Paying Americans to take the vaccine-would it help or backfire?

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-09-06 eCollection Date: 2021-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab027
Christopher Robertson, Daniel Scheitrum, Aleks Schaefer, Trey Malone, Brandon R McFadden, Kent D Messer, Paul J Ferraro
{"title":"Paying Americans to take the vaccine-would it help or backfire?","authors":"Christopher Robertson,&nbsp;Daniel Scheitrum,&nbsp;Aleks Schaefer,&nbsp;Trey Malone,&nbsp;Brandon R McFadden,&nbsp;Kent D Messer,&nbsp;Paul J Ferraro","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research investigates the extent to which financial incentives (conditional cash transfers) would induce Americans to opt for vaccination against coronavirus disease of 2019. We performed a randomized survey experiment with a representative sample of 1000 American adults in December 2020. Respondents were asked whether they would opt for vaccination under one of three incentive conditions ($1000, $1500, or $2000 financial incentive) or a no-incentive condition. We find that-without coupled financial incentives-only 58 per cent of survey respondents would elect for vaccination. A coupled financial incentive yields an 8-percentage-point increase in vaccine uptake relative to this baseline. The size of the cash transfer does not dramatically affect uptake rates. However, incentive responses differ dramatically by demographic group. Republicans were less responsive to financial incentives than the general population. For Black and Latino Americans especially, very large financial incentives may be counter-productive.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 2","pages":"lsab027"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/dc/lsab027.PMC8420956.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab027","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This research investigates the extent to which financial incentives (conditional cash transfers) would induce Americans to opt for vaccination against coronavirus disease of 2019. We performed a randomized survey experiment with a representative sample of 1000 American adults in December 2020. Respondents were asked whether they would opt for vaccination under one of three incentive conditions ($1000, $1500, or $2000 financial incentive) or a no-incentive condition. We find that-without coupled financial incentives-only 58 per cent of survey respondents would elect for vaccination. A coupled financial incentive yields an 8-percentage-point increase in vaccine uptake relative to this baseline. The size of the cash transfer does not dramatically affect uptake rates. However, incentive responses differ dramatically by demographic group. Republicans were less responsive to financial incentives than the general population. For Black and Latino Americans especially, very large financial incentives may be counter-productive.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

付钱让美国人接种疫苗——是有益还是适得其反?
这项研究调查了财政激励(有条件的现金转移支付)在多大程度上诱使美国人选择接种2019年冠状病毒疫苗。我们在2020年12月对1000名美国成年人的代表性样本进行了随机调查实验。受访者被问及他们是否会选择在三种激励条件(1000美元、1500美元或2000美元的财政激励)或无激励条件下接种疫苗。我们发现,在没有经济激励的情况下,只有58%的受访者会选择接种疫苗。与此基线相结合的财政激励可使疫苗接种率提高8个百分点。现金转移的规模不会显著影响吸收率。然而,不同人口群体的激励反应差异很大。共和党人对财政刺激的反应不如普通民众。特别是对黑人和拉丁裔美国人来说,非常大的财政激励可能会适得其反。
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
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
×
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