• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

briq Newsroom

  • Timeline
  • Archive
  • In the Media
  • Press Lounge
  • German

Opinion

Vaccination as an act of cooperation

March 25, 2021

Germany’s ongoing failure to organize a swift and efficient COVID-19 vaccine roll-out has dominated media reports in the past weeks. But even if the vaccination campaign were to pick up speed soon, the lack of willingness to get vaccinated among large parts of the population would still stand in the way of herd immunity. In several recent media articles, briq director Armin Falk addresses this problem and discusses possible solutions through the lens of behavioral economics.

As Falk points out, vaccination not only benefits the individual but society as a whole. Each administered shot takes pressure off the health care system, shortens the shutdown of public life, and helps protect members of society who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons. This is why getting vaccinated is an act of cooperation and solidarity, as Falk explains in an op-ed for DIE ZEIT, Germany’s leading weekly newspaper. “Anti-vaxxers are free-riders of the worst sort,” he was also quoted in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Sonntagszeitung, one of Germany’s major weekend papers.

Since mandatory vaccination, which would be the most effective way to achieve herd immunity, was ruled out for political reasons in Germany as in most other countries, the question is how to achieve voluntary cooperation. From the perspective of behavioral psychology, people’s willingness to cooperate is strongly influenced by the behavior of others. “We need more media reports on positive vaccination experiences and should do more as a society to celebrate those who get vaccinated,” Falk suggests.

Also, individuals are more likely to cooperate the higher the benefits for themselves and society, and the lower the costs of cooperation. This implies that public awareness about the enormous benefits of the vaccine must be raised, while at the same time red tape surrounding the vaccine roll-out must be cut. Possible measures to promote vaccination, according to Falk, could also include paid leave for employees and free shuttle services to vaccination centers. Another solution that has been found effective in the context of organ donation would be a default mechanism that requires people to actively opt out.

Moreover, lab experiments show that cooperative individuals tend to flock together – also by excluding non-cooperative types. Falk therefore welcomes plans to exclude the unvaccinated from using private-sector services, such as air travel or restaurant visits. “After all, it’s not about granting privileges, it’s about giving back fundamental rights and freedoms,” Falk emphasizes in the German business weekly, WirtschaftsWoche.

“Restore fundamental freedoms for the vaccinated immediately”

He dismisses the argument that unequal treatment on the basis of vaccination would be unfair to those who have not had a chance to get vaccinated. “This would make some people better off without making anyone else worse off. Besides, even the unvaccinated would benefit if public life and the economy are revived again,” he told the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, the largest newspaper in the Cologne-Bonn region.

In the same interview, Falk also strongly criticizes the German government’s coronavirus response and public information strategy. From a behavioral perspective, “actively raising expectations time and again, only to disappoint them later, is much worse than just failing to deliver. This causes frustration and destroys trust.” Rather than making explicit promises, policymakers must strike a balance between encouragement and creating the credible impression that everyone is absolutely doing their best.

While other countries have ramped up vaccination with hands-on pragmatism, Germany’s efforts have been hampered by a sluggish bureaucracy and complex decision-making bodies stuck in a “mindset and political timidity that is clearly not crisis-proof.” According to Falk, adopting a more pragmatic, innovative and efficient approach to vaccination and rapid testing is the only chance for policymakers to regain trust and keep people compliant with the continuing coronavirus restrictions.

Filed Under: Opinion

Social norms and motivated reasoning in the corona crisis

April 21, 2020

Staying at home to protect others? This doesn’t seem to come natural to people. In an interview with ZEIT ONLINE, briq Research Director Florian Zimmermann explains from a behavioral economics perspective why people are apparently willing to change their behavior drastically in the face of the corona crisis – in contrast, for example, to the climate crisis. He comments on the role of social norms and sanctioning, the power of political communication, and people’s tendency to seek crisis-related information that confirms their own beliefs.

Filed Under: Opinion

“Out of pure curiosity”

March 19, 2018

A few weeks ago, George Loewenstein came to Bonn for his first stay under the briq Visiting Professor Program. He interacted with local researchers and gave lectures on “The New New Economics of Information” and on “Thanking, Apologizing, Bragging, and Blaming: Responsibility Exchange Theory and the Currency of Communication”. We took this opportunity to talk with him about what drives people to seek and share information, how insights from behavioral economics can contribute to the study of inequality – and whether it’s okay for economists to do research on sex.

George Loewenstein
briq visiting professor George Loewenstein

Professor Loewenstein, would you consider yourself more of an economist or a psychologist?

Psychologists view me as an economist, and I got my PhD in economics. I would say I use economic methodology to make sense of human psychology.

Ten years ago behavioral economists were still viewed very skeptically by the “mainstream”…

…but today all the top economics departments have behavioral economists on their faculty. And I think the Nobel Prize in Economics for Richard Thaler indicates that this is now a well-accepted discipline.

You were an early proponent of “nudging”, but in a New York Times op-ed you seem to find that this behavioral economics approach to policymaking has become somewhat overrated.

There are some nudges that are very effective, but they can really just be a complement to traditional economic policies. It worries me that nudges sometimes provide the false promise of quick fixes to economic problems.

