<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<export-example>
  <doc>
    <id>4770</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2022</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst/>
    <pageLast/>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>439</issue>
    <volume>9</volume>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2023-02-16</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Vaccination against COVID-19 is making progress globally, but vaccine doses remain a rare commodity in many parts of the world. New virus variants require vaccines to be updated, hampering the availability of effective vaccines. Policymakers have defined criteria to regulate who gets priority access to the vaccination, such as age, health complications, or those who hold system-relevant jobs. But how does the public think about vaccine allocation? To explore those preferences, we surveyed respondents in Brazil, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United States from September to December of 2020 using ranking and forced-choice tasks. We find that public preferences are consistent with expert guidelines prioritizing health-care workers and people with medical preconditions. However, the public also considers those signing up early for vaccination and citizens of the country to be more deserving than later-comers and non-citizens. These results hold across measures, countries, and socio-demographic subgroups.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Humanities and Social Sciences Communications</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1057/s41599-022-01392-1</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Simon Munzert</author>
    <submitter>Alex Karras</submitter>
    <author>Sebastian Ramirez-Ruiz</author>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <author>Lukas F. Stoetzer</author>
    <author>Anita R. Gohdes</author>
    <author>Will Lowe</author>
    <collection role="Faculty" number=""/>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Data Science Lab</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for International Security</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>3819</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2021</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>247</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>255</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue>5</issue>
    <volume/>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2021-04-20</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Tracking and Promoting Usage of a COVID-19 Contact Tracing App.</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Digital contact tracing apps have been introduced globally as an instrument to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, privacy by design impedes both the evaluation of these tools and the deployment of evidence-based interventions to stimulate uptake. We combine an online panel survey with mobile tracking data to measure the actual usage of Germany’s official contact tracing app and reveal higher uptake rates among respondents with an increased risk of severe illness, but lower rates among those with a heightened risk of exposure to COVID-19. Using a randomized intervention, we show that informative and motivational video messages have very limited effect on uptake. However, findings from a second intervention suggest that even small monetary incentives can strongly increase uptake and help make digital contact tracing a more effective tool.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Nature Human Behavior</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1038/s41562-020-01044-x</identifier>
    <identifier type="urn">2397-3374</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Simon Munzert</author>
    <submitter>Dayna Sadow</submitter>
    <author>Peter Selb</author>
    <author>Anita R. Gohdes</author>
    <author>Lukas F. Stoetzer</author>
    <author>Will Lowe</author>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Data Science Lab</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for International Security</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
  <doc>
    <id>4748</id>
    <completedYear/>
    <publishedYear>2022</publishedYear>
    <thesisYearAccepted/>
    <language>eng</language>
    <pageFirst>1</pageFirst>
    <pageLast>8</pageLast>
    <pageNumber/>
    <edition/>
    <issue/>
    <volume/>
    <type>article</type>
    <publisherName/>
    <publisherPlace/>
    <creatingCorporation/>
    <contributingCorporation/>
    <belongsToBibliography>0</belongsToBibliography>
    <completedDate>2023-02-09</completedDate>
    <publishedDate>--</publishedDate>
    <thesisDateAccepted>--</thesisDateAccepted>
    <title language="eng">Affective partisan polarization and moral dilemmas during the COVID-19 pandemic</title>
    <abstract language="eng">Recent scholarship on affective polarization documents partisan animosity in people's everyday lives. But does partisan dislike go so far as to deny fundamental rights? We study this question through a moral dilemma that gained notoriety during the COVID-19 pandemic: triage decisions on the allocation of intensive medical care. Using a conjoint experiment in five countries we analyze the influence of patients’ partisanship next to commonly discussed factors determining access to intensive medical care. We find that while participants’ choices are consistent with a utilitarian heuristic, revealed partisanship influences decisions across most countries. Supporters of left or right political camps are more likely to withhold support from partisan opponents. Our findings offer comparative evidence on affective polarization in non-political contexts.</abstract>
    <parentTitle language="eng">Political Science Research and Methods</parentTitle>
    <identifier type="doi">10.1017/psrm.2022.13</identifier>
    <enrichment key="opus.source">publish</enrichment>
    <licence>Metadaten / metadata</licence>
    <author>Lukas F. Stoetzer</author>
    <submitter>Dayna Sadow</submitter>
    <author>Simon Munzert</author>
    <author>Will Lowe</author>
    <author>Başak Çalı</author>
    <author>Anita R. Gohdes</author>
    <author>Marc Helbling</author>
    <author>Rahsaan Maxwell</author>
    <author>Richard Traunmüller</author>
    <collection role="Faculty" number=""/>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Data Science Lab</collection>
    <collection role="HertieResearch" number="">Centre for International Security</collection>
    <thesisPublisher>Hertie School</thesisPublisher>
  </doc>
</export-example>
