IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/32899.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Incentives to Vaccinate

Author

Listed:
  • Pol Campos-Mercade
  • Armando N. Meier
  • Stephan Meier
  • Devin G. Pope
  • Florian H. Schneider
  • Erik Wengström

Abstract

Whether monetary incentives to change behavior work and how they should be structured are fundamental economic questions. We overcome typical data limitations in a large-scale field experiment on vaccination (N = 5,324) with a unique combination of administrative and survey data. We find that guaranteed incentives of $20 increase uptake by 13 percentage points in the short run and 9 in the long run. Guaranteed incentives are more effective than lottery-based, prosocial, or individually-targeted incentives, though all boost vaccinations. There are no unintended consequences on future vaccination or heterogeneities based on vaccination attitudes and incentivized economic preferences. Further, administrative data on relatives shows substantial positive spillovers. Our findings demonstrate the great potential of incentives for improving public health and provide guidance on their design.

Suggested Citation

  • Pol Campos-Mercade & Armando N. Meier & Stephan Meier & Devin G. Pope & Florian H. Schneider & Erik Wengström, 2024. "Incentives to Vaccinate," NBER Working Papers 32899, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:32899
    Note: CH EH LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w32899.pdf
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text is generally limited to series subscribers, however if the top level domain of the client browser is in a developing country or transition economy free access is provided. More information about subscriptions and free access is available at http://www.nber.org/wwphelp.html. Free access is also available to older working papers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Oriana Bandiera & Iwan Barankay & Imran Rasul, 2005. "Social Preferences and the Response to Incentives: Evidence from Personnel Data," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 120(3), pages 917-962.
    2. Susan Athey & Raj Chetty & Guido W. Imbens & Hyunseung Kang, 2019. "The Surrogate Index: Combining Short-Term Proxies to Estimate Long-Term Treatment Effects More Rapidly and Precisely," NBER Working Papers 26463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna & Elizabeth Linos, 2022. "RCTs to Scale: Comprehensive Evidence From Two Nudge Units," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 81-116, January.
    4. Raymond M Duch & Adrian Barnett & Maciej Filipek & Javier Espinosa-Brito & Laurence S J Roope & Mara Violato & Philip M Clarke, 2023. "Cash versus lottery video messages: online COVID-19 vaccine incentives experiment," Oxford Open Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2, pages 9-8.
    5. Tobias Cagala & Ulrich Glogowsky & Johannes Rincke & Anthony Strittmatter, 2021. "Optimal Targeting in Fundraising: A Causal Machine-Learning Approach," Papers 2103.10251, arXiv.org, revised Sep 2021.
    6. Harsha Thirumurthy & Katherine L Milkman & Kevin G Volpp & Alison M Buttenheim & Devin G Pope, 2022. "Association between statewide financial incentive programs and COVID-19 vaccination rates," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-7, March.
    7. Kai Ruggeri & Friederike Stock & S. Alexander Haslam & Valerio Capraro & Paulo Boggio & Naomi Ellemers & Aleksandra Cichocka & Karen M. Douglas & David G. Rand & Sander Linden & Mina Cikara & Eli J. F, 2024. "A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19," Nature, Nature, vol. 625(7993), pages 134-147, January.
    8. Bronchetti, Erin Todd & Huffman, David B. & Magenheim, Ellen, 2015. "Attention, intentions, and follow-through in preventive health behavior: Field experimental evidence on flu vaccination," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 270-291.
    9. Katherine L. Milkman & Linnea Gandhi & Sean F. Ellis & Heather N. Graci & Dena M. Gromet & Rayyan S. Mobarak & Alison M. Buttenheim & Angela L. Duckworth & Devin Pope & Ala Stanford & Richard Thaler &, 2022. "A citywide experiment testing the impact of geographically targeted, high-pay-off vaccine lotteries," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 6(11), pages 1515-1524, November.
    10. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John A. List & Dana L. Suskind, 2017. "What Can We Learn from Experiments? Understanding the Threats to the Scalability of Experimental Results," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 282-286, May.