Can you give an example?

Take the attempt to fight the obesity epidemic through calorie labeling, or to reduce electricity use by informing households how their energy bill compares to that of their neighbors. The standard economic approach – raising the price of junk food or fossil energy – would be a far more effective way to reduce consumption of unhealthy or socially damaging goods. But it would also be more politically painful.

One of your briq lectures was about the New New Economics of Information… What’s “old” about the “new”?

The economics of information started in the early 1960s with George Stigler. It was based on the assumption that people seek out information to improve their decision-making, and only for that reason. The “new economics of information” of the 1970s, pioneered by Akerlof, Spence and Stiglitz, examined consequences of information asymmetries between people. For example, the seller of a car knows more about the quality of the car than the potential buyer…

…the “lemon” problem…

…which, as Akerlof pointed out, can lead to an unraveling of markets. But this second wave of economic research on information adhered to Stigler’s assumption that we value information only to the extent that it improves decisions. The new new economics of information should, in my view, drop this patently unrealistic assumption. People demand information for all sorts of reasons other than to improve the quality of their decisions, for example out of pure curiosity.

People demand information for all sorts of reasons other than to improve the quality of their decisions, for example out of pure curiosity.

And sometimes we get information that we had rather not known about…

That’s true. We also sometimes tend to avoid information that could be useful to us because we are afraid it could be too painful. For example, because people tend to avoid their own medical diagnosis, many don’t get palliative care even though they could have a much more pleasant final time on earth if they did. We have also studied parents of autistic children and found that it takes them longer to diagnose the problem because they are often blind to problems that are quite apparent to their friends, family members, and teachers.

What about the sharing of information?

This is one of the areas I’m most interested in. People share information for a variety of motives, including bragging (that is, to look good to other people), but also because they want to feel understood. I’m currently working on modeling these types of motivations mathematically. People also sometimes want to withhold information, which is the focus of privacy research. In much of the work that I have done on the topic, we find that people’s concern about privacy bears very little connection to the actual costs and benefits of sharing information in a particular situation.

Has the internet made things worse?

Much worse, I think. People feel free to say whatever they want on e-mail, even though e-mail leaves a permanent record. They are much less likely to say something directly to someone, even though this is a much safer, more private way to communicate. This is just one of the many ways that the internet leads us astray.

Generation Facebook…

LoewensteinRight. Nobody has 2,000 friends, but with what are called “friends” on Facebook, people feel it’s okay to tell them about anything. When I was on Facebook for a while, I also had hundreds of “friends.” But when I posted a survey for my daughter’s science project, nobody responded. So I sent it out through my neighborhood listserv, and lots of people took the survey.

Although you have shown that excessive self-promotion (“bragging”) often backfires, may I ask what you would consider your most influential research?

One of my favorite papers is “The Red and the Black”. It’s about mental accounting – how the way we think about paying for something affects our spending habits. And I think what I’m probably best known for is the hot-cold empathy gap, which economists also call projection bias. It’s the idea that when you are in one emotional or drive state, it’s almost impossible to imagine how you would feel or behave when you are in a different state.

Along this line you have also done extensive research on sex. Isn’t it sometimes frowned upon when an economist writes about sex?

Actually, a colleague once tried to discourage me from doing research on sex because he was concerned that doing so would marginalize me. I hope he was wrong about this. It would be tragic if doing research on sex means you are not taken seriously, given what an important aspect of life sex is, and how profoundly it can affect well-being and even, I suspect, health.

Regarding privacy vs. transparency, there is an ongoing debate in Germany about whether people should be informed of their co-workers’ pay. Do you think that more pay transparency would reduce inequality?

No, it would probably increase inequality. All the top managers want to be in the top 25%. But it’s impossible for more than 25% to be in the top 25%. So, to achieve this impossible goal, they would keep raising and raising their salaries. This is not to say that I’m against informing people, although I do have several papers showing that transparency can backfire, for example when it comes to disclosing conflicts of interest.

People rank inequality high among a list of potential problems facing the nation, but when you ask them spontaneously, few people will mention inequality.

How do people react to inequality?

My research on social preferences shows that people hate coming out behind someone else, but they don’t really care much about doing better than someone else. Since it hurts the people who come out behind, but doesn’t help much the people who come out ahead, inequality is very costly in terms of well-being. Inequality also leads people to break the rules when they can’t figure out any other way to get out of the hole they are in.

What can behavioral economics contribute to reducing inequality?

I think that a lot of the ills that are plaguing the United States – like obesity, drug addiction, poor education, low rates of saving – have roots in inequality. People rank inequality high among a list of potential problems facing the nation, but when you ask them spontaneously, few people will mention inequality. I think one of the most important things that behavioral economics can do is make inequality more real to people and help them understand the true effects of different policies affecting inequality, such as the inheritance tax.

Thank you very much – for sharing this information and satisfying our curiosity!

Interview: Mark Fallak

Filed Under: Opinion Tagged With: behavioral economics, bragging, curiosity, economics of information, inequality, internet, nudging, psychology, sex, transparency

  • Imprint
  • Privacy Policy
  • Status
© Deutsche Post STIFTUNG