How do attitudes toward vaccination change over the course of a public health crisis? We report results from a longitudinal survey of United States residents during six months (March 16 –August 16, 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic. Contrary to past research suggesting that the increased salience of a disease threat should improve attitudes toward vaccines, we observed a decrease in intentions of getting a COVID-19 vaccine when one becomes available. We further found a decline in general vaccine attitudes and intentions of getting the influenza vaccine. Analyses of heterogeneity indicated that this decline is driven by participants who identify as Republicans, who showed a negative trend in vaccine attitudes and intentions, whereas Democrats remained largely stable. Consistent with research on risk perception and behavior, those with less favorable attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccination also perceived the virus to be less threatening. We provide suggestive evidence that differential exposure to media channels and social networks could explain the observed asymmetric polarization between self-identified Democrats and Republicans.

No abstract

Donors tend to avoid charities that dedicate a high percentage of expenses to administrative and fundraising costs, limiting the ability of nonprofits to be effective. We propose a solution to this problem: Use donations from major philanthropists to cover overhead expenses and offer potential donors an overhead-free donation opportunity. A laboratory experiment testing this solution confirms that donations decrease when overhead increases, but only when donors pay for overhead themselves. In a field experiment with 40,000 potential donors, we compared the overhead-free solution with other common uses of initial donations. Consistent with prior research, informing donors that seed money has already been raised increases donations, as does a $1:$1 matching campaign. Our main result, however, clearly shows that informing potential donors that overhead costs are covered by an initial donation significantly increases the donation rate by 80% (or 94%) and total donations by 75% (or 89%) compared with the seed (or matching) approach.

We investigate the role of identity and self-image consideration under "pay-what-you-want" pricing. Results from three field experiments show that often, when granted the opportunity to name the price of a product, fewer consumers choose to buy it than when the price is fixed and low. We show that this opt-out behavior is driven largely by individuals' identity and self-image concerns; individuals feel bad when they pay less than the "appropriate" price, causing them to pass on the opportunity to purchase the product altogether.fairness | social preferences | behavioral pricing A lthough social norms encourage nonselfish behavior (1-4), self-interest is clearly a powerful motive in markets. This raises two important questions with respect to the economic consequences of nonselfish behavior: Is nonselfish behavior important in markets, and if so, how does it operate?A pricing scheme known as "pay-what-you-want" (PWYW) can help answer both of these questions. To address the first question, nonselfish behavior in the form of PWYW definitely exists in markets. Perhaps the most famous case of PWYW is the release of the band Radiohead's album "In Rainbows" in 2007. Fans were invited to download the album from the band's Web site for any price they chose, including nothing. If fans could get the album for free, why would they pay? However, they did. Hundreds of thousands of fans chose to pay for something they could have received for free, and Radiohead collected hundreds of thousands of dollars from its album sales. Other artists (e.g., Girl Talk) and video game companies (e.g., World of Goo) also have had some level of success in using PWYW. The continued use of PWYW by for-profit organizations (as opposed to, e.g., museums or charities) allows the rejection of the straw man model of pure selfishness in markets. Nevertheless, a closer look at these attempts highlights the importance of the second question: What motivates people to behave nonselfishly in markets? Understanding the reasons for individuals' nonselfish behavior can improve our understanding of how markets work, and help guide the design of institutions based on such behavior.We report results from three field experiments (5, 6) using PWYW to show that individuals' nonselfish behavior is influenced, at least in part, by concerns related to self-image. The basic argument is that people want to maintain a sense of being good and fair. That is, individuals derive utility from prosocial behavior as a signaling mechanism; when an individual behaves prosocially, she is judged more positively by others as well as by herself. The evidence provided in this paper converges to support our proposition that self-image plays an important role in individuals' payment decisions under PWYW.The first piece of evidence presented here is based on a recent field experiment conducted in collaboration with large amusement park that involved selling photos taken during a ride at the park (7). We compared a regular PWYW pricing scheme with a PWYW variation in which half of the re...

A field experiment (N = 113,047 participants) manipulated two factors in the sale of souvenir photos. First, some customers saw a traditional fixed price, whereas others could pay what they wanted (including $0). Second, approximately half of the customers saw a variation in which half of the revenue went to charity. At a standard fixed price, the charitable component only slightly increased demand, as similar studies have also found. However, when participants could pay what they wanted, the same charitable component created a treatment that was substantially more profitable. Switching from corporate social responsibility to what we term shared social responsibility works in part because customized contributions allow customers to directly express social welfare concerns through the purchasing of material goods.