Framing policies to mobilize citizens' behavior during a crisis: Examining the effects of positive and negative vaccination incentivizing policies

Abstract

The COVID‐19 pandemic has highlighted the issue of mobilization policies, that is, government practices directed at making the mass public voluntarily perform various behaviors for the collective benefit during a crisis. As COVID‐19 vaccinations became accessible, governments faced the challenge of mass vaccination mobilization in order to achieve herd immunization. Aiming to effectively realize this goal, policy designers and regulators worldwide considered various mobilizing tools for vaccination compliance, including rewards and penalties, as they targeted vaccine opposers and hesitators, while trying to avoid the crowding‐out effect among individuals who were intrinsically motivated to get vaccinated. However, the unique circumstances of the Coronavirus pandemic may have eliminated the crowding‐out effect. Thus, our study explored the effect of regulation in the form of positive and negative incentivizing tools (i.e., rewards and penalties) during the coronavirus pandemic on vaccination intentions of 1184 Israeli citizens, prior to the national vaccination campaign. Results indicate that (1) both negative and positive incentives have a similar positive effect on individuals who declare they will not get vaccinated and those who hesitate to get the shot; (2) both positive and negative incentives induce the crowding‐out effect; and (3) negative incentives generate a larger crowding‐out effect in individuals who report preliminary intentions to get vaccinated, compared to positive ones. This emphasizes the need to avoid the crowding‐out effect during the current and similar crises, and suggests considering applying a gradual and adaptive policy design in order to maximize regulatory efficacy and compliance.

Factors that Influence the Mechanism of Panic Buying: The Moderating Role of Personal Cognition

“…Regulations and Policies: Government-imposed regulations and policies can directly impact panic buying behavior. For example, if the government imposes restrictions on the sale or distribution of essential goods, implements rationing systems, or enforces price controls, it can help manage panic buying by ensuring equitable access to resources and discouraging hoarding behavior (Goren, Beeri & Vashdi, 2022) Communication and Guidance: Clear and consistent communication from the government is essential in managing panic buying. Governments can provide accurate and timely information about the availability of goods, measures being taken to address the crisis, and guidelines for the public to follow.…”

Local Governments Facing Turbulence: Robust Governance and Institutional Capacities

“…This assesses the capacity of an organization to respond to the requirements of its anticrisis strategy by evaluating its internal processes and dynamics. It measures the ability of different units to adapt and streamline their activities to promote the development of cross-cutting policy actions in turbulent environments (Goren et al 2022). This indicator provides insight into the organization's coordination and communication abilities and how effective is the collaboration between units.…”

Smart Local Governments Facing Turbulence: Robust Governance and Institutional Capacities

“…This indicator assesses the capacity of an organization to respond to the requirements of its anticrisis strategy by evaluating its internal processes and dynamics. It measures the ability of different units to adapt and streamline their activities to promote the development of cross-cutting policy actions in turbulent environments [61]. Coordination, negotiation, and information exchange between internal units are among the key issues identified by this indicator.…”