 2020. "Attractive Flu Shot: A Behavioral Approach to Increasing Influenza Vaccination Uptake Rates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 774-784, August.
    3. Simon Binder & Robert Nuscheler, 2017. "Risk‐taking in vaccination, surgery, and gambling environments: Evidence from a framed laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 76-96, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucas C. Coffman & Alexander Gotthard-Real, 2019. "Moral Perceptions of Advised Actions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3904-3927, August.
    2. Florian Heine & Martin Sefton, 2018. "To Tender or Not to Tender? Deliberate and Exogenous Sunk Costs in a Public Good Game," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-28, June.
    3. Böhm, Robert & Betsch, Cornelia & Korn, Lars, 2016. "Selfish-rational non-vaccination: Experimental evidence from an interactive vaccination game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 183-195.
    4. Florian Hett & Felix Schmidt, 2018. "Pushing Through or Slacking Off? Heterogeneity on the Reaction to Rank Feedback," Working Papers 1806, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    5. Jordi Brandts & Valeska Groenert & Christina Rott, 2015. "The Impact of Advice on Women's and Men's Selection into Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1018-1035, May.
    6. Agnès Festré & Pierre Garrouste & Ankinée Kirakozian & Mira Toumi, 2017. "The Pen Might Be Mightier than the Sword: How Third-party Advice or Sanction Impacts on Pro-environmental Behavior," GREDEG Working Papers 2017-15, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Aug 2017.
    7. Timo Goeschl & Sara Elisa Kettner & Johannes Lohse & Christiane Schwieren, 2018. "From Social Information to Social Norms: Evidence from Two Experiments on Donation Behaviour," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-25, November.
    8. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    9. Herz, Holger & Schunk, Daniel & Zehnder, Christian, 2014. "How do judgmental overconfidence and overoptimism shape innovative activity?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 1-23.
    10. David Macro & Jeroen Weesie, 2016. "Inequalities between Others Do Matter: Evidence from Multiplayer Dictator Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-23, April.
    11. M. Bigoni & D. Dragone, 2011. "An experiment on experimental instructions," Working Papers wp794, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. Brunner, Christoph & Hu, Audrey & Oechssler, Jörg, 2014. "Premium auctions and risk preferences: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 467-484.
    13. Topi Miettinen & Sigrid Suetens, 2008. "Communication and Guilt in a Prisoner's Dilemma," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 945-960, December.
    14. Benjamin Enke & Florian Zimmermann, 2019. "Correlation Neglect in Belief Formation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 86(1), pages 313-332.
    15. Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2013. "Intertemporal stability of ambiguity preferences," Working Papers 0548, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    16. Flip Klijn & Joana Pais & Marc Vorsatz, 2013. "Preference intensities and risk aversion in school choice: a laboratory experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-22, March.
    17. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    18. Winschel, Evguenia & Zahn, Philipp, 2012. "Effciency concern under asymmetric information," Working Papers 13-07, University of Mannheim, Department of Economics.
    19. Belot, Michèle & Schröder, Marina, 2013. "Sloppy work, lies and theft: A novel experimental design to study counterproductive behaviour," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 233-238.
    20. Matthias Greiff & Fabian Paetzel, 2012. "The Importance of Knowing Your Own Reputation," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201236, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:hlthec:v:26:y:2017:i:s3:p:66-75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/jhome/5749 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.