IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/esr/wpaper/wp658.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Lunn, pete
  • Timmons, Shane
  • Belton, Cameron
  • Barjaková, Martina
  • Julienne, Hannah
  • Lavin, Ciarán

Abstract

Maintaining social distance during the COVID-19 pandemic can save lives. We therefore set out to test communication strategies to promote social distancing.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Lunn, pete & Timmons, Shane & Belton, Cameron & Barjaková, Martina & Julienne, Hannah & Lavin, Ciarán, 2020. "Motivating social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: An online experiment," Papers WP658, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:esr:wpaper:wp658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.esri.ie/pubs/WP658.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Jenni, Karen E & Loewenstein, George, 1997. "Explaining the "Identifiable Victim Effect."," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 235-257, May-June.
    3. Michael Greenstone & Vishan Nigam, 2020. "Does Social Distancing Matter?," Working Papers 2020-26, Becker Friedman Institute for Research In Economics.
    4. Small, Deborah A & Loewenstein, George, 2003. "Helping a Victim or Helping the Victim: Altruism and Identifiability," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 5-16, January.
    5. Peter D. Lunn & Cameron A. Belton & Ciarán Lavin & Féidhlim P. McGowan & Shane Timmons & Deirdre A. Robertson, 2020. "Using behavioral science to help fight the Coronavirus," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    6. Sobol, Małgorzata & Blachnio, Agata & Przepiórka, Aneta, 2020. "Time of pandemic: Temporal perspectives related to compliance with public health regulations concerning the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 265(C).
    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. Ben Greiner & Werner Güth & Ro’i Zultan, 2012. "Social communication and discrimination: a video experiment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 15(3), pages 398-417, September.
    2. Heizler, Odelia & Israeli, Osnat, 2021. "The identifiable victim effect and public opinion toward immigration; a natural experiment study," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    3. Shuguang Jiang & Qian Wei & Luyao Zhang, 2022. "Individualism Versus Collectivism and the Early-Stage Transmission of COVID-19," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 164(2), pages 791-821, November.
    4. Erlandsson, Arvid & Västfjäll, Daniel & Sundfelt, Oskar & Slovic, Paul, 2016. "Argument-inconsistency in charity appeals: Statistical information about the scope of the problem decrease helping toward a single identified victim but not helping toward many non-identified victims ," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 126-140.
    5. Kogut, Tehila & Ritov, Ilana, 2005. "The singularity effect of identified victims in separate and joint evaluations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(2), pages 106-116, July.
    6. Zultan, Ro’i, 2012. "Strategic and social pre-play communication in the ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 425-434.
    7. Pitesa, Marko & Thau, Stefan & Pillutla, Madan M., 2013. "Cognitive control and socially desirable behavior: The role of interpersonal impact," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 122(2), pages 232-243.
    8. Aknin, Lara B. & Dunn, Elizabeth W. & Whillans, Ashley V. & Grant, Adam M. & Norton, Michael I., 2013. "Making a difference matters: Impact unlocks the emotional benefits of prosocial spending," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 90-95.
    9. Arvid Erlandsson & Fredrik Björklund & Martin Bäckström, 2017. "Choice-justifications after allocating resources in helping dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(1), pages 60-80, January.
    10. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.
    11. Butts, Marcus M. & Lunt, Devin C. & Freling, Traci L. & Gabriel, Allison S., 2019. "Helping one or helping many? A theoretical integration and meta-analytic review of the compassion fade literature," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 16-33.
    12. Cryder, Cynthia E. & Loewenstein, George & Scheines, Richard, 2013. "The donor is in the details," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 15-23.
    13. Small, Deborah A. & Loewenstein, George & Slovic, Paul, 2007. "Sympathy and callousness: The impact of deliberative thought on donations to identifiable and statistical victims," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 143-153, March.
    14. Marie Juanchich & Miroslav Sirota & Jean-François Bonnefon, 2019. "The polite wiggle-room effect in charity donation decisions," Post-Print hal-02281807, HAL.
    15. Ritov, Ilana & Kogut, Tehila, 2011. "Ally or adversary: The effect of identifiability in inter-group conflict situations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 96-103, September.
    16. Pellegrin, Claire & Grolleau, Gilles & Mzoughi, Naoufel & Napoleone, Claude, 2018. "Does the Identifiable Victim Effect Matter for Plants? Results From a Quasi-experimental Survey of French Farmers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 106-113.
    17. Shreedhar, Ganga & Mourato, Susana, 2019. "Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Biodiversity Conservation Videos on Charitable Donations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 180-193.
    18. repec:cup:judgdm:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:60-80 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Gino, Francesca & Shu, Lisa L. & Bazerman, Max H., 2010. "Nameless + harmless = blameless: When seemingly irrelevant factors influence judgment of (un)ethical behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 93-101, March.
    20. Huber, Michaela & Van Boven, Leaf & McGraw, A. Peter & Johnson-Graham, Laura, 2011. "Whom to help? Immediacy bias in judgments and decisions about humanitarian aid," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(2), pages 283-293, July.
    21. Robert Johns & Graeme A. M. Davies, 2019. "Civilian Casualties and Public Support for Military Action: Experimental Evidence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(1), pages 251-281, January.

    More about this item

    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:esr:wpaper:wp658. 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: Sarah Burns (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esriiie.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.