[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/apc/wpaper/202.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Building a shield together: Addressing low vaccine uptake against cancer through social norms

Author

Listed:
  • Stanislao Maldonado
  • Deborah Martinez
  • Lina Diaz
Abstract
We present the results of a large-scale field experiment designed to measure the effect of social norms on parents' decisions to vaccinate their daughters against the human papillomavirus (HPV) in Bogota, Colombia. Because low rates of HPV vaccine adoption are an issue in developed and underdeveloped countries alike, the use of standard social norm marketing strategies to foster vaccination can have the undesirable effect of reinforcing the status quo. In our experiment, parents were exposed to text messages that incorporated variations of static and dynamic social norms. We demonstrate that dynamic social norms and injunctive norms increased the vaccination rate by 23%. Interestingly, we also find that a version of static social norms that uses a loss frame is also effective in fostering vaccination, implying that policy-makers can also benefit from them. Against a common view among academics and practitioners, we found no evidence that static norms reinforce the status quo. Our results highlight the importance of crafting social norms interventions using dynamic and injunctive elements to foster vaccination in settings where the majority has not yet adopted the desired behavior.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanislao Maldonado & Deborah Martinez & Lina Diaz, 2024. "Building a shield together: Addressing low vaccine uptake against cancer through social norms," Working Papers 202, Peruvian Economic Association.
    • Handle: RePEc:apc:wpaper:202
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://perueconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/WP-202.pdf
    File Function: Application/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joseph P. Newhouse, 2021. "An Ounce of Prevention," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 35(2), pages 101-118, Spring.
    2. Akanksha Negi & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2021. "Revisiting regression adjustment in experiments with heterogeneous treatment effects," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(5), pages 504-534, April.
    3. McKenzie, David, 2012. "Beyond baseline and follow-up: The case for more T in experiments," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(2), pages 210-221.
    4. David S. Lee, 2009. "Training, Wages, and Sample Selection: Estimating Sharp Bounds on Treatment Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(3), pages 1071-1102.
    5. Imbens,Guido W. & Rubin,Donald B., 2015. "Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521885881, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gazeaud, Jules & Khan, Nausheen & Mvukiyehe, Eric & Sterck, Olivier, 2023. "With or without him? Experimental evidence on cash grants and gender-sensitive trainings in Tunisia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C).
    2. Heath, Rachel & Hidrobo, Melissa & Roy, Shalini, 2020. "Cash transfers, polygamy, and intimate partner violence: Experimental evidence from Mali," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    3. Guigonan S. Adjognon & Daan van Soest & Jonas Guthoff, 2021. "Reducing Hunger with Payments for Environmental Services (PES): Experimental Evidence from Burkina Faso," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 103(3), pages 831-857, May.
    4. Dalia Ghanem & Sarojini Hirshleifer & Karen Ortiz-Becerra, 2019. "Testing Attrition Bias in Field Experiments," Working Papers 202218, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics, revised Oct 2022.
    5. Dalia Ghanem & Sarojini Hirshleifer & Karen Ortiz-Becerra, 2019. "Testing for Attrition Bias in Field Experiments," Working Papers 202010, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2020.
    6. Bonesrønning, Hans & Finseraas, Henning & Hardoy, Ines & Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Nyhus, Ole Henning & Opheim, Vibeke & Salvanes, Kari Vea & Sandsør, Astrid Marie Jorde & Schøne, Pål, 2022. "Small-group instruction to improve student performance in mathematics in early grades: Results from a randomized field experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 216(C).
    7. Marie Bjørneby & Annette Alstadsæter & Kjetil Telle, 2018. "Collusive tax evasion by employers and employees. Evidence from a randomized fi eld experiment in Norway," Discussion Papers 891, Statistics Norway, Research Department.
    8. María laura Alzúa & Guillermo Cruces & Carolina Lopez, 2016. "Long-Run Effects Of Youth Training Programs: Experimental Evidence From Argentina," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(4), pages 1839-1859, October.
    9. Suresh de Mel & David McKenzie & Christopher Woodruff, 2019. "Labor Drops: Experimental Evidence on the Return to Additional Labor in Microenterprises," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 11(1), pages 202-235, January.
    10. Antonia Grohmann & Lukas Menkhoff & Helke Seitz, 2022. "The Effect of Personalized Feedback on Small Enterprises’ Finances in Uganda," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(3), pages 1197-1227.
    11. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    12. Jiannan Lu & Peng Ding & Tirthankar Dasgupta, 2018. "Treatment Effects on Ordinal Outcomes: Causal Estimands and Sharp Bounds," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 43(5), pages 540-567, October.
    13. Lambon-Quayefio, Monica & Peterman, Amber & Handa, Sudhanshu & Molotsky, Adria & Otchere, Frank & Mvula, Peter & Tsoka, Maxton & de Hoop, Jacobus & Angeles, Gustavo & Kilburn, Kelly & Milazzo, Annamar, 2024. "Unconditional cash transfers and safe transitions to adulthood in Malawi," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    14. Hidrobo, Melissa & Hoddinott, John & Peterman, Amber & Margolies, Amy & Moreira, Vanessa, 2014. "Cash, food, or vouchers? Evidence from a randomized experiment in northern Ecuador," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 144-156.
    15. Tymon Słoczyński, 2022. "Interpreting OLS Estimands When Treatment Effects Are Heterogeneous: Smaller Groups Get Larger Weights," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(3), pages 501-509, May.
    16. Novella, Rafael & Rosas-Shady, David & Freund, Richard, 2024. "Is online job training for all? Experimental evidence on the effects of a Coursera program in Costa Rica," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    17. Undral Byambadalai & Tatsushi Oka & Shota Yasui, 2024. "Estimating Distributional Treatment Effects in Randomized Experiments: Machine Learning for Variance Reduction," Papers 2407.16037, arXiv.org.
    18. David McKenzie, 2017. "Identifying and Spurring High-Growth Entrepreneurship: Experimental Evidence from a Business Plan Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(8), pages 2278-2307, August.
    19. Özler, Berk & Çelik, Çiğdem & Cunningham, Scott & Cuevas, P. Facundo & Parisotto, Luca, 2021. "Children on the move: Progressive redistribution of humanitarian cash transfers among refugees," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    20. Francesca Molinari, 2020. "Microeconometrics with Partial Identi?cation," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/20, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social norms; vaccines; human papillomavirus; field experiments;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:apc:wpaper:202. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Nelson Ramírez-Rondán (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/peruvea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.