    11. Damon Jones & David Molitor & Julian Reif, 2024. "Incentives and Habit Formation in Health Screenings: Evidence from the Illinois Workplace Wellness Study," NBER Working Papers 32745, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Pol Campos-Mercade & Armando N. Meier & Stephan Meier & Devin Pope & Florian H. Schneider & Erik Wengstroem, 2025. "Incentives to Vaccinate," CEBI working paper series 24-15, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. The Center for Economic Behavior and Inequality (CEBI).
    2. Andor, Mark A. & Gerster, Andreas & Peters, Jörg & Schmidt, Christoph M., 2020. "Social Norms and Energy Conservation Beyond the US," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 103(C).
    3. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    4. Löschel, Andreas & Rodemeier, Matthias & Werthschulte, Madeline, 2020. "When nudges fail to scale: Field experimental evidence from goal setting on mobile phones," CAWM Discussion Papers 118, University of Münster, Münster Center for Economic Policy (MEP).
    5. Toma, Mattie & Bell, Elizabeth, 2024. "Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    6. Gallegos, Sebastian & Roseth, Benjamin & Cuesta, Ana & Sánchez, Mario, 2023. "Increasing the take-up of public health services: An at-scale experiment on digital government," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    7. John A. List & Ragan Petrie & Anya Samek, 2023. "How Experiments with Children Inform Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 61(2), pages 504-564, June.
    8. Löschel, Andreas & Rodemeier, Matthias & Werthschulte, Madeline, 2023. "Can self-set goals encourage resource conservation? Field experimental evidence from a smartphone app," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 160(C).
    9. Meier, Johanna & Andor, Mark A. & Doebbe, Friederike C. & Haddaway, Neal R. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Review: Do green defaults reduce meat consumption?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    10. Silvia Saccardo & Hengchen Dai & Maria A. Han & Sitaram Vangala & Juyea Hoo & Jeffrey Fujimoto, 2024. "Field testing the transferability of behavioural science knowledge on promoting vaccinations," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 8(5), pages 878-890, May.
    11. Blanco, M. & Dalton, P.S. & Vargas, J.F., 2013. "Does the Unemployement Benefit Institution Affect the Productivity of Workers? Evidence from a Field Experiment," Other publications TiSEM ba37e033-06ab-4fc3-b56e-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Bonesrønning, Hans & Finseraas, Henning & Hardoy, Ines & Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Nyhus, Ole Henning & Opheim, Vibeke & Salvanes, Kari Vea & Sandsør, Astrid Marie Jorde & Schøne, Pål, 2022. "Small-group instruction to improve student performance in mathematics in early grades: Results from a randomized field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    13. Lechthaler, Wolfgang & Ring, Patrick, 2021. "Labor force participation, job search effort and unemployment insurance in the laboratory," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 748-778.
    14. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    15. Carattini, Stefano & Gillingham, Kenneth & Meng, Xiangyu & Yoeli, Erez, 2024. "Peer-to-peer solar and social rewards: Evidence from a field experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 219(C), pages 340-370.
    16. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    17. Johannes Abeler & Felix Marklein, 2017. "Fungibility, Labels, and Consumption," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 15(1), pages 99-127.
    18. Ambrus, Attila & Pathak, Parag A., 2011. "Cooperation over finite horizons: A theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 500-512.
    19. Englmaier, Florian & Grimm, Stefan & Schindler, David & Schudy, Simeon, 2018. "The Effect of Incentives in Non-Routine Analytical Team Tasks – Evidence from a Field Experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168286, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Omar Al-Ubaydli & John List & Claire Mackevicius & Min Sok Lee & Dana Suskind, 2019. "How Can Experiments Play a Greater Role in Public Policy? 12 Proposals from an Economic Model of Scaling," Artefactual Field Experiments 00679, The Field Experiments Website.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • D01 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Behavior: Underlying Principles
    • D62 - Microeconomics - - Welfare Economics - - - Externalities
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    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:nbr:nberwo:32899. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.