将疫苗接种作为个人公益服务。

Jonathan Lucas Reddinger, Gary Charness, David Levine
{"title":"将疫苗接种作为个人公益服务。","authors":"Jonathan Lucas Reddinger, Gary Charness, David Levine","doi":"10.1101/2022.04.21.22274110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Vaccination against infectious diseases has both private and public benefits. We study whether social preferences-concerns for the well-being of other people-are associated with one's decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects with a public-good game and an altruism game. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in the public-good game is analogous to an individual's decision to obtain vaccination, while our altruism game provides a different measure of altruism, equity, and efficiency concerns. We proxy vaccine demand with how quickly a representative individual voluntarily took the initial vaccination for COVID-19 (after the vaccine was widely available). We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately from the games to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-good game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 58% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). In short, people who are more pro-social are more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination. Behavior in our altruism game does not predict vaccination. We recommend further research on the use of pro-social preferences to help motivate individuals to vaccinate for other transmissible diseases, such as the flu and HPV.</p>","PeriodicalId":18659,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9347278/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Vaccination as personal public good provision.\",\"authors\":\"Jonathan Lucas Reddinger, Gary Charness, David Levine\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2022.04.21.22274110\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Vaccination against infectious diseases has both private and public benefits. We study whether social preferences-concerns for the well-being of other people-are associated with one's decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects with a public-good game and an altruism game. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in the public-good game is analogous to an individual's decision to obtain vaccination, while our altruism game provides a different measure of altruism, equity, and efficiency concerns. We proxy vaccine demand with how quickly a representative individual voluntarily took the initial vaccination for COVID-19 (after the vaccine was widely available). We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately from the games to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-good game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 58% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). In short, people who are more pro-social are more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination. Behavior in our altruism game does not predict vaccination. We recommend further research on the use of pro-social preferences to help motivate individuals to vaccinate for other transmissible diseases, such as the flu and HPV.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18659,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9347278/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.21.22274110\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.21.22274110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

接种疫苗预防传染病对个人和公众都有好处。我们研究了社会偏好--对他人福祉的关注--是否与个人的疫苗接种决定相关。我们通过公益游戏和利他主义游戏来衡量 549 名在线受试者的社会偏好。如果一个人接种疫苗是出于对他人健康的关心,那么在公益游戏中的贡献就类似于个人接种疫苗的决定,而我们的利他主义游戏则提供了利他主义、公平和效率关注的不同衡量标准。我们用具有代表性的个人自愿接种 COVID-19 初次疫苗的速度(疫苗普及后)来代表疫苗需求。我们将 COVID-19 疫苗接种历史与游戏分开收集,以避免实验者需求效应。我们发现了一个强有力的结果:公益游戏中的贡献与自愿接种第一剂疫苗的更大需求相关,因此也与更早接种疫苗相关。在我们研究的四个月期间(2021 年 4 月至 8 月),与不做任何贡献的受试者相比,做出最大贡献(4 美元)的受试者自愿接种第一剂疫苗的可能性要高出 58%。简而言之,更亲社会的人更有可能自愿接种 COVID-19 疫苗。利他主义游戏中的行为并不能预测疫苗接种情况。我们建议进一步研究如何利用亲社会偏好来帮助激励个人接种流感和人乳头瘤病毒等其他传染性疾病的疫苗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Vaccination as personal public good provision.

Vaccination against infectious diseases has both private and public benefits. We study whether social preferences-concerns for the well-being of other people-are associated with one's decision regarding vaccination. We measure these social preferences for 549 online subjects with a public-good game and an altruism game. To the extent that one gets vaccinated out of concern for the health of others, contribution in the public-good game is analogous to an individual's decision to obtain vaccination, while our altruism game provides a different measure of altruism, equity, and efficiency concerns. We proxy vaccine demand with how quickly a representative individual voluntarily took the initial vaccination for COVID-19 (after the vaccine was widely available). We collect COVID-19 vaccination history separately from the games to avoid experimenter-demand effects. We find a strong result: Contribution in the public-good game is associated with greater demand to voluntarily receive a first dose, and thus also to vaccinate earlier. Compared to a subject who contributes nothing, one who contributes the maximum ($4) is 58% more likely to obtain a first dose voluntarily in the four-month period that we study (April through August 2021). In short, people who are more pro-social are more likely to take a voluntary COVID-19 vaccination. Behavior in our altruism game does not predict vaccination. We recommend further research on the use of pro-social preferences to help motivate individuals to vaccinate for other transmissible diseases, such as the flu and HPV.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
After the Infection: A Survey of Pathogens and Non-communicable Human Disease. The Extra-Islet Pancreas Supports Autoimmunity in Human Type 1 Diabetes. Keyphrase Identification Using Minimal Labeled Data with Hierarchical Contexts and Transfer Learning. Advancing Efficacy Prediction for EHR-based Emulated Trials in Repurposing Heart Failure Therapies. Novel autoantibody targets identified in patients with autoimmune hepatitis (AIH) by PhIP-Seq reveals pathogenic insights.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1