Master of Science (MS), Ohio University, 2023, Experimental Psychology (Arts and Sciences)

Both culturally and in decision-making research, humans have traditionally viewed guaranteed good things as highly valuable. However, in some contexts a guaranteed good thing may produce more negative experiences than not receiving one – if that means having to make a decision between the guarantee and something superior, but uncertain. The differences in emotional experiences that arise between only waiting for something favorable and having to choose between waiting for something favorable, or settling for something guaranteed, but less preferable have not been previously explored. Using an employment paradigm, Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence that receiving a guarantee can produce more anticipated regret and negative affect than having nothing for sure. Study 3 replicated those findings and further explored them through the lens of regulatory focus theory. Regulatory focus did not moderate the effects of receiving a guarantee but did produce differences in participant priorities and choice behavior; prevention focus, relative to promotion focus, made participants more likely to view being empty-handed as the more important concern and choose to settle for the guarantee. In sum, this work provides evidence that guaranteed good things can feel worse than having nothing for sure if they introduce a decision.

Committee: Keith Markman (Advisor); Dominik Mischkowski (Committee Member); Kimberly Rios (Committee Member) Subjects: Cognitive Psychology; Experimental Psychology; Psychology; Social Psychology

MA, Kent State University, 2024, College of Arts and Sciences / Department of Psychological Sciences

Vaccine hesitancy threatens global health, yet vaccination rates for the seasonal flu are often suboptimal. Thus, it is important to develop and optimize interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy. The present study investigates the effect of one such intervention, vaccine lotteries, on intentions to vaccinate for the flu. Vaccine lotteries—where chosen winners must be vaccinated to collect a monetary payout—could increase vaccination through people's perceived likelihood of winning the lottery and anticipated regret (from being chosen but unvaccinated). Beliefs about vaccines (i.e., antecedents of vaccination) may also impact vaccine intentions. Adults unvaccinated for the flu (n = 598) were randomly assigned to read 1 of 12 hypothetical scenarios regarding flu vaccine lotteries that differed in structure (payout amount and number of winners). Controlling for baseline vaccination willingness, scenarios with lotteries providing more money to fewer winners, as well as $100 each to 50,000 winners, led to greater post-scenario vaccination intentions. Participants who read about lottery structures with larger payouts to fewer winners also generally reported lower perceived likelihood of winning and greater anticipated regret. Regression results showed that greater perceived likelihood; greater anticipated regret; as well as greater confidence, less preference for deliberation and greater collective responsibility about the flu vaccine were associated with greater post-scenario intentions. Of these factors, anticipated regret may be a key motivator when it comes to vaccine lotteries. Additional analyses examined antecedents of COVID-19 vaccination willingness to provide insight into the null effect of vaccine lotteries on COVID-19 vaccination intentions in a previous study (Taber et al., 2023) that contrasts the motivating effect of flu vaccine lotteries in the present study. Results provide insight into how to structure lotteries to increase vaccine uptake and the role o (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Jennifer Taber (Advisor); Mary Himmelstein (Committee Member); John Updegraff (Committee Member); Joel Hughes (Committee Member) Subjects: Health; Psychology