Taber Jennifer M, Updegraff John A, Sidney Pooja G, O'Brien Abigail G, Thompson Clarissa A
Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University.
Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky.
Health Psychol. 2023 Jan;42(1):33-45. doi: 10.1037/hea0001220. Epub 2022 Nov 21.
In May 2021, U.S. states began implementing "vaccination lotteries" encouraging COVID-19 vaccination. Drawing from Prospect Theory and math cognition research, we tested several monetary lottery structures and their framing to determine which would best motivate unvaccinated adults.
In two online experiments, U.S. adults were asked to imagine that their state implemented a vaccination lottery. In Experiment 1, participants ( = 589) were randomly assigned to 1 of 12 conditions varying the monetary amount and number of winners, holding constant a $5 million total payout. In Experiment 2, participants ( = 274) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (Message Framing: Gain versus Loss) by 2 (Numeric Framing: Big versus Small) factorial design; in all conditions, five people would each win $1 million. Participants rated their baseline vaccination willingness (1 = to 4 = ) and postmanipulation COVID-19 vaccination intentions "if their state offered this incentive" (0 = to 100 = .
Intentions did not differ across conditions (Experiment 1: [11, 561] = 1.29, = .224, η² = .03; Experiment 2: Message Framing, [1, 266)] = .01, = .940, η² = .000; Numeric Framing, [1, 266] = 1.40, = .237, η² = .01; Interaction, [1, 266] = 1.40, = .238, η² = .01). When participants were shown a list of 12 lottery structures and asked which they preferred, participants on average preferred options that awarded less money to more people. However, 41.9% of participants across both experiments indicated they would not vaccinate for any lottery-based monetary incentive.
Multiple lottery structures could be equally (un)motivating for unvaccinated adults. Structures that distribute incentives across more people or alternative public health strategies should be considered. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
2021年5月，美国各州开始实施“疫苗接种抽奖”活动以鼓励新冠疫苗接种。基于前景理论和数学认知研究，我们测试了几种货币抽奖结构及其框架，以确定哪种结构最能激励未接种疫苗的成年人。
在两项在线实验中，美国成年人被要求想象他们所在的州实施了疫苗接种抽奖活动。在实验1中，参与者（n = 589）被随机分配到12种条件中的一种，这些条件改变了货币金额和中奖人数，总奖金保持在500万美元不变。在实验2中，参与者（n = 274）被随机分配到2（信息框架：收益与损失）×2（数字框架：大与小）析因设计的四种条件之一；在所有条件下，五人每人将赢得100万美元。参与者对他们的基线疫苗接种意愿（1 = 极不可能到4 = 极有可能）以及“如果他们所在的州提供这种激励措施”，在操作后的新冠疫苗接种意图进行评分（0 = 极不可能到100 = 极有可能）。
不同条件下的意图没有差异（实验1：F(11, 561) = 1.29，p = .224，η² = .03；实验2：信息框架，F(1, 266) = .01，p = .940，η² = .000；数字框架，F(1, 266) = 1.40，p = .237，η² = .01；交互作用，F(1, 266) = 1.40，p = .238，η² = .01）。当向参与者展示12种抽奖结构的列表并询问他们更喜欢哪种时，参与者平均更喜欢向更多人发放较少金额的选项。然而，两个实验中的41.9%的参与者表示，他们不会因任何基于抽奖的货币激励而接种疫苗。
多种抽奖结构对未接种疫苗的成年人可能具有同等的（无）激励作用。应考虑将激励措施分配给更多人的结构或其他公共卫生策略。（PsycInfo数据库记录（c）2023美国心理学会，保留所有权利）
