PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - J. Lucas Reddinger
AU  - Gary Charness
AU  - David Levine
TI  - Prosocial motivation for vaccination
AID  - 10.1101/2022.04.21.22274110
DP  - 2022 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2022.04.21.22274110
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/29/2022.04.21.22274110.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/07/29/2022.04.21.22274110.full
AB  - Both private and public benefits result from vaccination for transmissible diseases, such as seasonal influenza, measles, and COVID-19. To help inform vaccination efforts for such diseases, 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 proxy vaccine demand with individuals’ delay to initially vaccinate for COVID-19. 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. We thus recommend further research on the use of pro-social preferences to help motivate individuals to vaccinate for transmissible diseases, such as the flu and HPV.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.8216 Funding StatementThe Center on the Economics and Demography of Aging (NIH 2P30AG012839), University of California, Berkeley, provided funding.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesAll data produced are available online at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K6WE2. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/K6WE2