To encourage Hong Kong residents to get vaccinated, a number of large companies and organisations rolled out one vaccine lucky draw after another. The prizes were strikingly attractive — a flat, for instance — and to Hongkongers facing sky-high property prices, that was hard to resist. Even though the risk of vaccine side effects remained a matter of debate, and the chance of winning looked vanishingly small, plenty of Hong Kong people still chose to "take a punt" and got vaccinated in order to enter the draw. So why did these lucky draws draw in so many Hongkongers, and in turn lead them to get the jab?
Lucky draws by nature: enjoyment for its own sake
There is no doubt that the vast majority of lucky draws are purely a matter of chance (though we can't rule out other possibilities, such as certain internal arrangements that "favour insiders"). Winning these draws involves no skill whatsoever — it comes down to luck alone. Research has found that the pleasure of winning a chance-based draw is, in fact, scarcely different from the satisfaction of a win achieved through skill (Darke & Freedman, 1995). What's more, because of the very nature of a lucky draw, there is no demand on skill at all; even when we lose, the outcome can be put down to luck and probability — factors beyond our control rather than anything to do with ourselves. Entering a lucky draw is therefore seen as a pleasant, enjoyable experience, and the inherent enjoyment of a lucky draw is itself part of what makes it so appealing (Ward & Hill, 1991). This also reflects the attitude many Hongkongers held towards the vaccine lucky draws: "It's just for fun — and even if I don't win, I'm no worse off."
Overestimating our own luck?
I remember once, when I was discussing the vaccine lucky draws with friends, that some of those who'd already been vaccinated had started talking about how they would deal with the flat in the lucky draw — right down to the specific renovations (in jest, of course). One friend went further and brought up the self-fulfilling prophecy (self-fulfilling prophecy), pointing out that "as long as you believe you'll win (win the flat), your chance of actually winning gets bigger." This goes to show that the higher people's expectations of winning, the more it reflects, to some degree, their estimation of their own luck (perceived luckiness). Research has demonstrated that most people consider themselves comparatively lucky, and believe that luck will determine the major life events and outcomes they encounter (Smith et. al, 1996; Keren & Wagenaar, 1985). On top of that, an experiment on lucky draws conducted in Hong Kong also found that the greater one's belief in personal luck, the higher one's chance of entering the draw (Prendergast & Thompson, 2013). When this belief in one's own luck is applied to a lucky draw — holding excessive confidence and expectation about winning — this optimistic bias (optimistic bias) is in fact unrealistic (unrealistic optimism) (Weinstein, 1980), and has even been described as an irrational belief in luck (irrational belief in luck) (Prendergast & Thompson, 2013). As for why people overestimate their own luck and their chance of winning, this is related, to some extent, to our flawed grasp of probability.
Misunderstanding the odds of winning
Some research points out that when participants weigh up factors such as the fairness of a lucky draw and the appeal of the prizes, they tend to overlook the estimated probability of winning (Wagenaar, 1988). Suppose we compare the probability of suffering serious side effects after vaccination with the probability of winning a flat in a draw — we would find that the former is certainly higher (there have already been more than one reported case of fatal reactions following vaccination, whereas there is, for now, only one flat to be won). From an economic standpoint, human beings are risk-averse (risk averse) creatures. Before the vaccine lucky draws were launched, most Hongkongers took a wait-and-see attitude, choosing to hold off on getting vaccinated for the time being and waiting for a more stable vaccine to be developed, so as to avoid the risk. But why is it that, once the lucky draws were launched, we overestimated our chance of winning and got vaccinated for the sake of entering the draw — taking a vaccine that appeared comparatively risky? The Hong Kong lucky-draw study mentioned earlier also pointed out that even groups with relatively high levels of education still struggle to grasp the odds of winning (Prendergast & Thompson, 2013). Beyond this, in order to serve the government's goal of encouraging the public to get vaccinated, many media outlets competed to report on the vaccine lucky draws. Their excessive hype around the odds of winning — for example, comparing the chance of winning the vaccine draw with extremely low probabilities such as hitting the jackpot on six numbers in the Mark Six — misled the public into forming a mistaken understanding and estimation of the odds of winning a vaccine draw. As a result, the public very easily overestimated those odds, and used this as an inducement to get vaccinated.
Operant Conditioning
Beyond luck and probability estimation, operant conditioning (Operant Conditioning) in behavioural psychology (Skinner, 1963) can also reasonably explain this phenomenon.
First, in these vaccine lucky draws, the various organisations and media outlets would showcase the array of prizes on offer — flats, cars, gift vouchers and so on — to capture the public's attention and interest, and thereby turn them into participants. In doing so, the public would link the behaviour of "getting vaccinated" with the various prizes in the prize pool, perceiving a certain connection between the two, which in turn encouraged the public to learn the behaviour of entering the draw — that is, getting vaccinated. Then, through the corresponding rewards and punishments tied to joining in and carrying out that behaviour (getting vaccinated), the behaviour of getting vaccinated could be reinforced. For example, setting a deadline for these lucky draws, requiring two doses to be received before September. By showing the public the "punishment" of not getting vaccinated in time — namely, no longer being able to obtain those rewards in the prize pool — the value of the behaviour of getting vaccinated could be strengthened, increasing the behaviour's appeal to the wider public.
Of course, what this article describes is merely the choice to get vaccinated as a result of a change in attitude towards the vaccine brought about by the lucky draws; it in no way carries any intention of urging anyone not to get vaccinated. Whether or not to get vaccinated is a matter of personal freedom, and everyone can weigh up the benefits and the potential risks for themselves before deciding.
References
Griffiths, Mark, & Wood, Richard. (2001). The psychology of lottery gambling. International Gambling Studies, 1(1), 27-45.
Prendergast, Gerard, & Thompson, Edmund R. (2013). Rational and irrational influences on lucky draw participation. International Journal of Advertising, 32(1), 85-100.
Posted September 21, 2018 by B. C. (2018, September 21). The Psychology of Playing the Lottery. A Wealth of Common Sense. https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2018/09/the-psychology-of-playing-the-lottery/#:~:text=The%20reason%20poor%20people%20tend,the%20study%20of%20human%20irrationality.&text=Thus%2C%20wealthy%20people%20wouldn’t,if%20they%20won%20the%20lottery.
Rogers, Paul. (1998). The Cognitive Psychology of Lottery Gambling: A Theoretical Review. Journal of Gambling Studies, 14(2), 111-134.
Skinner, B. F. (1963). Operant behavior. American Psychologist, 18(8), 503–515.
Comments
No comments yet — share your thoughts.