This paper proposes two new theoretical models for examining individual decision-making regarding vaccination. In each case, individuals’ decisions are modelled as a binary choice (i.e. to accept or to reject an invitation to receive vaccination) which are a product both of the perceived risk of the preventable disease in question and of the perceived risk of adverse side effects of the vaccine itself. Individuals decisions are modelled in two ways – first, as expected utility maximising and second, as regret minimising – and the results compared. In both cases, the decision to vaccinate is explained by a threshold condition with respect to the risk of remaining exposed to the disease by rejecting vaccination, and the risk of experiencing adverse events from vaccination itself. Regret-averse individuals have a higher threshold – suggesting a lower propensity to vaccinate than that suggested by the expected utility models. Although the results are intuitively plausible, they rest on assumptions about the perceived severity of side effects as opposed to preventable disease. We conclude by identifying a number of theoretical issues that remain to be explored, and outlining the empirical research required.
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read
the IDEAS help
file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS
site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
References listed on IDEAS Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.: