Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination.

IF 10.5 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Perspectives on Psychological Science Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-12-04 DOI:10.1177/17456916231178708
Bita Fayaz-Farkhad, Haesung Jung
{"title":"Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination.","authors":"Bita Fayaz-Farkhad, Haesung Jung","doi":"10.1177/17456916231178708","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":19757,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","volume":" ","pages":"660-674"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11295420/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives on Psychological Science","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231178708","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.

COVID-19疫苗接种政策会适得其反吗?授权、接种护照和财政激励措施对COVID-19疫苗接种的影响。
面对激励人们接种疫苗的挑战,许多国家采取了政策层面的干预措施,鼓励接种COVID-19疫苗。例如,普遍强制要求个人在工作和上学时接种疫苗,接种护照要求个人在旅行和进入公共场所和活动时出示疫苗接种证明。此外,一些国家还开始为接种疫苗提供财政奖励。对这些政策的一个主要批评是,它们可能会产生抗药性,从而破坏自愿接种疫苗。因此,本文回顾了相关的经验证据,以检验是否确实如此。具体而言,我们将用单独的章节来审查和讨论在COVID-19大流行期间实施的三项主要政策的影响:疫苗接种任务、疫苗接种护照和提供财政激励。对证据的仔细分析几乎没有证据表明这些政策适得其反,而是可以在人口层面有效地促进疫苗接种。然而,这些政策并非没有局限性,例如它们无法动员那些对疫苗持强烈犹豫态度的人。最后,我们讨论了应该如何设计和实施政策层面的干预措施,以应对未来的流行病和流行病。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Perspectives on Psychological Science PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
22.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
111
期刊介绍: Perspectives on Psychological Science is a journal that publishes a diverse range of articles and reports in the field of psychology. The journal includes broad integrative reviews, overviews of research programs, meta-analyses, theoretical statements, book reviews, and articles on various topics such as the philosophy of science and opinion pieces about major issues in the field. It also features autobiographical reflections of senior members of the field, occasional humorous essays and sketches, and even has a section for invited and submitted articles. The impact of the journal can be seen through the reverberation of a 2009 article on correlative analyses commonly used in neuroimaging studies, which still influences the field. Additionally, a recent special issue of Perspectives, featuring prominent researchers discussing the "Next Big Questions in Psychology," is shaping the future trajectory of the discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science provides metrics that showcase the performance of the journal. However, the Association for Psychological Science, of which the journal is a signatory of DORA, recommends against using journal-based metrics for assessing individual scientist contributions, such as for hiring, promotion, or funding decisions. Therefore, the metrics provided by Perspectives on Psychological Science should only be used by those interested in evaluating the journal itself.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信