IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yor/hectdg/17-27.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Good Outcomes of Bad News. A Randomized Field Experiment on Formatting Breast Cancer Screening Invitations

Author

Listed:
  • Bertoni, M.; Corazzini, L.; Robone, S.;

Abstract

We ran a population-level randomized field experiment to ascertain whether a costless manipulation of the informational content (restricted or enhanced information) and the framing (gain or loss framing) of the invitation letter to the national breast cancer screening program affects the take-up rate. Our experiment involved more than 6,000 women aged 50-69 targeted by the screening program of the Province of Messina in Sicily, randomly assigned to receive different invitation letter formats. Using administrative data from the Local Health Authority archives, we show that giving enhanced loss-framed information about the risks of not having a mammography increases take-up rate by about 25 percent with respect to all other treatments (no information; restricted gain-framed information; restricted loss-framed information; enhanced gain-framed information). Results are stronger for subjects living farther away from the screening site. For them, the manipulation may indicate higher perceived risks of negative outcomes that makes it worthwhile to participate in the screening program, in spite of longer travel time.

Suggested Citation

  • Bertoni, M.; Corazzini, L.; Robone, S.;, 2017. "The Good Outcomes of Bad News. A Randomized Field Experiment on Formatting Breast Cancer Screening Invitations," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 17/27, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    • Handle: RePEc:yor:hectdg:17/27
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/media/economics/documents/hedg/workingpapers/1727.pdf
    File Function: Main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vincenzo Carrieri & Ansgar Wuebker, 2016. "Quasi-Experimental Evidence on the Effects of Health Information on Preventive Behaviour in Europe," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 78(6), pages 765-791, December.
    2. David M. Cutler, 2008. "Are We Finally Winning the War on Cancer?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 22(4), pages 3-26, Fall.
    3. Marianne P. Bitler & Christopher S. Carpenter, 2016. "Health Insurance Mandates, Mammography, and Breast Cancer Diagnoses," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(3), pages 39-68, August.
    4. Egebark, Johan & Ekström, Mathias, 2016. "Can indifference make the world greener?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-13.
    5. James Andreoni, 1995. "Warm-Glow versus Cold-Prickle: The Effects of Positive and Negative Framing on Cooperation in Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 1-21.
    6. Jessica Wisdom & Julie S. Downs & George Loewenstein, 2010. "Promoting Healthy Choices: Information versus Convenience," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(2), pages 164-178, April.
    7. Ehlert, Martin & Finger, Claudia & Rusconi, Alessandra & Solga, Heike, 2017. "Applying to college: Do information deficits lower the likelihood of college-eligible students from less-privileged families to pursue their college intentions?: Evidence from a field experiment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 67, pages 193-212.
    8. Marianne Bertrand & Adair Morse, 2011. "Information Disclosure, Cognitive Biases, and Payday Borrowing," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 66(6), pages 1865-1893, December.
    9. Altmann, Steffen & Traxler, Christian, 2014. "Nudges at the dentist," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 19-38.
    10. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    11. Hanming Fang & Yang Wang, 2015. "Estimating Dynamic Discrete Choice Models With Hyperbolic Discounting, With An Application To Mammography Decisions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 56, pages 565-596, May.
    12. Martin McGuigan & Sandra McNally & Gill Wyness, 2016. "Student Awareness of Costs and Benefits of Educational Decisions: Effects of an Information Campaign," Journal of Human Capital, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(4), pages 482-519.
    13. Andrew S. Hanks & David R. Just & Brian Wansink, "undated". "Healthy Convenience: Nudging Students Toward Healthier Choices in Lunchroom," Working Papers 2012-03, Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.
    14. Viola Angelini & Marco Bertoni & Luca Corazzini, 2017. "Unpacking the determinants of life satisfaction: a survey experiment," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 180(1), pages 225-246, January.
    15. Levin, Irwin P & Gaeth, Gary J, 1988. "How Consumers Are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information before and after Consuming the Product," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 15(3), pages 374-378, December.
    16. Justine S. Hastings & Jeffrey M. Weinstein, 2008. "Information, School Choice, and Academic Achievement: Evidence from Two Experiments," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 123(4), pages 1373-1414.
    17. Rachel Croson & Jen Shang, 2008. "The impact of downward social information on contribution decisions," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 11(3), pages 221-233, September.
