RESUMEN

This study addresses the challenge of low blood donation rates in developing countries by examining the effectiveness of a barrier-removal incentive-a one-day transportation voucher-to promote blood donation. Utilizing a longitudinal dataset of 23,750 donors from a Brazilian blood collection agency (BCA) collected between March 2018 and May 2020, we examine the short and long-term effects of this campaign on donation rates. Our results show that the incentive had a large positive influence on both donation attempts and successful donations on the day of the campaign. However, the short-term success of the intervention had an unintended consequence: the significant increase in prospective donors' waiting time at the BCA during the intervention day, which may help explain the negative impact on return rates in the 24-month follow-up. Despite these opposing outcomes, the net effect of the one-day blood donation incentive was still positive, offering valuable insights for BCAs aiming to enhance donor recruitment and retention strategies and emphasizing the need to balance immediate benefits with potential long-term impacts.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: While political polarization in policy opinions, preferences, and observance is well established, little is known about whether and how such divisions evolve, and possibly attenuate, over time. Using the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil as the backdrop, we examine the longitudinal evolution of a highly relevant and polarizing policy: adherence to the COVID-19 vaccination. METHODS: Studies 1 (N = 3346) and 2 (N = 10,214) use nationwide surveys to document initial differences and subsequent changes in vaccination adherence between conservatives ("Bolsonaristas") and non-conservatives ("non-Bolsonaristas"). Study 3 (N = 742) uses an original dataset to investigate belief changes among conservatives and their association with asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence. RESULTS: Despite substantial differences at the early stages of rollout, the gap in vaccination adherence between conservatives and non-conservatives significantly decreased with the passage of time, driven essentially by a much faster uptake among the initially most skeptic-the conservatives. Study 3 demonstrates that the asymmetric changes in vaccination adherence were associated with meaningful belief changes among the conservatives, especially about the perceived effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines and the expected adherence of peers to the vaccination campaign. CONCLUSIONS: Together, these studies show that, in a context where the superiority of the promoted policy becomes clear over time and individuals have the opportunity to revisit prior beliefs, even intense political polarization can be attenuated.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prior research has shown that temporary deferrals negatively influence donor return rates, but it remains unknown the extent to which these effects vary across reasons for deferral. We investigate whether deferrals differ in their degree of perceived stigmatization and, if so, how being deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons affects subsequent donation behaviour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We examined whether reasons for deferral vary on their perceived level of stigmatization through an online survey (n = 400). Furthermore, we used a dataset encompassing 25 years of donation records from the state-run blood collection agency (BCA) from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to investigate how stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons for deferral affected return rates of 82,648 donors over a 60-month follow-up period. RESULTS: Being deferred for sex- and drug-related reasons was perceived as much more stigmatizing than other reasons for deferral (odds ratio = 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.33-4.25). Controlling for multiple observables, prospective donors were less likely to return to the BCA when deferred for stigmatizing (vs. non-stigmatizing) reasons (adjusted hazard ratio = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.83-0.93). CONCLUSION: Donors perceive deferrals motivated by sex- and drug-related reasons as particularly stigmatizing, which is negatively associated with donor return rates. BCAs may want to pay special attention when communicating stigmatizing reasons for deferral to prospective donors.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Previous studies that describe the negative association between temporary deferrals and donor return rates commonly come from settings where mechanisms are in place to win back lapsing donors. There is little evidence on the size and prevalence of this negative association in settings with no such retention activities. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We use data from more than 2 million donation attempts made at a blood collection agency in Brazil over a 26-year period. We describe the distribution of deferrals across donor demographic and behavioral characteristics, and estimate multivariate survival analysis models with matched samples to measure the impact of deferrals on return rates. We control for sex, race, age, education, donation type, number of previous attempts, previous donations, and previous deferrals. We test for heterogeneous effects in interaction models with selected donor demographic and behavioral characteristics. RESULTS: Temporary deferrals were associated with a 50% decrease in the likelihood of return. Although the effect was observed for all population subgroups and across the full length of the dataset, it varied in magnitude. The influence of deferrals was more negative among older donors and those reporting replacement motives, and less negative among more educated donors and those with a previous donation. DISCUSSION: We found that temporary deferrals meaningfully harm donor careers in a setting where specific retention activities are absent. Although the effects are widespread across the population and persistent in time, there are also heterogeneities, which must be considered when designing interventions targeted at wining-back specific groups of deferred donors.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

