Abstract
Vaccination has both private and public benefits. We ask whether social preferences—concerns for the well-being of other people—influence one’s decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects: We give each subject $4 to play a public-good game and make contributions to public welfare. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in this game is analogous to an individual’s decision to obtain vaccination. We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-good game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 48% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). People who are more pro-social are indeed more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/8216
Funding Statement
The Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (NIH 2P30AG012839), University of California, Berkeley, provided funding.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The University of California, Santa Barbara, Human Subjects Committee exempted our Protocol 60-20-0658.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
JEL Codes: I12, D91, C90
As much energy and as many resources as we can muster—and there are finite amounts of both—should be directed at reaching the [unvaccinated] population.
Krause, Gruber, and Offit, 30 November 2021
5 Lab-in-the-field studies in the economics literature use similar methods (Gneezy and Imas 2017).
6 The University of California, Santa Barbara, Human Subjects Committee exempted our Protocol 60-20-0658. The American Economic Association registered the experiment as AEARCTR-0008216. Informed consent was obtained from all participants.
7 The party breakdown of mandatory vaccination is interesting: 25.5% of vaccinated Republicans, but only 11.4% of Democrats and 14.5% of the remainder, said they vaccinated due to a mandate. We also ask unvaccinated respondents whether they would take the vaccine if it were mandatory, but we do not use these speculative responses in our analyses. With that caution in mind, when asked if they would comply with a vaccination mandate, 53.1% of Democrats responded “Yes”, while only 22.7% of Republicans and 26.6% of others stated they would comply.
8 Many experiments find initial contributions average 40–60% of the social optimum (Ledyard 1995).
9 Robustness checks are presented in Appendix Section B. All analysis was conducted using Stata 17. See Reddinger, Charness, and Levine (2022) for data and source code.
10 Campos-Mercade et al. (2021) find that a $24-equivalent incentive increased vaccination by 4.2 p.p. (baseline 71.6%) in Sweden. Barber and West (2022) find that Ohio’s conditional cash lotteries increased the vaccination rate by 0.7 p.p. (baseline 46.5%). But Chang et al. (2021) find no effect of a $10 or $50 incentive among Medicaid plan members in California who delayed vaccination. Further, Serra-Garcia and Szech (2021) find that low monetary incentives ($10–$20) decrease vaccination, while high incentives ($100) increase vaccination. Clearly the success of monetary incentive programs depends on many factors, including the targeted population and the level of monetary incentives.
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at https://www.lucasreddinger.com/.
