IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iuj/wpaper/ems_2022_04.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

To protect myself, others, or both? An investigation of preferences and the uptake of COVID-19 preventative measures in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Chun Yee Wong

    (IUJ Research Institute, International University of Japan)

  • Le Zhang

    (Macquarie University)

Abstract

Wearing face masks is an important COVID-19 precautionary measure and many governments have mandated wearing face masks in public areas. However, the mandatory policy is hardly sustainable in the long run and has been criticised for reducing autonomy. It is essential to understand the underlying preference for wearing face masks as that can help encourage the use of face masks without government intervention. This study investigates how the uptake of wearing face masks as a COVID-19 precautionary behaviour is determined by self-interest and other-regarding preferences. The results reveal that if people perceive wearing face masks as an act of protecting both themselves and others, the probability of consistent face mask use increases by 46%. However, if people perceive wearing face masks as only protecting themselves, they do not want to wear face masks unless the surrounding people wear them too. These findings provide insights into future government non-mandatory use policies. They suggest that to encourage face mask use, policymakers should consider publicising not only the protection face masks provide for wearers, but also their ability to protect other people.

Suggested Citation

  • Chun Yee Wong & Le Zhang, 2022. "To protect myself, others, or both? An investigation of preferences and the uptake of COVID-19 preventative measures in Australia," Working Papers EMS_2022_04, Research Institute, International University of Japan.
    • Handle: RePEc:iuj:wpaper:ems_2022_04
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.iuj.ac.jp/workingpapers/index.cfm?File=EMS_2022_04.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2022
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John A. List, 2007. "On the Interpretation of Giving in Dictator Games," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(3), pages 482-493.
    2. Casoria, Fortuna & Galeotti, Fabio & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2021. "Perceived social norm and behavior quickly adjusted to legal changes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 190(C), pages 54-65.
    3. Martin Jones & Robert Sugden, 2001. "Positive confirmation bias in the acquisition of information," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 50(1), pages 59-99, February.
    4. Fortuna Casoria & Fabio Galeotti & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Perceived social norm and behavior quickly adjusted to legal changes during the COVID-19 pandemic," Post-Print hal-03514374, HAL.
    5. Briscese, Guglielmo & Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario & Tonin, Mirco, 2020. "Compliance with COVID-19 Social-Distancing Measures in Italy: The Role of Expectations and Duration," IZA Discussion Papers 13092, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Colin Camerer, 2003. "Behavioural studies of strategic thinking," Levine's Bibliography 506439000000000490, UCLA Department of Economics.
    7. Müller, Stephan & Rau, Holger A., 2021. "Economic preferences and compliance in the social stress test of the COVID-19 crisis," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    8. Thunström, Linda & Newbold, Stephen C. & Finnoff, David & Ashworth, Madison & Shogren, Jason F., 2020. "The Benefits and Costs of Using Social Distancing to Flatten the Curve for COVID-19," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 179-195, July.
    9. James Andreoni & John Miller, 2002. "Giving According to GARP: An Experimental Test of the Consistency of Preferences for Altruism," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 70(2), pages 737-753, 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. Deiana, Claudio & Geraci, Andrea & Mazzarella, Gianluca & Sabatini, Fabio, 2022. "Can relief measures nudge compliance in a public health crisis? Evidence from a kinked fiscal policy rule," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 407-428.
    2. Fang, Ximeng & Freyer, Timo & Ho, Chui-Yee & Chen, Zihua & Goette, Lorenz, 2022. "Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    4. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.
    5. James C. Cox & Vjollca Sadiraj, 2018. "Incentives," Experimental Economics Center Working Paper Series 2018-01, Experimental Economics Center, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies, Georgia State University.
    6. Korenok, Oleg & Millner, Edward L. & Razzolini, Laura, 2013. "Impure altruism in dictators' giving," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 1-8.
    7. Pamela Jakiela & Edward Miguel & Vera Velde, 2015. "You’ve earned it: estimating the impact of human capital on social preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(3), pages 385-407, September.
    8. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Robbett, Andrea, 2024. "Measuring socially appropriate social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 517-532.
    9. Breitmoser, Yves, 2016. "Stochastic choice, systematic mistakes and preference estimation," MPRA Paper 72779, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    11. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    12. Zizzo, Daniel John, 2013. "Claims and confounds in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 186-195.
    13. Ernan E. Haruvy & Christos A. Ioannou & Farnoush Golshirazi, 2018. "The Religious Observance Of Ramadan And Prosocial Behavior," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 226-237, January.
    14. van Soest, Daan & Stoop, Jan & Vyrastekova, Jana, 2016. "Toward a delineation of the circumstances in which cooperation can be sustained in environmental and resource problems," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 1-13.
    15. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    16. Matteo M. Galizzi & Daniel Navarro-Martinez, 2019. "On the External Validity of Social Preference Games: A Systematic Lab-Field Study," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 976-1002, March.
    17. Dittrich, Dennis A.V. & Büchner, Susanne & Kulesz, Micaela M., 2015. "Dynamic repeated random dictatorship and gender discrimination," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 81-90.
    18. Müller, Daniel, 2019. "The anatomy of distributional preferences with group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 785-807.
    19. Dorian Jullien, 2018. "Under Risk, Over Time, Regarding Other People: Language and Rationality Within Three Dimensions [Face au risque, dans le temps, par rapport aux autres : langage et rationalité dans trois dimensions," Post-Print halshs-01651042, HAL.
    20. Boschini, Anne & Muren, Astri & Persson, Mats, 2012. "Constructing gender differences in the economics lab," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 741-752.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; face mask; precautionary behaviour; protection perception;
    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:iuj:wpaper:ems_2022_04. 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: Kazumi Imai, Office of Academic Affairs (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsiujjp.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.