IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/wp938.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Experiencing breast cancer at the workplace

Author

Listed:
  • G. Zanella
  • R. Banerjee

Abstract

We study unique data from a dynamic natural experiment involving more than 7,000 American women to understand how a woman s propensity to perform an annual mammography changes over time after a co-worker is diagnosed with breast cancer. We find that in the year this event occurs the probability that a woman performs a mammography drops by about 8 percentage points, off a base level of about 70%. This impact effect is persistent during at least the following 2 years, is driven by cases of breast cancer diagnosed at non-early stages, and by the behavior of individuals who are less knowledgeable about health issues. This negative effect is confirmed when we allow for serial correlation in screening behavior and when we estimate the effect of the treatment on the hazard of not screening, at the daily frequency. However, the effect vanishes in placebo experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • G. Zanella & R. Banerjee, 2014. "Experiencing breast cancer at the workplace," Working Papers wp938, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4011/1/WP938.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Duflo & Emmanuel Saez, 2003. "The Role of Information and Social Interactions in Retirement Plan Decisions: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 815-842.
    2. Christopher J. Ruhm, 2000. "Are Recessions Good for Your Health?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 115(2), pages 617-650.
    3. Matthew Rabin, 2002. "Inference by Believers in the Law of Small Numbers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 775-816.
    4. Bradley, Cathy J. & Neumark, David & Bednarek, Heather L. & Schenk, Maryjean, 2005. "Short-term effects of breast cancer on labor market attachment: results from a longitudinal study," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 137-160, January.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 1993. "Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 60(3), pages 531-542.
    6. Zanella, Giulio & Banerjee, Ritesh, 2016. "Experiencing breast cancer at the workplace," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 53-66.
    7. Emily Oster & Ira Shoulson & E. Ray Dorsey, 2013. "Optimal Expectations and Limited Medical Testing: Evidence from Huntington Disease," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(2), pages 804-830, April.
    8. Jens Ludwig & Jeffrey R. Kling & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2011. "Mechanism Experiments and Policy Evaluations," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 25(3), pages 17-38, Summer.
    9. Andrew Caplin & John Leahy, 2001. "Psychological Expected Utility Theory and Anticipatory Feelings," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(1), pages 55-79.
    10. Angrist, Joshua D., 2014. "The perils of peer effects," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 98-108.
    11. Caplin, Andrew & Eliaz, Kfir, 2003. "AIDS Policy and Psychology: A Mechanism-Design Approach," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(4), pages 631-646, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Matilde Giaccherini & David H. Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John A. List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael K. Price, 2019. "The Behavioralist Goes Door-To-Door: Understanding Household Technological Diffusion Using a Theory-Driven Natural Field Experiment," NBER Working Papers 26173, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Matilde Giaccherini & David Herberich & David Jimenez-Gomez & John List & Giovanni Ponti & Michael Price, 2020. "Are Economics and Psychology Complements in Household Technology Diffusion? Evidence from a Natural Field Experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00713, The Field Experiments Website.
    3. Zanella, Giulio & Banerjee, Ritesh, 2016. "Experiencing breast cancer at the workplace," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 53-66.
    4. Natallia Gray & Gabriel Picone, 2018. "Evidence of Large-Scale Social Interactions in Mammography in the United States," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 46(4), pages 441-457, December.
    5. Amanda E Kowalski, 2023. "Behaviour within a Clinical Trial and Implications for Mammography Guidelines," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 432-462.

    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. Nolan Ritter & Julia Anna Bingler, 2021. "Do homo sapiens know their prices? Insights on dysfunctional price mechanisms from a large field experiment," CER-ETH Economics working paper series 21/348, CER-ETH - Center of Economic Research (CER-ETH) at ETH Zurich.
    2. Nikolaus Schweizer & Nora Szech, 2018. "Optimal Revelation of Life-Changing Information," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(11), pages 5250-5262, November.
    3. Antonia Grohmann & Sahra Sakha, 2015. "The Effect of Peer Observation on Consumption Choices: Experimental Evidence," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1525, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    4. M. Cecilia Bustamante & Laurent Frésard, 2021. "Does Firm Investment Respond to Peers’ Investment?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(8), pages 4703-4724, August.
    5. Schwardmann, Peter, 2019. "Motivated health risk denial and preventative health care investments," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 78-92.
    6. Kuersteiner, Guido M. & Prucha, Ingmar R. & Zeng, Ying, 2023. "Efficient peer effects estimators with group effects," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 235(2), pages 2155-2194.
    7. Paul Bingley & Petter Lundborg & Stéphanie Vincent Lyk-Jensen, 2021. "Brothers in Arms: Spillovers from a Draft Lottery," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 56(1), pages 225-268.
    8. Ananda Ganguly & Joshua Tasoff, 2017. "Fantasy and Dread: The Demand for Information and the Consumption Utility of the Future," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(12), pages 4037-4060, December.
    9. Koen Jochmans, 2023. "Testing random assignment to peer groups," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(3), pages 321-333, April.
    10. Lea Eilers & Alfredo R. Paloyo & Peggy Bechara, 2022. "The effect of peer employment and neighborhood characteristics on individual employment," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 62(4), pages 1885-1908, April.
    11. Yufeng Li & Juanjuan Meng & Changcheng Song & Kai Zheng, 2021. "Information Avoidance and Medical Screening: A Field Experiment in China," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(7), pages 4252-4272, July.
    12. Schünemann, Johannes & Strulik, Holger & Trimborn, Timo, 2023. "Anticipation of deteriorating health and information avoidance," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    13. Bao, Yangming & Goetz, Martin, 2018. "Local peer effects and corporate investment," SAFE Working Paper Series 220, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    14. Grieser, William & Hadlock, Charles & LeSage, James & Zekhnini, Morad, 2022. "Network effects in corporate financial policies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 144(1), pages 247-272.
    15. Gonzalo Vazquez-Bare, 2017. "Identification and Estimation of Spillover Effects in Randomized Experiments," Papers 1711.02745, arXiv.org, revised Jan 2022.
    16. Johannes Maier & Clemens König, 2016. "A Model of Reference-Dependent Belief Updating," CESifo Working Paper Series 6156, CESifo.
    17. Peter Bergman, 2020. "Nudging Technology Use: Descriptive and Experimental Evidence from School Information Systems," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(4), pages 623-647, Fall.
    18. Ali Palali & Jan C. Van ours, 2017. "Love Conquers all but Nicotine: Spousal Peer Effects on the Decision to Quit Smoking," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1710-1727, December.
    19. Adam S. Booij & Edwin Leuven & Hessel Oosterbeek, 2017. "Ability Peer Effects in University: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 84(2), pages 547-578.
    20. Fishman, Arthur & Fishman, Ram & Gneezy, Uri, 2019. "A tale of two food stands: Observational learning in the field," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 101-108.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • C31 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Cross-Sectional Models; Spatial Models; Treatment Effect Models; Quantile Regressions; Social Interaction Models
    • D03 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Behavioral Microeconomics: Underlying Principles
    • Z10 - Other Special Topics - - Cultural Economics - - - General

    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:bol:bodewp:wp938. 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: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.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.