People tend to believe they are more (less) likely to experience positive (negative) outcomes than similar others. While research has consistently shown that feeling unrealistically optimistic about future events influences the adoption of self-protective behaviors, much less is known about the opposite relationship. We address this gap by examining whether and how self-protective behaviors influence unrealistic optimism in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Across two preregistered, high-powered experiments (N = 4,707), we document a generalized unrealistic optimism about the health risks associated with COVID-19. Critically, we show that prompting people to think about a precautionary behavior they often perform (i.e., mask wearing) magnifies this preexisting tendency. Egocentrism, but not self-enhancement and/or better-than-average effects, helps to explain the phenomenon. Theoretical contributions and substantive implications to health risk research and policy are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Abstract Social distancing practices have been widely recommended to curb the COVID-19 pandemic. However, despite the medical consensus, many citizens have resisted adhering to and/or supporting its implementation. While this resistance may stem from the non-negligible personal economic costs of implementing social distancing, we argue that it may also reside in more fundamental differences in normative principles and belief systems, as reflected by political orientation. In a study conducted in Brazil, we test the relative importance of these explanations by examining whether and how support for social distancing varies according to self-identified political orientation and personal economic vulnerability. Results show that while economic vulnerability does not influence support for social distancing, conservatives are systematically less supportive of these practices than liberals. Discrepancies in sensitivity to threats to the economic system help explain the phenomenon.

Resumen Las prácticas de aislamiento social se han recomendado ampliamente para contener la propagación de la pandemia de COVID-19. Sin embargo, a pesar del consenso médico, muchos ciudadanos se han resistido a adherirse y/o apoyar su implementación. Si bien esta resistencia puede provenir de costos económicos personales no despreciables en la implementación del aislamiento social, argumentamos que también puede residir en diferencias más fundamentadas en principios normativos y sistemas de creencias, reflejados en la orientación política. El artículo prueba, mediante una encuesta realizada en Brasil, la importancia relativa de estas explicaciones al examinar si y de qué manera el apoyo al aislamiento social varía de acuerdo con la orientación política declarada y la vulnerabilidad económica personal. Los resultados muestran que, si bien la vulnerabilidad económica no influye en el apoyo al aislamiento social, los conservadores apoyan dichas prácticas sistemáticamente menos que los liberales. Las diferencias de sensibilidad ante las amenazas al sistema económico ayudan a explicar el fenómeno.

Resumo Práticas de isolamento social têm sido amplamente recomendadas para conter a propagação da pandemia da COVID-19. No entanto, apesar do consenso médico, muitos cidadãos têm resistido a aderir e/ou apoiar a sua implementação. Enquanto essa resistência pode ter origem nos custos econômicos individuais não desprezíveis de implementar o isolamento social, argumentamos que ela também pode residir em diferenças mais fundamentais nos princípios normativos e sistemas de crenças, refletidos na orientação política. Em um estudo conduzido no Brasil, testamos a importância relativa dessas explicações ao examinar se e como o apoio ao isolamento social varia de acordo com orientação política autodeclarada e vulnerabilidade econômica pessoal. Os resultados mostram que enquanto a vulnerabilidade econômica não influencia o apoio ao isolamento social, indivíduos que se consideram de direita apoiam sistematicamente menos tais práticas do que aqueles que se consideram de esquerda. Diferenças em suas sensibilidades a ameaças ao sistema econômico ajudam a explicar o fenômeno.

Asunto(s)