Widespread vaccination remains the best option for controlling the spread of COVID-19 and ending the pandemic. Despite the considerable disruption the virus has caused to people’s lives, many people are still hesitant to receive a vaccine. Without high rates of uptake, however, the pandemic is likely to be prolonged. Here we use two survey experiments to study how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions. In the first experiment, we test a large number of treatment messages. One subgroup of messages draws on the idea that mass vaccination is a collective action problem and highlighting the prosocial benefit of vaccination or the reputational costs that one might incur if one chooses not to vaccinate. Another subgroup of messages built on contemporary concerns about the pandemic, like issues of restricting personal freedom or economic security. We find that persuasive messaging that invokes prosocial vaccination and social image concerns is effective at increasing intended uptake and also the willingness to persuade others and judgments of non-vaccinators. We replicate this result on a nationally representative sample of Americans and observe that prosocial messaging is robust across subgroups, including those who are most hesitant about vaccines generally. The experiments demonstrate how persuasive messaging can induce individuals to be more likely to vaccinate and also create spillover effects to persuade others to do so as well.
(With Eric M. Patashnik and Conor M. Dowling)The U.S. medical system is touted as the most advanced in the world, yet many common treatments are not based on sound science. Treatments can go into widespread use before they are rigorously evaluated, and every year patients are harmed because they receive too many procedures—and too few treatments that really work. Unhealthy Politics sheds new light on why the government’s response to this troubling situation has been so inadequate, and why efforts to improve the evidence base of U.S. medicine continue to cause so much political controversy and public trepidation.
This critically important book draws on public opinion surveys, physician surveys, case studies, and political science models to explain how political incentives, polarization, and the misuse of professional authority have undermined efforts to tackle the medical evidence problem and curb wasteful spending. It paints a portrait of a medical industry with vast influence over which procedures and treatments get adopted, and a public burdened by the rising costs of health care yet fearful of going against “doctor’s orders.” The book shows how the government’s efforts to promote evidence-based medicine have become mired in partisan debates. It also proposes sensible solutions that can lead to better, more efficient health care for all of us.
(Contributing editors: Eric Schickler, R. Douglas Arnold, Gary Jacobson, Robert S. Erikson, Christopher Achen, Frances E. Lee, John Mark Hansen, Shigeo Hirano, James M. Snyder, Jr, Joshua D. Clinton, Ira Katznelson, John S. Lapinski, Sarah Binder, Stephen Ansolabehere, Maxwell Palmer, Benjamin Schneer, Eric M. Patashnik, Justin Peck, Katherine Levine Einstein, Jennifer Hochschild, Keith Krehbiel, David E. Price, David R. Mayhew)
Many political observers have expressed doubts as to whether America’s leaders are up to the task of addressing major policy challenges. Yet much of the critical commentary lacks grounding in the systematic analysis of the core institutions of the American political system including elections, representation, and the law-making process. Governing in a Polarized Age brings together more than a dozen leading scholars to provide an in-depth examination of representation and legislative performance. Drawing upon the seminal work of David Mayhew as a point of departure, these essays explore the dynamics of incumbency advantage in today’s polarized Congress, asking whether the focus on individual re-election that was the hallmark of Mayhew’s ground-breaking book, Congress: The Electoral Connection, remains useful for understanding today’s Congress. The essays link the study of elections with close analysis of changes in party organization and with a series of systematic assessments of the quality of legislative performance.
(with Donald P. Green) Get Out the Vote! Is a practical guide for anyone trying to mobilize voters or organize at the grass roots. Unlike authors of other campaign advice books, Donald Green and Alan Gerber root their work firmly in rigorous science. Their recommendations emerge from thorough experiments conducted in real electoral settings, examining the impact and effectiveness of door-to-door canvassing, telephone calls, direct mail, and other campaign tactics. Since 1998 the authors have conducted research in over a dozen states, studying a wide range of federal, state, and municipal elections. Their book connects theory with practice, informing campaign professionals and local organizers as well as students of electoral politics. They discover that many GOTV tactics used by campaign managers and political consultants are less effective than is often believed. The authors, relying on rigorous and systematic research, challenge much of the conventional wisdom about what works and what doesn’t in the political campaigns. The authors’ applied form of political science has won acclaim from scholars and earned the attention of campaign professionals and journalists. This book presents their result for a non-academic audience interested in putting campaign research into practice, and the findings will be surprising to many. Get Out the Vote! will help both consultants and the candidates who use their services better understand the efficacy of campaign methods. It is essential reading in an age of electronic communication, professional electioneering and voter apathy.