    18. Angelini, Viola & Bertoni, M & Corazzini, L., 2014. "Unpacking the determinants of life satisfaction," Research Report 14014-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    19. Rege, Mari & Telle, Kjetil, 2004. "The impact of social approval and framing on cooperation in public good situations," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(7-8), pages 1625-1644, July.
    20. Cass Sunstein, 2014. "Nudging: A Very Short Guide," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 583-588, December.
    21. Andrew S. Hanks & David R. Just & Brian Wansink, 2012. "Healthy Convenience: Nudging Students Toward Healthier Choices in Lunchroom," Working Papers 03, Cornell Center for Behavioral Economics in Child Nutrition Programs.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Bertoni, Marco & Corazzini, Luca & Robone, Silvana, 2019. "Promoting Breast Cancer Screening Take-Ups with Zero Cost: Evidence from an Experiment on Formatting Invitation Letters in Italy," IZA Discussion Papers 12193, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    2. Antinyan, Armenak & Horváth, Gergely & Jia, Mofei, 2020. "Curbing the consumption of positional goods: Behavioral interventions versus taxation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 1-21.
    3. Itzik Fadlon & Torben Heien Nielsen, 2019. "Family Health Behaviors," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(9), pages 3162-3191, September.
    4. Löfgren, Åsa & Nordblom, Katarina, 2020. "A theoretical framework of decision making explaining the mechanisms of nudging," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 174(C), pages 1-12.
    5. Sander Onderstal & Arthur J.C. Schram & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2011. "Bidding to give in the Field: Door-to-Door Fundraisers had it right from the Start," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-070/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 10 Nov 2011.
    6. Boun My, Kene & Ouvrard, Benjamin, 2019. "Nudge and tax in an environmental public goods experiment: Does environmental sensitivity matter?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 24-48.
    7. Benito-Ostolaza, Juan Miguel & Echavarri, Rebeca & Garcia-Prado, Ariadna & Oses-Eraso, Nuria, 2021. "Using visual stimuli to promote healthy snack choices among children," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 270(C).
    8. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2013. "Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 72-85.
    9. Ozturk, Orgul D. & Frongillo, Edward A. & Blake, Christine E. & McInnes, Melayne M. & Turner-McGrievy, Gabrielle, 2020. "Before the lunch line: Effectiveness of behavioral economic interventions for pre-commitment on elementary school children's food choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 597-618.
    10. Á. Ní Choisdealbha & P. D. Lunn, 2020. "Green and Simple: Disclosures on Eco-labels Interact with Situational Constraints in Consumer Choice," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 699-722, December.
    11. Thomas C. Buchmueller & Léontine Goldzahl, 2018. "The effect of organized breast cancer screening on mammography use: Evidence from France," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(12), pages 1963-1980, December.
    12. Onderstal, Sander & Schram, Arthur J.H.C. & Soetevent, Adriaan R., 2014. "Reprint of: Bidding to give in the field," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 87-100.
    13. Fabrice Etilé, 2019. "The Economics of Diet and Obesity: Public Policy," PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) hal-02154445, HAL.
    14. Lucas W. Davis & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2016. "Does Better Information Lead to Better Choices? Evidence from Energy-Efficiency Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(3), pages 589-625.
    15. Boogen, Nina & Daminato, Claudio & Filippini, Massimo & Obrist, Adrian, 2022. "Can information about energy costs affect consumers’ choices? Evidence from a field experiment☆," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 568-588.
    16. Belot, Michèle & James, Jonathan, 2014. "A new perspective on the issue of selection bias in randomized controlled field experiments," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(3), pages 326-328.
    17. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    18. Daniel Jones & Sera Linardi, 2014. "Wallflowers: Experimental Evidence of an Aversion to Standing Out," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(7), pages 1757-1771, July.
    19. Ariun Ishdorj & Mary Kay Crepinsek & Helen H. Jensen, 2013. "Children's Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables: Do School Environment and Policies Affect Choices at School and Away from School?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 35(2), pages 341-359.
    20. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    screening; breast cancer; randomized field experiment; framing; information disclosure; nudging;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • H51 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Government Expenditures and Health
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:yor:hectdg:17/27. 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: Jane Rawlings (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deyoruk.html .

    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.