IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_9225.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vaccination Lottery

Author

Listed:
  • Duk Gyoo Kim

Abstract

Ohio announced a Vax-a-Million Lottery in May 2021 to encourage people vaccinated. If people may avoid vaccination because (1) they worry about rare but critical side effects or (2) they want to free ride on herd immunity, the vaccination lottery may work better or worse than a lump-sum transfer to the contributors for herd immunity. I experimentally compare the effectiveness of the vaccination lottery over a lump-sum transfer. Overall, vaccination lottery works better, and it particularly incentivizes probability-weighting subjects.

Suggested Citation

  • Duk Gyoo Kim, 2021. "Vaccination Lottery," CESifo Working Paper Series 9225, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_9225
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp9225.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Palfrey, Thomas R. & Rosenthal, Howard, 1984. "Participation and the provision of discrete public goods: a strategic analysis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 171-193, July.
    2. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    3. Marc Oliver Rieger & Mei Wang & Thorsten Hens, 2017. "Estimating cumulative prospect theory parameters from an international survey," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 82(4), pages 567-596, April.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    5. Daniel Zizzo, 2010. "Experimenter demand effects in economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(1), pages 75-98, March.
    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. Bernard, Kévin & Bonein, Aurélie & Bougherara, Douadia, 2020. "Consumer inequality aversion and risk preferences in community supported agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Gary Bolton & Eugen Dimant & Ulrich Schmidt, 2018. "When a Nudge Backfires. Using Observation with Social and Economic Incentives to Promote Pro-Social Behavior," PPE Working Papers 0017, Philosophy, Politics and Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Ghossoub, Mario & Zhu, Michael B., 2024. "Stackelberg equilibria with multiple policyholders," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 189-201.
    4. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael & Ruiz-Martos, Maria J., 2020. "Preferences for efficiency, rather than preferences for morality, drive cooperation in the one-shot Stag-Hunt game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 86(C).
    5. Felix Reichenbach & Martin Walther, 2023. "Financial recommendations on Reddit, stock returns and cumulative prospect theory," Digital Finance, Springer, vol. 5(2), pages 421-448, June.
    6. Grewenig, Elisabeth & Lergetporer, Philipp & Werner, Katharina & Woessmann, Ludger, 2022. "Incentives, search engines, and the elicitation of subjective beliefs: Evidence from representative online survey experiments," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 304-326.
    7. Chan, Nathan W. & Wolk, Leonard, 2020. "Cost-effective giving with multiple public goods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 130-145.
    8. Dian Yu & Jianjun Gao & Weiping Wu & Zizhuo Wang, 2022. "Price Interpretability of Prediction Markets: A Convergence Analysis," Papers 2205.08913, arXiv.org, revised Nov 2023.
    9. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    10. Lucks, Konstantin E. & Lührmann, Melanie & Winter, Joachim, 2020. "Assortative matching and social interaction: A field experiment on adolescents’ risky choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 313-340.
    11. Alexander L. Brown & Taisuke Imai & Ferdinand M. Vieider & Colin F. Camerer, 2024. "Meta-analysis of Empirical Estimates of Loss Aversion," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(2), pages 485-516, June.
    12. Shi, Hai-Liu & Chen, Sheng-Qun & Chen, Lei & Wang, Ying-Ming, 2021. "A neutral cross-efficiency evaluation method based on interval reference points in consideration of bounded rational behavior," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(3), pages 1098-1110.
    13. Maurizio Canavari & Andreas C. Drichoutis & Jayson L. Lusk & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr., 2018. "How to run an experimental auction: A review of recent advances," Working Papers 2018-5, Agricultural University of Athens, Department Of Agricultural Economics.
    14. Duk Gyoo Kim & Daehong Min & John Wooders, 2022. "Viable Nash Equilibria: An Experiment," CESifo Working Paper Series 9913, CESifo.
    15. Pablo Brañas-Garza & Diego Jorrat & Antonio M. Espín & Angel Sánchez, 2023. "Paid and hypothetical time preferences are the same: lab, field and online evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(2), pages 412-434, April.
    16. Matthew D. Rablen, 2023. "Loss Aversion, Risk Aversion, and the Shape of the Probability Weighting Function," Working Papers 2023013, The University of Sheffield, Department of Economics.
    17. Stefan T. Trautmann & Gijs Kuilen, 2015. "Belief Elicitation: A Horse Race among Truth Serums," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(589), pages 2116-2135, December.
    18. Rablen, Matthew D., 2019. "Foundations of the Rank-Dependent Probability Weighting Function," IZA Discussion Papers 12701, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Anuradha M. Annaswamy & Vineet Jagadeesan Nair, 2022. "Human Behavioral Models Using Utility Theory and Prospect Theory," Papers 2210.07322, arXiv.org.
    20. Ryota Nakamura & Marc Suhrcke & Daniel John Zizzo, 2017. "A triple test for behavioral economics models and public health policy," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(4), pages 513-533, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    vaccination incentives; lottery; Covid-19; laboratory experiments;
    All these keywords.

    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:ces:ceswps:_9225. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.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.