Media and Communication Science, University of Erfurt, 99089 Erfurt, Germany;
Center for Empirical Research in Economics and Behavioral Sciences, University of Erfurt, 99089 Erfurt, Germany.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 Jun 30;117(26):14890-14899. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1919666117. Epub 2020 Jun 15.
Most vaccines protect both the vaccinated individual and the society by reducing the transmission of infectious diseases. In order to eliminate infectious diseases, individuals need to consider social welfare beyond mere self-interest-regardless of ethnic, religious, or national group borders. It has therefore been proposed that vaccination poses a social contract in which individuals are morally obliged to get vaccinated. However, little is known about whether individuals indeed act upon this social contract. If so, vaccinated individuals should reciprocate by being more generous to a vaccinated other. On the contrary, if the other doesn't vaccinate and violates the social contract, generosity should decline. Three preregistered experiments investigated how a person's own vaccination behavior, others' vaccination behavior, and others' group membership influenced a person's generosity toward respective others. The experiments consistently showed that especially compliant (i.e., vaccinated) individuals showed less generosity toward nonvaccinated individuals. This effect was independent of the others' group membership, suggesting an unconditional moral principle. An internal metaanalysis ( = 1,032) confirmed the overall social contract effect. In a fourth experiment ( = 1,212), this pattern was especially pronounced among vaccinated individuals who perceived vaccination as a moral obligation. It is concluded that vaccination is a social contract in which cooperation is the morally right choice. Individuals act upon the social contract, and more so the stronger they perceive it as a moral obligation. Emphasizing the social contract could be a promising intervention to increase vaccine uptake, prevent free riding, and, eventually, support the elimination of infectious diseases.
大多数疫苗通过减少传染病的传播,既能保护接种个体,也能保护整个社会。为了消灭传染病,个人需要超越自身利益,考虑社会福利——无论其种族、宗教或民族群体的边界如何。因此,有人提出接种疫苗构成了一种社会契约,即个人在道德上有义务接种疫苗。然而,人们对个人是否真的遵守这一社会契约知之甚少。如果是这样,接种疫苗的个人应该通过对已接种疫苗的他人更加慷慨来回报社会。相反,如果对方未接种疫苗并违反了社会契约,则应减少慷慨程度。三个预先注册的实验研究了一个人的自身接种行为、他人的接种行为以及他人的群体归属如何影响其对各自他人的慷慨程度。这些实验一致表明,尤其是遵守规定(即已接种疫苗)的个人对未接种疫苗的个体表现出的慷慨程度较低。这种影响与他人的群体归属无关,表明这是一个无条件的道德原则。一项内部荟萃分析(n = 1,032)证实了总体社会契约效应。在第四个实验(n = 1,212)中,对于将接种疫苗视为道德义务的接种个体,这种模式更为明显。研究结论认为,接种疫苗是一种社会契约,合作是符合道德的正确选择。个人会遵守社会契约,而且他们越认为这是一种道德义务,就越会遵守。强调社会契约可能是一种有前途的干预措施,可以提高疫苗接种率、防止搭便车行为,并最终有助于消灭传染病。