IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/hecrev/v12y2022i1d10.1186_s13561-022-00385-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An (un)healthy social dilemma: a normative messaging field experiment with flu vaccinations

Author

Listed:
  • Irene Mussio

    (Newcastle University Business School (Economics))

  • Angela C. M. Oliveira

    (University of Massachusetts)

Abstract

Background Influenza seasons can be unpredictable and have the potential to rapidly affect populations, especially in crowded areas. Prior research suggests that normative messaging can be used to increase voluntary provision of public goods, such as the influenza vaccine. We extend the literature by examining the influence of normative messaging on the decision to get vaccinated against influenza. Methods We conduct a field experiment in conjunction with University Health Services, targeting undergraduate students living on campus. We use four posters, randomized by living area clusters to advertise flu vaccination clinics during the Fall. The wording on the posters is varied to emphasize the individual benefits of the vaccine, the social benefits of the vaccine or both benefits together. We collect survey data for those vaccinated at the vaccination clinics, and for those not vaccinated via an online survey. Results We find that any normative message increases the percentage of students getting the flu vaccine compared with no message. In terms of the likelihood of getting the flu vaccine, emphasizing both the individual and social benefits of vaccination has the largest increase in the vaccination rate (19–20 percentage point increase). However, flu vaccinations did not reach the herd immunity threshold (70% of students vaccinated). Conclusions This study provides evidence that there is a pro-social component that is relevant in individual vaccination decisions which should be accounted for when designing vaccination campaigns. The results of this normative, pro-social messaging experiment could be extended to other at-risk communities where the number of background risks is much larger. This is especially relevant nowadays, as other seasonal vaccines are being rolled out and younger adults are the ones with the lowest uptake.

Suggested Citation

  • Irene Mussio & Angela C. M. Oliveira, 2022. "An (un)healthy social dilemma: a normative messaging field experiment with flu vaccinations," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00385-9
    DOI: 10.1186/s13561-022-00385-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1186/s13561-022-00385-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1186/s13561-022-00385-9?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. John List, 2008. "Introduction to field experiments in economics with applications to the economics of charity," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 203-212, September.
    2. Jeffrey T. Vietri & Meng Li & Alison P. Galvani & Gretchen B. Chapman, 2012. "Vaccinating to Help Ourselves and Others," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(3), pages 447-458, May.
    3. Deacon, Robert T & Shapiro, Perry, 1975. "Private Preference for Collective Goods Revealed Through Voting on Referenda," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(5), pages 943-955, December.
    4. Katherine L. Milkman & John Beshears & James J. Choi & David Laibson & Brigitte C. Madrian, 2011. "Using Implementation Intentions Prompts to Enhance Influenza Vaccination Rates," NBER Working Papers 17183, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Cass R. Sunstein & Lucia A. Reisch & Julius Rauber, 2018. "A worldwide consensus on nudging? Not quite, but almost," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 3-22, March.
    6. Andreoni, James, 1990. "Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 100(401), pages 464-477, June.
    7. Cornes, Richard & Sandler, Todd, 1984. "Easy Riders, Joint Production, and Public Goods," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 94(375), pages 580-598, September.
    8. repec:feb:artefa:0105 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Tom Chang & Mireille Jacobson & Manisha Shah & Rajiv Pramanik & Samir B. Shah, 2021. "Financial Incentives and Other Nudges Do Not Increase COVID-19 Vaccinations among the Vaccine Hesitant," NBER Working Papers 29403, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Maria Vittoria Levati & Ivan Soraperra & Saba Yifredew, 2023. "How to Curb Over-The-Counter Sales of Antibiotics? Evidence from a Field Experiment in Ethiopia," Working Papers 10/2023, University of Verona, Department of Economics.

    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. Massimiliano Mazzanti & Valeria Costantini & Susanna Mancinelli & Massimilano Corradini, 2011. "Environmental and Innovation Performance in a Dynamic Impure Public Good Framework," Working Papers 201117, University of Ferrara, Department of Economics.
    2. Falco, Paolo & Zaccagni, Sarah, 2020. "Promoting social distancing in a pandemic: Beyond the good intentions," OSF Preprints a2nys, Center for Open Science.
    3. Romano, Richard & Yildirim, Huseyin, 2001. "Why charities announce donations: a positive perspective," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 423-447, September.
    4. Alistair Munro & Marieta Valente, 2016. "Green Goods: Are They Good or Bad News for the Environment? Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Impure Public Goods," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(2), pages 317-335, October.
    5. Wang, Chengsi & Zudenkova, Galina, 2016. "Non-monotonic group-size effect in repeated provision of public goods," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 116-128.
    6. Laura Gee & Michael Schreck, 2016. "Do Beliefs About Peers Matter for Donation Matching? Experiments in the Field and Laboratory," Framed Field Experiments 00538, The Field Experiments Website.
    7. Diederich, Johannees & Goeschl, Timo, 2014. "Motivational Drivers of the Private Provision of Public Goods: Evidence From a Large Framed Field Experiment," Working Papers 0561, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    8. Dean Karlan & John A. List, 2007. "Does Price Matter in Charitable Giving? Evidence from a Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1774-1793, December.
    9. Wolfgang Buchholz & Todd Sandler, 2017. "Successful Leadership in Global Public Good Provision: Incorporating Behavioural Approaches," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 67(3), pages 591-607, July.
    10. Erik Schokkaert & Luc Ootegem, 2000. "Preference Variation and Private Donations," International Economic Association Series, in: L.-A. Gérard-Varet & S.-C. Kolm & J. Mercier Ythier (ed.), The Economics of Reciprocity, Giving and Altruism, chapter 3, pages 78-95, Palgrave Macmillan.
    11. John Morgan & Justin Tumlinson, 2019. "Corporate Provision of Public Goods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4489-4504, October.
    12. Julia Blasch & Mehdi Farsi, 2012. "Retail demand for voluntary carbon offsets - A choice experiment among Swiss consumers," IED Working paper 12-18, IED Institute for Environmental Decisions, ETH Zurich.
    13. Karen Pittel & Dirk T.G. Rübbelke, 2006. "Private provision of public goods: incentives for donations," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 33(6), pages 497-519, November.
    14. Nizar Allouch, 2013. "A competitive equilibrium for a warm-glow economy," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(1), pages 269-282, May.
    15. Alain Carpentier & Karine Latouche & Pierre Rainelli & . Association of Environmental And Resource Economists, 2002. "Food safety in the demand for meat quality : the case of pork chops in France," Post-Print hal-01937048, HAL.
    16. Deb, Rahul & Gazzale, Robert S. & Kotchen, Matthew J., 2014. "Testing motives for charitable giving: A revealed-preference methodology with experimental evidence," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 181-192.
    17. Feine, Gregor & Groh, Elke D. & von Loessl, Victor & Wetzel, Heike, 2021. "The double dividend of social information in charitable giving: Evidence from a framed field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242437, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Nadine Chlaß & Lata Gangadharan & Kristy Jones, 2015. "Charitable giving and intermediation," Jena Economics Research Papers 2015-021, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    19. Wichman, Casey J., 2016. "Incentives, green preferences, and private provision of impure public goods," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 208-220.
    20. Martin, Richard & Randal, John, 2009. "How Sunday, price, and social norms influence donation behaviour," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 722-727, October.

    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:spr:hecrev:v:12:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1186_s13561-022-00385-9. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/13561 .

    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.