越多越好?关于诱饵如何提高疫苗吸收率的两项在线实验。

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
Lars Korn, Robert Böhm, Ana Paula Santana, Cornelia Betsch
{"title":"越多越好?关于诱饵如何提高疫苗吸收率的两项在线实验。","authors":"Lars Korn, Robert Böhm, Ana Paula Santana, Cornelia Betsch","doi":"10.1037/hea0001378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals in some countries had the option to choose from different vaccines, some of which were perceived as less favorable than others. Research on the decoy effect suggests that the preference for an option (target) increases when an inferior option (decoy) is added to the choice set. However, it is unknown whether the decoy effect occurs in vaccination decision making.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two preregistered online experiments were conducted-a vignette experiment assessing hypothetical vaccination intentions (<i>N</i> = 1,268) and a behavioral experiment using an incentivized interactive vaccination game (<i>N</i> = 1,216)-and manipulated whether people were offered one vaccine (target) or two vaccines (target + decoy). Experiment 2 further tested four different types of decoys: the decoy was (a) a clone of the target or was inferior to the target in terms of (b) the probability of vaccine adverse events, (c) the severity of vaccine adverse events, or (d) vaccine effectiveness. The preference for the target vaccine (vs. nonvaccination) and the overall vaccine uptake were the main outcome variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both experiments showed substantial decoy effects. In Experiment 2, decoys with more severe vaccine adverse events or reduced effectiveness increased the preference for the target vaccine and the overall vaccine uptake.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Taken together, the results suggest that health communication programs must be designed carefully, as multiple options serve as evaluative anchors and might induce preference shifts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The more the merrier? Two online experiments on how decoys can increase vaccine uptake.\",\"authors\":\"Lars Korn, Robert Böhm, Ana Paula Santana, Cornelia Betsch\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/hea0001378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals in some countries had the option to choose from different vaccines, some of which were perceived as less favorable than others. Research on the decoy effect suggests that the preference for an option (target) increases when an inferior option (decoy) is added to the choice set. However, it is unknown whether the decoy effect occurs in vaccination decision making.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Two preregistered online experiments were conducted-a vignette experiment assessing hypothetical vaccination intentions (<i>N</i> = 1,268) and a behavioral experiment using an incentivized interactive vaccination game (<i>N</i> = 1,216)-and manipulated whether people were offered one vaccine (target) or two vaccines (target + decoy). Experiment 2 further tested four different types of decoys: the decoy was (a) a clone of the target or was inferior to the target in terms of (b) the probability of vaccine adverse events, (c) the severity of vaccine adverse events, or (d) vaccine effectiveness. The preference for the target vaccine (vs. nonvaccination) and the overall vaccine uptake were the main outcome variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both experiments showed substantial decoy effects. In Experiment 2, decoys with more severe vaccine adverse events or reduced effectiveness increased the preference for the target vaccine and the overall vaccine uptake.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Taken together, the results suggest that health communication programs must be designed carefully, as multiple options serve as evaluative anchors and might induce preference shifts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":3,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Electronic Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001378\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"材料科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001378","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:在 COVID-19 大流行期间,一些国家的个人可以选择不同的疫苗,其中一些疫苗被认为不如其他疫苗有利。有关诱饵效应的研究表明,当一个较差的选项(诱饵)被添加到选择集合中时,人们对某一选项(目标)的偏好会增加。然而,诱饵效应是否会出现在疫苗接种决策中尚属未知:方法:进行了两项预先注册的在线实验--评估假设疫苗接种意向的小故事实验(人数=1268)和使用激励互动疫苗接种游戏的行为实验(人数=1216)--并对提供给人们的是一种疫苗(目标疫苗)还是两种疫苗(目标疫苗+诱饵疫苗)进行了操作。实验 2 进一步测试了四种不同类型的诱饵:诱饵是(a)目标疫苗的克隆,或者在(b)疫苗不良事件的概率、(c)疫苗不良事件的严重程度或(d)疫苗有效性方面不如目标疫苗。对目标疫苗的偏好(与不接种疫苗相比)和疫苗的总体接种率是主要的结果变量:结果:两项实验都显示了诱饵效应。在实验 2 中,疫苗不良事件更严重或效果更差的诱饵增加了人们对目标疫苗的偏好和疫苗的总体接种率:综上所述,研究结果表明,健康传播项目的设计必须谨慎,因为多个选项可作为评价锚,并可能诱发偏好转移。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The more the merrier? Two online experiments on how decoys can increase vaccine uptake.

Objective: During the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals in some countries had the option to choose from different vaccines, some of which were perceived as less favorable than others. Research on the decoy effect suggests that the preference for an option (target) increases when an inferior option (decoy) is added to the choice set. However, it is unknown whether the decoy effect occurs in vaccination decision making.

Method: Two preregistered online experiments were conducted-a vignette experiment assessing hypothetical vaccination intentions (N = 1,268) and a behavioral experiment using an incentivized interactive vaccination game (N = 1,216)-and manipulated whether people were offered one vaccine (target) or two vaccines (target + decoy). Experiment 2 further tested four different types of decoys: the decoy was (a) a clone of the target or was inferior to the target in terms of (b) the probability of vaccine adverse events, (c) the severity of vaccine adverse events, or (d) vaccine effectiveness. The preference for the target vaccine (vs. nonvaccination) and the overall vaccine uptake were the main outcome variables.

Results: Both experiments showed substantial decoy effects. In Experiment 2, decoys with more severe vaccine adverse events or reduced effectiveness increased the preference for the target vaccine and the overall vaccine uptake.

Conclusion: Taken together, the results suggest that health communication programs must be designed carefully, as multiple options serve as evaluative anchors and might induce preference shifts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
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