Lottery Ticket Approach Leads to Reduction in HIV Prevalence

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/12/lottery-ticket-approach-leads-to-drastic-reduction-in-hiv-prevalence/?utm_content=buffer037f2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

by kposehn • 11 years ago

37 16 11 years ago

foreignpolicy.com

phn4• 11 years ago

I'm not sure how I feel about using "game-y" things to convince people to do stuff, especially when we're talking about serious stuff.

In Portugal a similar strategy was used to hinder tax evasion, where you got a chance (a ticket, so to speak) to win a car for each receipt you demanded on every purchase you made. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, I think)

It somehow feels like cheating/manipulating people, since we are terrible at estimating very small odds, making this kind of stuff an effective strategy with a very small cost for whoever provides the prize.

sageabilly• 11 years ago

I agree. To me it also has echos of colonialism, as there's an overtone of "We just can't get the residents in Lesotho to stop contracting HIV so we, the (European) rich non-natives, are going to bribe the poor natives into taking care of themselves. Aren't we just so benevolent!" It reminds me of the picture of the Turkish officials with bread in the Armenian genocide.[1]

[1]http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/turkish-official-teasing-sta...

MaulingMonkey• 11 years ago

I'm not sure how I feel about using "game-y" things to convince people to do stuff, especially when we're talking about serious stuff.

I see it as a tool, usable for both good and bad. Taking manipulation of others out of the equation: Would you have concerns "gameifying" things for yourself, on your own behalf, as a form of self manipulation?

phn4• 11 years ago

I wouldn't, because it would be a decision by me and for me. It is precisely the manipulative aspect that I am concerned with.

I am not against it, in this specific case, but the "end justifying the means" message it seems to send doesn't ring too well.

JulianMorrison• 11 years ago

Your chance of winning money may be tiny, but your chance of actually not dying of a AIDS went way up. Pay for the infinitessimal chance of a coffee, receive a donut instead. Tasty, tasty donut.

phn4• 11 years ago

Yeah, but the will to actually not dying of AIDS should be taught somehow. Otherwise, you are covering up the problem. In a year the lottery goes away, AIDS comes up again.

Just like fixing a bug superficially instead of going for the root.

If you wanted donuts you could've just get them in the first place.

I am not saying the results aren't positive, or that they aren't better than nothing. But I don't think this solves anything in the long term, and the manipulative and "the ends justify the means" approach rings the "should this really be done?" alarm bell in my mind.

renox• 11 years ago

I've seen the same thing in Shanghai.

I understand that the mean is discutable but here in all of these case, the goal seems OK: less AIDS, less tax evasion.

qbrass• 11 years ago

Until people realize that if you reduce the number of HIV negative people, the odds of winning for those left increase.

msie• 11 years ago

Perfect is the enemy of good.

phn4• 11 years ago

Of course :) Let's not stop striving for improvement though.

DarkCow• 11 years ago

This kind of thing is apparently known as "Nudge theory": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory

mikeash• 11 years ago

It happens all the time everywhere anyway. Advertising, regular non-AIDS-related lotteries, law enforcement, even simple things like traffic signals, all are "game-y" to some extent. At least this instance is using it to accomplish something good, instead of just convincing people to consume a different brand of sugar water.

I understand the reluctance to use persuasive tactics like this. But in a practical sense, if being principled means avoiding anything "game-y" then all you're saying is that the world is to be run by non-principled people.

mcherm• 11 years ago

So, if I've got this right, sexually transmitted diseases are transmitted mostly by people with a high tolerance for risk (people who tend to engage in risky behavior). Also, people with a high tolerance for risk tend to overvalue lotteries. So they targeted that population by incorporating a lottery into their social program.

Clever.

learnstats22• 11 years ago

This is indeed where the article goes, but I suggest risk is overstated as a factor here.

Everyone knows they should be tested, so an incentive to actually go and do it doesn't need to be large or meaningful. This also acts as a genuine acknowledgement by the state that this is important and that it's without taboo.

Testing reduces everyone's chance of being infected - so it ought to reduce risk-takers' chances proportionately more, lottery or not.

Lottery Ticket Approach Leads to Reduction in HIV Prevalence

Related Stories