Who should be called to the lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games

This study compares the behavior of students and non-students in a number of classic experimental games. We find that students are more likely to behave as homo-economicus agents than non-students in games involving other-regarding preferences (Dictator Game, Trust Game and Public Good Game). These differences persist even when controlling for demographics, cognitive ability and risk preferences. In games that do not engage other-regarding preferences (Beauty-contest and Second-price Auction) there is limited evidence of differences in behaviour between subject pools. In none of the five games is there evidence of significant differences in comprehension between students and non-students. Within subject analyses indicate that students are highly consistent in their other-regarding preferences while non-student subjects are inconsistent across other-regarding games. Our findings suggest that experiments using students will provide a lower bound estimate of other-regardedness in the general population while exaggerating the stability of other-regarding preferences.lab experiments, convenience samples, other-regarding preferences, consistency

Deepfake detection with and without content warnings

The rapid advancement of ‘deepfake' video technology—which uses deep learning artificial intelligence algorithms to create fake videos that look real—has given urgency to the question of how policymakers and technology companies should moderate inauthentic content. We conduct an experiment to measure people's alertness to and ability to detect a high-quality deepfake among a set of videos. First, we find that in a natural setting with no content warnings, individuals who are exposed to a deepfake video of neutral content are no more likely to detect anything out of the ordinary (32.9%) compared to a control group who viewed only authentic videos (34.1%). Second, we find that when individuals are given a warning that at least one video in a set of five is a deepfake, only 21.6% of respondents correctly identify the deepfake as the only inauthentic video, while the remainder erroneously select at least one genuine video as a deepfake

Prevalence, predictors and reasons for COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: results of a global online survey

Vaccine hesitancy has the potential to cripple efforts to end the COVID-19 pandemic. Policy makers need to be informed about the scale, nature and drivers of this problem, both domestically and globally, so that effective interventions can be designed. To this end, we conducted a statistical analysis of data from the CANDOUR survey (n = 15,536), which was carried out in 13 countries representing approximately half of the global population. Both pooled and country-level ordered regression models were estimated to identify predictors of vaccine hesitancy and reasons for not getting vaccinated. We found high levels of hesitancy, particularly in high-income countries. Factors driving moderate hesitancy differed from those driving extreme hesitancy. A lack of trust in health care providers was consistently the underlying driver of more extreme hesitancy. Predictors of moderate hesitancy varied across countries, though being younger and female was typically associated with greater hesitancy. While political ideology played a role in vaccine hesitancy in some countries, this effect was often moderated by income level, particularly in the US. Overall, the results suggest that different interventions such as mass-media campaigns and monetary incentives may be needed to target the moderately versus extremely hesitant. The lack of trust in health care professionals that drives extreme hesitancy may reflect deep societal mistrust in science and institutions and be challenging to overcome

A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games

experimental game

Access to healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional analysis of income and user-access across 16 economically diverse countries

Background: National health systems have different strengths and resilience levels. During the COVID-19 pandemic, resources often had to be reallocated and this impacted the availability of healthcare services in many countries. To date there have been few quantitative contemporary studies of inequalities in access to healthcare within and between countries. In this study, we aim to compare inequality within and between 16 economically diverse countries. Methods: Online surveys were conducted on 22 150 adults in 16 countries across six continents in 2022. Quota sampling and post-stratification weighting was used to obtain an age, gender, geographically, and educationally representative sample. The study assesses the differences in challenges in access to healthcare during the pandemic (for GP, surgical/clinical and digital GP services) using country-specific expanded health-needs-adjusted Erreygers’ concentration indices and compares these values between countries using a Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. Results: Results show wide variation in income-related challenges in access within countries for different types of care. For example, Erreygers’ concentration index for digital services in Colombia exhibited highly regressive inequality at 0·17, compared to Japan with an index of -0·15. Inequalities between countries were also evident, with Spearman rank coefficients of -0·69 and -0·65 (p-values of 0·003 and 0·006) for digital and surgical access, indicating that lower income countries had greater inequality in healthcare access challenges. Conclusion: During the pandemic, inequalities in challenges to accessing healthcare were greatest in low and middle-income countries. Digital technologies offer a reasonable means to address some of this inequality if adequate support is provided and accessible digital infrastructure exists

Cash versus lottery video messages: online COVID-19 vaccine incentives experiment

During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments offered financial incentives to increase vaccine uptake. We evaluate the impact on COVID-19 vaccine uptake of cash equivalents versus being entered into lotteries. We randomly assign 1628 unvaccinated US participants into one of three 45-second informational videos promoting vaccination with messages about (a) health benefits of COVID-19 vaccines (control), (b) being entered into lotteries or (c) receiving cash equivalent vouchers. After seeing the control health information video, 16% of individuals wanted information on COVID-19 vaccination. This compared with 14% of those assigned to the lottery video (odds ratio of 0.82 relative to control: 95% credible interval, 0.58–1.17) and 22% of those assigned to the cash voucher video (odds ratio of 1.53 relative to control: 95% credible interval, 1.11–2.11). These results support greater use of cash vouchers to promote information seeking about COVID-19 vaccination and do not support the use of lottery incentives

Financial incentives for COVID-19 vaccines in a rural low-resource setting: a cluster-randomized trial

We implemented a clustered randomized controlled trial with 6,963 residents in six rural Ghana districts to estimate the causal impact of financial incentives on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination uptake. Villages randomly received one of four video treatment arms: a placebo, a standard health message, a high cash incentive (60 Ghana cedis) and a low cash incentive (20 Ghana cedis). For the first co-primary outcome—COVID-19 vaccination intentions—non-vaccinated participants assigned to the cash incentive treatments had an average rate of 81% (1,733 of 2,168) compared to 71% (1,895 of 2,669) for those in the placebo treatment arm. For the other co-primary outcome of self-reported vaccinations 2 months after the initial intervention, the average rate for participants in the cash treatment was 3.5% higher than for participants in the placebo treatment (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.001, 6.9; P = 0.045): 40% (602 of 1,486) versus 36.3% (672 of 1,850). We also verified vaccination status of participants: in the cash treatment arm, 36.6% (355 of 1,058) of verified participants had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine compared to 30.3% (439 of 1,544) for those in the placebo—a difference of 6.3% (95% CI: 2.4, 10.2; P = 0.001). For the intention and the vaccination outcomes, the low cash incentive (20 Ghana cedis) had a larger positive effect on COVID-19 vaccine uptake than the high cash incentive (60 Ghana cedis). Trial identifier: AEARCTR-0008775