IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ooecxx/v2y2023ip9-8..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cash versus lottery video messages: online COVID-19 vaccine incentives experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Raymond M Duch
  • Adrian Barnett
  • Maciej Filipek
  • Javier Espinosa-Brito
  • Laurence S J Roope
  • Mara Violato
  • Philip M Clarke

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments offered financial incentives to increase vaccine uptake. We evaluate the impact on COVID-19 vaccine uptake of cash equivalents versus being entered into lotteries. We randomly assign 1628 unvaccinated US participants into one of three 45-second informational videos promoting vaccination with messages about (a) health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines (control), (b) being entered into lotteries or (c) receiving cash equivalent vouchers. After seeing the control health information video, 16% of individuals wanted information on COVID-19 vaccination. This compared with 14% of those assigned to the lottery video (odds ratio of 0.82 relative to control: 95% credible interval, 0.58–1.17) and 22% of those assigned to the cash voucher video (odds ratio of 1.53 relative to control: 95% credible interval, 1.11–2.11). These results support greater use of cash vouchers to promote information seeking about COVID-19 vaccination and do not support the use of lottery incentives.

Suggested Citation

  • Raymond M Duch & Adrian Barnett & Maciej Filipek & Javier Espinosa-Brito & Laurence S J Roope & Mara Violato & Philip M Clarke, 2023. "Cash versus lottery video messages: online COVID-19 vaccine incentives experiment," Oxford Open Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pages 9-8.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ooecxx:v:2:y:2023:i::p:9-8.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ooec/odad004
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emma L Giles & Shannon Robalino & Elaine McColl & Falko F Sniehotta & Jean Adams, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Health Behaviour Change: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-16, March.
    2. Simon Munzert & Peter Selb & Anita Gohdes & Lukas F. Stoetzer & Will Lowe, 2021. "Tracking and promoting the usage of a COVID-19 contact tracing app," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(2), pages 247-255, February.
    3. Florian H. Schneider & Pol Campos-Mercade & Stephan Meier & Devin Pope & Erik Wengström & Armando N. Meier, 2023. "Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences," Nature, Nature, vol. 613(7944), pages 526-533, January.
    4. Moore, Ryan T., 2012. "Multivariate Continuous Blocking to Improve Political Science Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(4), pages 460-479.
    5. Hopkins, Daniel J., 2015. "The Upside of Accents: Language, Inter-group Difference, and Attitudes toward Immigration," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 45(3), pages 531-557, July.
    6. Gordon Pennycook & Ziv Epstein & Mohsen Mosleh & Antonio A. Arechar & Dean Eckles & David G. Rand, 2021. "Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online," Nature, Nature, vol. 592(7855), pages 590-595, April.
    7. Zhang, Baobao & Mildenberger, Matto & Howe, Peter D. & Marlon, Jennifer & Rosenthal, Seth A. & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2020. "Quota sampling using Facebook advertisements," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 558-564, July.
    8. Guess, Andrew & Coppock, Alexander, 2020. "Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments – CORRIGENDUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1517-1517, October.
    9. David J. Spiegelhalter & Nicola G. Best & Bradley P. Carlin & Angelika Linde, 2014. "The deviance information criterion: 12 years on," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 76(3), pages 485-493, June.
    10. Guess, Andrew & Coppock, Alexander, 2020. "Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1497-1515, October.
    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. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    2. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    3. Robin Bayes, 2022. "Moral Convictions and Threats to Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 86-96, March.
    4. Eric Groenendyk & Yanna Krupnikov, 2021. "What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 180-196, January.
    5. Byunghwan Son, 2024. "Foreign pop-culture and backlash: the case of non-fan K-pop Subreddits during the pandemic," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 48(1), pages 117-143, March.
    6. Herbert S. Lin, 2024. "Towards implementation of warrant-based content self-moderation," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 34(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Jens Eger & Sebastian H. Schneider & Martin Bruder & Solveig H. Gleser, 2023. "Does Evidence Matter? The Impact of Evidence Regarding Aid Effectiveness on Attitudes Towards Aid," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 35(5), pages 1149-1172, October.
    8. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.
    9. Gill Rowlands & David Whitney & Graham Moon, 2018. "Developing and Applying Geographical Synthetic Estimates of Health Literacy in GP Clinical Systems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-8, August.
    10. Nicolás Ajzenman & Bruno Ferman & Sant’Anna Pedro C., 2023. "Discrimination in the Formation of Academic Networks: A Field Experiment on #EconTwitter," Working Papers 235, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    11. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    12. Kai Yang & Qingqing Zhang & Xinyang Yu & Xiaogang Dong, 2023. "Bayesian inference for a mixture double autoregressive model," Statistica Neerlandica, Netherlands Society for Statistics and Operations Research, vol. 77(2), pages 188-207, May.
    13. Joseph B. Bak-Coleman & Ian Kennedy & Morgan Wack & Andrew Beers & Joseph S. Schafer & Emma S. Spiro & Kate Starbird & Jevin D. West, 2022. "Combining interventions to reduce the spread of viral misinformation," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(10), pages 1372-1380, October.
    14. Tuchen, Stefan & Nazemi, Mohsen & Ghelfi-Waechter, Signe Maria & Kim, Euiyoung & Hofer, Franziska & Chen, Ching-Fu & Arora, Mohit & Santema, Sicco & Blessing, Lucienne, 2023. "Experiences from the international frontlines: An exploration of the perceptions of airport employees during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    15. Papastamoulis, Panagiotis, 2018. "Overfitting Bayesian mixtures of factor analyzers with an unknown number of components," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 220-234.
    16. Jihye Kim & Wendy Olsen & Arkadiusz Wiśniowski, 2020. "A Bayesian Estimation of Child Labour in India," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 13(6), pages 1975-2001, December.
    17. Xuhao Shao & Ao Li & Chuansheng Chen & Elizabeth F. Loftus & Bi Zhu, 2023. "Cross-stage neural pattern similarity in the hippocampus predicts false memory derived from post-event inaccurate information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Schubert, Anna-Lena & Nunez, Michael D. & Hagemann, Dirk & Vandekerckhove, Joachim, 2018. "Individual differences in cortical processing speed predict cognitive abilities: A model-based cognitive neuroscience account," OSF Preprints yfa8s, Center for Open Science.
    19. Krishna Dasaratha & Kevin He, 2022. "Learning from Viral Content," Papers 2210.01267, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2023.
    20. Ahmad, Husnain F. & Gibson, Matthew & Nadeem, Fatiq & Nasim, Sanval & Rezaee, Arman, 2022. "Forecasts: Consumption, Production, and Behavioral Responses," IZA Discussion Papers 15831, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    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:oup:ooecxx:v:2:y:2023:i::p:9-8.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/ooec .

    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.