Jersey is a self-governing island in the English Channel off the northwest coast of France. Its population is around 108,000. After the COVID-19 vaccine became widely available, the island's government started campaigns to encourage people to get their shots. Rather than making up communication strategies that just seemed right, they decided to design strategies based on social psychological evidence. This article describes the studies they used and how they applied them. Let's take a look.
Strategy: Say because
One strategy mentioned in the article involves the word "because."
The study:
Ellen Langer demonstrated the persuasive power of the word “because” in her famous studies in the 1970s. People waiting in line to use a photocopier were asked “Excuse me, I have five pages. May I use the copier?” 60 percent agreed. But when the request was accompanied with a reason — “May I use the Xerox machine because I’m in a rush?”—94 percent complied.
[...] even when the word because was followed with a completely meaningless reason — such as “May I use the Xerox machine, because I have to make copies?” just as many people said yes. The study wonderfully demonstrates the motivational influence of the word “because” and its continually reinforced association with the good rationales that typically follow it.
The application:
But just because people pay more attention to the word “because” doesn’t mean that what comes after is less important. Hence our two-step “because-then-reason” strategy. First, we prominently included the word “because” in our vaccination outreach campaigns. Then we followed the word “because” with a personalized reason meaningful to that particular messenger (and their audience).
The images in this post show examples of how the posters highlighted the word because.
Questions about this strategy:
a) Before basing an intervention on an empirical study, we'd better be sure that study was experimental (rather than correlational). Why?
b) What were the variables in Langer's study, and what were the levels? Do you think that Langer's study was experimental or correlational? What are the clues?
Strategy: Build ownership
The study:
A 2020 mega-study conducted by several dozen researchers led by Wharton School professor Katy Milkman demonstrated how a simple change to a text message increased uptake of flu shots. Reminder messages that included the words “your vaccine is reserved for you” boosted rates by as much as 11 percent compared to standard messages such as “protect yourself by getting a flu shot.”
The application:
Milkman’s study provided the inspiration for us to adopt a similar approach in the emails and texts we sent on behalf of the Government of Jersey to citizens whose turn it was to receive their Covid-19 vaccine. The words “your vaccine” were designed to give readers that sense of personal ownership.
c) What were the variables in Milkman's study? What were the levels of each variable?
d) Do you think Milkman's study was experimental or correlational? Explain your answer
e) Why do you think the journalist described this as a "mega-study"? Follow the link to test your hunch.
f) The journalist seems to mention only two levels of the independent variable in Milkman's study (the words “your vaccine is reserved for you” versus “protect yourself by getting a flu shot.”). But in the Milkman et al.'s actual study, there were many more levels. Check the link to the study to find out how many other conditions the researchers tested.
Note to Instructors: Figure 1 of Milkman's study shows the effect sizes and CIs for all of the different interventions they tried. It's a really nice way to introduce these statistical concepts.