IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v289y2021ics0277953621006055.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy

Author

Listed:
  • Tentori, K.
  • Passerini, A.
  • Timberlake, B.
  • Pighin, S.

Abstract

Although the efficacies of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, i.e., the virus that causes Covid-19, have been publicized and praised, and although they are assumed to encourage vaccine compliance, little is known about how well these figures are understood by the general public. Our study aims to fill this gap by investigating whether laypeople have an adequate grasp of what vaccine efficacy means and, if not, which misconceptions and consequences are the most common. To this end, we carried out three online behavioral experiments involving 1800 participants overall. The first, exploratory experiment, with a sample of 600 UK participants, allowed us to document, by means of both an open-ended question and a multiple-choice question, a common misinterpretation of the efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the non-incidence rate among the vaccinated. We formally demonstrated that this error leads to a systematic overestimation of the probability of individuals who are vaccinated developing Covid-19. The second experiment confirmed the prevalence of this misinterpretation in a new sample of 600 UK and Italian participants, by means of a slightly different multiple-choice question that included more response options. Finally, in a third experiment, involving another 600 UK and Italian participants, we investigated the behavioral implications of the documented error and showed that it might undermine the general positive attitude toward vaccines as well as the intention to get vaccinated. On the whole, the results of this study reveal a general misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy that may have serious consequences for the perceived benefits of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and, thus, the willingness to be vaccinated.

Suggested Citation

  • Tentori, K. & Passerini, A. & Timberlake, B. & Pighin, S., 2021. "The misunderstanding of vaccine efficacy," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 289(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:289:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621006055
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114273
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621006055
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114273?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. Nicolai Bodemer & Björn Meder & Gerd Gigerenzer, 2014. "Communicating Relative Risk Changes with Baseline Risk," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 615-626, July.
    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. Cao, Wanpeng & Du, Debin & Xia, Qifan, 2023. "Unbalanced global vaccine product trade pattern: A network perspective," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 325(C).
    2. Chiara Natalie Focacci & Pak Hung Lam & Yu Bai, 2022. "Choosing the right COVID-19 indicator: crude mortality, case fatality, and infection fatality rates influence policy preferences, behaviour, and understanding," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-8, December.
    3. Liu, Xin & Zhao, Ning & Li, Shu & Zheng, Rui, 2022. "Opt-out policy and its improvements promote COVID-19 vaccinations," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 307(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. Suk, Kwanho & Hwang, Sanyoung & Jeong, Yunjoo, 2022. "The 1-in-X effect in perceptions of risk likelihood differences," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    2. Sandro Zacher & Birte Berger-Höger & Julia Lühnen & Anke Steckelberg, 2022. "Development and Piloting of a Web-Based Tool to Teach Relative and Absolute Risk Reductions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-18, December.

    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:289:y:2021:i:c:s0277953621006055. 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.