IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v282y2021ics0277953621004470.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vaccine hesitancy, state bias, and Covid-19: Evidence from a survey experiment using Phase-3 results announcement by BioNTech and Pfizer

Author

Listed:
  • Kobayashi, Yoshiharu
  • Howell, Christopher
  • Heinrich, Tobias

Abstract

Past survey studies document that people strongly prefer Covid-19 vaccines developed domestically over those developed abroad. Available evidence suggests that this preference for domestic vaccines over foreign ones may stem from prejudice against foreign countries, but identifying prejudice-based vaccine preferences is difficult because people also draw inferences about the quality of vaccines based on country of origin. We exploit a unique opportunity provided by the announcement of a viable vaccine by a bi-national venture, BioNTech and Pfizer, to examine the effect of such prejudice on vaccination intentions while controlling for beliefs about the vaccine quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Howell, Christopher & Heinrich, Tobias, 2021. "Vaccine hesitancy, state bias, and Covid-19: Evidence from a survey experiment using Phase-3 results announcement by BioNTech and Pfizer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 282(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:282:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621004470
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114115
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621004470
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114115?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hainmueller, Jens, 2012. "Entropy Balancing for Causal Effects: A Multivariate Reweighting Method to Produce Balanced Samples in Observational Studies," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(1), pages 25-46, January.
    2. Sebastian Neumann-Böhme & Nirosha Elsem Varghese & Iryna Sabat & Pedro Pita Barros & Werner Brouwer & Job Exel & Jonas Schreyögg & Tom Stargardt, 2020. "Once we have it, will we use it? A European survey on willingness to be vaccinated against COVID-19," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 21(7), pages 977-982, September.
    3. Kirk Bansak, 2021. "Estimating causal moderation effects with randomized treatments and non‐randomized moderators," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 184(1), pages 65-86, January.
    4. Jayson L. Lusk & Jason Brown & Tyler Mark & Idlir Proseku & Rachel Thompson & Jody Welsh, 2006. "Consumer Behavior, Public Policy, and Country-of-Origin Labeling," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(2), pages 284-292.
    5. Mullinix, Kevin J. & Leeper, Thomas J. & Druckman, James N. & Freese, Jeremy, 2015. "The Generalizability of Survey Experiments," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 109-138, January.
    6. Michael J. Hanmer & Kerem Ozan Kalkan, 2013. "Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 263-277, January.
    7. Allen, Michael A. & Flynn, Michael E. & Machain, Carla Martinez & Stravers, Andrew, 2020. "Outside the Wire: U.S. Military Deployments and Public Opinion in Host States," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 326-341, May.
    8. Motta, Matt, 2021. "Can a COVID-19 vaccine live up to Americans’ expectations? A conjoint analysis of how vaccine characteristics influence vaccination intentions," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    9. Marcus, George E. & MacKuen, Michael B., 1993. "Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 672-685, September.
    10. Ted Brader, 2005. "Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(2), pages 388-405, April.
    11. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    12. Callaghan, Timothy & Moghtaderi, Ali & Lueck, Jennifer A. & Hotez, Peter & Strych, Ulrich & Dor, Avi & Fowler, Erika Franklin & Motta, Matthew, 2021. "Correlates and disparities of intention to vaccinate against COVID-19," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 272(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daziano, Ricardo & Budziński, Wiktor, 2023. "Evolution of preferences for COVID-19 vaccine throughout the pandemic – The choice experiment approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 332(C).
    2. Kobayashi, Yoshiharu & Howell, Christopher & Heinrich, Tobias & Motta, Matthew, 2022. "Investigating how historical legacies of militarized violence can motivate COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: Evidence from global dyadic survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 311(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soojong Kim, 2019. "Directionality of information flow and echoes without chambers," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-22, May.
    2. Schwaiger, Rene & Hueber, Laura, 2021. "Do MTurkers exhibit myopic loss aversion?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Lala Muradova & Ross James Gildea, 2021. "Oil wealth and US public support for war," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(1), pages 3-19, January.
    4. Logan S. Casey & Jesse Chandler & Adam Seth Levine & Andrew Proctor & Dara Z. Strolovitch, 2017. "Intertemporal Differences Among MTurk Workers: Time-Based Sample Variations and Implications for Online Data Collection," SAGE Open, , vol. 7(2), pages 21582440177, June.
    5. Antonio A. Arechar & Simon Gächter & Lucas Molleman, 2018. "Conducting interactive experiments online," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 21(1), pages 99-131, March.
    6. Kevin E. Levay & Jeremy Freese & James N. Druckman, 2016. "The Demographic and Political Composition of Mechanical Turk Samples," SAGE Open, , vol. 6(1), pages 21582440166, March.
    7. David Johnson & John Barry Ryan, 2020. "Amazon Mechanical Turk workers can provide consistent and economically meaningful data," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 369-385, July.
    8. Nicholas Haas & Rebecca B. Morton, 2018. "Saying versus doing: a new donation method for measuring ideal points," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 79-106, July.
    9. Chiang, Chun-Fang & Kuo, Jason & Liu, Jin-Tan, 2022. "Cueing quality: Unpacking country-of-origin effects on intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19 in Taiwan," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 314(C).
    10. Salil D. Benegal & Lyle A. Scruggs, 2018. "Correcting misinformation about climate change: the impact of partisanship in an experimental setting," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 61-80, May.
    11. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    12. Blaine G. Robbins, 2017. "Status, identity, and ability in the formation of trust," Rationality and Society, , vol. 29(4), pages 408-448, November.
    13. Healy, Andrew J. & Malhotra, Neil & Mo, Cecilia H., 2009. "Personal Emotions and Political Decision Making: Implications for Voter Competence," Research Papers 2034, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    14. Morten Hjortskov, 2020. "Interpreting expectations: Normative and predictive expectations from the citizens’ viewpoint," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    15. Austin M Strange & Ryan D Enos & Mark Hill & Amy Lakeman, 2019. "Online volunteer laboratories for human subjects research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-13, August.
    16. Shari De Baets & Dilek Önkal & Wasim Ahmed, 2022. "Do Risky Scenarios Affect Forecasts of Savings and Expenses?," Forecasting, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-28, February.
    17. Garz, Marcel & Sood, Gaurav & Stone, Daniel F. & Wallace, Justin, 2020. "The supply of media slant across outlets and demand for slant within outlets: Evidence from US presidential campaign news," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    18. Viskupič Filip, 2020. "More Valuable than Blood and Treasure? Experimental Evidence on the Impact of Status on Domestic Preferences for Military Intervention," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 26(4), pages 1-20, December.
    19. Allison Carnegie & Lindsay R. Dolan, 2021. "The effects of rejecting aid on recipients’ reputations: Evidence from natural disaster responses," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 495-519, July.
    20. Barceló, Joan & Sheen, Greg Chih-Hsin & Tung, Hans H. & Wu, Wen-Chin, 2022. "Vaccine nationalism among the public: A cross-country experimental evidence of own-country bias towards COVID-19 vaccination," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:282:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621004470. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.