IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v19y2022i4p804-843.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can moral framing drive insurance enrollment in the United States?

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy Netter Epstein
  • Christopher T. Robertson
  • David Yokum
  • Hansoo Ko
  • Kevin H. Wilson
  • Monica Ramos
  • Katherine Kettering
  • Margaret Houtz

Abstract

To encourage health insurance uptake, marketers and policymakers have focused on consumers' economic self‐interest, attempting to show that insurance is a good deal or to sweeten the deal, with subsidies or penalties. Still, some consumers see insurance as a bad deal, either because they rationally exploit private risk information (“adverse selection”), or irrationally misperceive the value due to cognitive biases (e.g., optimism). As a result, about 30 million Americans remain uninsured, including many who could afford it. At the same time, polling suggests that Americans view health insurance through a moral lens, seeking to protect those with pre‐existing conditions especially. In other markets, “green halo” and “noble edge” frames have been shown effective. As part of a broader research agenda on private law solutions to healthcare policy, we test whether moral framing could support insurance uptake. We report four phases of research. First, to understand current health insurance marketing in America, we collected the universe of advertisements from the state and federal exchanges and coded a 10% sample for themes of economic self‐interest versus three moral themes: helping others, helping community, or responsibility. In the 199 ads in which any theme appeared, 191 ads centered on economic self‐interest. Second, we enrolled 344 uninsured Americans in an online, vignette experiment where we offered various insurance plans. Over a baseline where 43.6% were willing to purchase insurance, we found that framing an economically identical plan around generosity yielded an 11.8% higher uptake. Third, we conducted five focus groups with 32 adults, including two groups in Spanish. We explored variations in the frames and probed for resistance, to prepare for the next phase of research. Fourth, using an online advertising platform (Google), we purchased 5.6 million advertising impressions in English and Spanish, targeting higher‐income Americans nationwide during the 2021 open‐enrollment period. Consumers saw advertisements from a control group (highlighting economic self‐interest, with real ads collected from the field) versus three experimental groups (helping others, helping community, or responsibility). We measured whether consumers clicked to “shop now” on the HealthCare.gov website (1.01% click‐through rate [CTR] in English and 1.38% CTR in Spanish at baseline). Helping community ads increased CTR over the control by 14.5% in English and by 33.7% in Spanish. Ads emphasizing responsibility increased CTR by 30.3% in English, though reduced CTR by 14.7% in Spanish. Helping others ads increased CTR by 9.8% in English but decreased CTR by 13.9% in Spanish. All of these results were significant at the 0.01 level and were robust to demographic controls and subgroup analyses, using individual and county‐level covariates. Although the optimal approach varies, the status quo self‐oriented message of economic rationality was not the top‐performing approach for either language group. Scaled up to real‐world advertising budgets, back‐of‐the‐envelope extrapolation suggests that under moral framing, millions of additional Americans could be driven to shop for health insurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy Netter Epstein & Christopher T. Robertson & David Yokum & Hansoo Ko & Kevin H. Wilson & Monica Ramos & Katherine Kettering & Margaret Houtz, 2022. "Can moral framing drive insurance enrollment in the United States?," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 804-843, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:804-843
    DOI: 10.1111/jels.12334
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12334
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/jels.12334?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. Eric J Johnson & Ran Hassin & Tom Baker & Allison T Bajger & Galen Treuer, 2013. "Can Consumers Make Affordable Care Affordable? The Value of Choice Architecture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-6, December.
    2. Sexton, Steven E. & Sexton, Alison L., 2014. "Conspicuous conservation: The Prius halo and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 303-317.
    3. Marianne Bertrand & Dean Karlan & Sendhil Mullainathan & Eldar Shafir & Jonathan Zinman, 2010. "What's Advertising Content Worth? Evidence from a Consumer Credit Marketing Field Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(1), pages 263-306.
    4. Bertrand, Marianne & Karlan, Dean S. & Mullainathan, Sendhil & Shafir, Eldar & Zinman, Jonathan, 2005. "What's Psychology Worth? A Field Experiment in the Consumer Credit Market," Center Discussion Papers 28441, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    5. Birau, Mia M. & Faure, Corinne, 2018. "It is easy to do the right thing: Avoiding the backfiring effects of advertisements that blame consumers for waste," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 102-117.
    6. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    7. Brett R. Gordon & Florian Zettelmeyer & Neha Bhargava & Dan Chapsky, 2019. "A Comparison of Approaches to Advertising Measurement: Evidence from Big Field Experiments at Facebook," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(2), pages 193-225, March.
    8. Ted O'Donoghue & Jason Somerville, 2018. "Modeling Risk Aversion in Economics," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 32(2), pages 91-114, Spring.
    9. Rebecca C. A. Tobi & Francesca Harris & Ritu Rana & Kerry A. Brown & Matthew Quaife & Rosemary Green, 2019. "Sustainable Diet Dimensions. Comparing Consumer Preference for Nutrition, Environmental and Social Responsibility Food Labelling: A Systematic Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Vlaeminck, Pieter & Jiang, Ting & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Food labeling and eco-friendly consumption: Experimental evidence from a Belgian supermarket," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 180-190.
    11. Alexander Chernev & Sean Blair, 2015. "Doing Well by Doing Good: The Benevolent Halo of Corporate Social Responsibility," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 41(6), pages 1412-1425.
    12. Richard Domurat & Isaac Menashe & Wesley Yin, 2019. "The Role of Behavioral Frictions in Health Insurance Marketplace Enrollment and Risk: Evidence from a Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 26153, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Bundorf, M. Kate & Pauly, Mark V., 2006. "Is health insurance affordable for the uninsured?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 650-673, July.
    14. Jacob Goldin & Ithai Z Lurie & Janet McCubbin, 2021. "Health Insurance and Mortality: Experimental Evidence from Taxpayer Outreach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 136(1), pages 1-49.
    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. George Z. Gui, 2024. "Combining Observational and Experimental Data to Improve Efficiency Using Imperfect Instruments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(2), pages 378-391, March.
    2. Andre Veiga & Tommaso Valletti, 2020. "Attention, recall and purchase: Experimental evidence on online news and advertising," Working Papers 20-15, NET Institute.
    3. Mette T. Damgaard, 2020. "A decade of nudging: What have we learned?," Economics Working Papers 2020-07, Department of Economics and Business Economics, Aarhus University.
    4. Damgaard, Mette Trier & Nielsen, Helena Skyt, 2018. "Nudging in education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 313-342.
    5. B Kelsey Jack, "undated". "Market Inefficiencies and the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries," CID Working Papers 50, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    6. 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.
    7. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    8. Christa N. Gibbs & Benedict Guttman-Kenney & Donghoon Lee & Scott Nelson & Wilbert Van der Klaauw & Jialan Wang, 2024. "Consumer Credit Reporting Data," Staff Reports 1114, Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
    9. Shawn Cole & Xavier Gine & Jeremy Tobacman & Petia Topalova & Robert Townsend & James Vickery, 2013. "Barriers to Household Risk Management: Evidence from India," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 104-135, January.
    10. Dean Karlan & Adam Osman & Nour Shammout, 2021. "Increasing Financial Inclusion in the Muslim World: Evidence from an Islamic Finance Marketing Experiment," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 35(2), pages 376-397.
    11. Seth Garz & Xavier Gine & Dean Karlan & Rafe Mazer & Caitlin Sanford & Jonathan Zinman, 2021. "Consumer Protection for Financial Inclusion in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Bridging Regulator and Academic Perspectives," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 13(1), pages 219-246, November.
    12. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    13. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List, 2016. "Field Experiments in Markets," Artefactual Field Experiments j0002, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Sule, Alan & Cemalcilar, Mehmet & Karlan, Dean S. & Zinman, Jonathan, 2015. "Unshrouding Effects on Demand for a Costly Add-on: Evidence from Bank Overdrafts in Turkey," Center Discussion Papers 198558, Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
    15. Zohal Hessami, 2016. "How Do Voters React to Complex Choices in a Direct Democracy? Evidence from Switzerland," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(2), pages 263-293, May.
    16. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    17. Robin Burgess & Michael Greenstone & Nicholas Ryan & Anant Sudarshan, 2020. "Demand for Electricity on the Global Electrification Frontier," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2222, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    18. Johan Almenberg & Artashes Karapetyan, 2009. "Mental accounting in the housing market," IEW - Working Papers 453, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    19. María Paz Espinosa & Javier Gardeazabal, 2013. "Do Students Behave Rationally in Multiple Choice Tests? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 9(2), pages 107-135, July.
    20. Garber, Gabriel & Mian, Atif & Ponticelli, Jacopo & Sufi, Amir, 2024. "Consumption smoothing or consumption binging? The effects of government-led consumer credit expansion in Brazil," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).

    More about this item

    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:wly:empleg:v:19:y:2022:i:4:p:804-843. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    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.