IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v324y2023ics0277953623002125.html

Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak

Author

Listed:
  • Arroyos-Calvera, Danae
  • Covey, Judith
  • McDonald, Rebecca

Abstract

Policy makers aim to respect public preferences when making trade-offs between policies, yet most estimates of the value of safety neglect individuals' preferences over how safety is distributed. Incorporating these preferences into policy first requires measuring them. Arroyos-Calvera et al. (2019) documented that people cared most about efficiency, but that equity followed closely, and self-interest mattered too, but not enough to override preferences for efficiency and equity. Early 2020 saw the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This event would impose major changes in how people perceived and experienced risk to life, creating an opportunity to test whether safety-related preferences are stable and robust to important contextual changes. Further developing Arroyos-Calvera et al.’s methodology and re-inviting an international general population sample of participants that had taken part in pre-pandemic online surveys in 2017 and 2018, we collected an April 2020 wave of the survey and showed that overall preferences for efficiency, equity and self-interest were remarkably stable before and after the pandemic outbreak. We hope this offers policy makers reassurance that once these preferences have been elicited from a representative sample of the population, they need not be re-estimated after important contextual changes.

Suggested Citation

  • Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Covey, Judith & McDonald, Rebecca, 2023. "Are distributional preferences for safety stable? A longitudinal analysis before and after the COVID-19 outbreak," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:324:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623002125
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115855
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623002125
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.115855?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dolan, P. & Hallsworth, M. & Halpern, D. & King, D. & Metcalfe, R. & Vlaev, I., 2012. "Influencing behaviour: The mindspace way," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 264-277.
    2. Michelle Baddeley, 2020. "Hoarding in the age of COVID-19," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S), pages 69-75, June.
    3. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    4. Truong, Dothang & Truong, My D., 2022. "How do customers change their purchasing behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic?," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    5. Pedro Bordalo & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2013. "Salience and Consumer Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(5), pages 803-843.
    6. Colin F. Camerer, 1997. "Progress in Behavioral Game Theory," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 11(4), pages 167-188, Fall.
    7. Adrian Bruhin & Ernst Fehr & Daniel Schunk, 2019. "The many Faces of Human Sociality: Uncovering the Distribution and Stability of Social Preferences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 1025-1069.
    8. Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Covey, Judith & Loomes, Graham & McDonald, Rebecca, 2019. "The efficiency-equity trade-off, self-interest, and moral principles in health and safety valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Aki Tsuchiya & Paul Dolan, 2009. "Equality of what in health? Distinguishing between outcome egalitarianism and gain egalitarianism," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(2), pages 147-159, February.
    10. Grimalda, Gianluca & Buchan, Nancy R. & Ozturk, Orgul G. & Pinate, Adriana C. & Urso, Giulia & Brewer, Marilynn B., 2021. "Exposure to COVID-19 is associated with increased altruism, particularly at the local level," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 248645, Kiel Institute for the World Economy.
    11. Chuang, Yating & Schechter, Laura, 2015. "Stability of experimental and survey measures of risk, time, and social preferences: A review and some new results," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 151-170.
    12. repec:reg:rpubli:98 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Thierry Blayac & Dimitri Dubois & Sebastien Duchene & Phu Nguyen-Van & Bruno Ventelou & Marc Willinger, 2021. "Population preferences for inclusive COVID-19 policy responses," Post-Print hal-03663993, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ross, Johannes & Kienle, Ann-Katrin & Nicklisch, Andreas, 2024. "Sharing the cake during a crisis: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on intertemporal altruism and efficiency concerns," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 228(C).
    2. Lohmann, Paul M. & Gsottbauer, Elisabeth & You, Jing & Kontoleon, Andreas, 2023. "Anti-social behaviour and economic decision-making: Panel experimental evidence in the wake of COVID-19," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 206(C), pages 136-171.
    3. Carpenter, Jeffrey & Robbett, Andrea, 2024. "Measuring socially appropriate social preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 517-532.
    4. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    5. Carvajal, Daniel, 2024. "Exposure to diversity, social proximity and ingroup bias," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 14/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Gary Charness, 2025. "Social Preferences: Fundamental Characteristics and Economic Consequences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 63(2), pages 440-514, June.
    7. Salvatore Nunnari & Massimiliano Pozzi, 2022. "Meta-Analysis of Inequality Aversion Estimates," CESifo Working Paper Series 9851, CESifo.
    8. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    9. Adrian Bruhin & Maha Manai & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2022. "Risk and rationality: The relative importance of probability weighting and choice set dependence," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 65(2), pages 139-184, October.
    10. Roxanne Kovacs & Maurice Dunaiski & Matteo M. Galizzi & Gianluca Grimalda & Rafael Hortala‐Vallve & Fabrice Murtin & Louis Putterman, 2024. "The determinants of trust: findings from large, representative samples in six OECD countries," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(364), pages 1521-1552, October.
    11. Daniel Schunk & Isabell Zipperle, 2023. "Fairness and inequality acceptance in children and adolescents: A survey on behaviors in economic experiments," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(5), pages 1715-1742, December.
    12. Hamza Umer, 2024. "Covid-19 and altruism: a meta-analysis of dictator games," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 51(1), pages 35-60, February.
    13. Ban, Radu & Gilligan, Michael J. & Rieger, Matthias, 2020. "Self-help groups, savings and social capital: Evidence from a field experiment in Cambodia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 174-200.
    14. Weber, Till O. & Schulz, Jonathan F. & Beranek, Benjamin & Lambarraa-Lehnhardt, Fatima & Gächter, Simon, 2023. "The behavioral mechanisms of voluntary cooperation across culturally diverse societies: Evidence from the US, the UK, Morocco, and Turkey," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 215(C), pages 134-152.
    15. Raymond Fisman & Pamela Jakiela & Shachar Kariv & Silvia Vannutelli, 2023. "The distributional preferences of Americans, 2013–2016," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(4), pages 727-748, September.
    16. Fehr, Dietmar & Müller, Daniel & Preuss, Marcel, 2024. "Social mobility perceptions and inequality acceptance," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 221(C), pages 366-384.
    17. Mekvabishvili, Rati & Mekvabishvili, Elguja & Natsvaladze, Marine & Sirbiladze, Rusudan & Mzhavanadze, Giorgi & Deisadze, Salome, 2023. "Prosocial Behavior and the Individual Normative Standard of Fairness within a Dynamic Context: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 116774, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 20 Mar 2023.
    18. Bhattacharya, Haimanti & Dugar, Subhasish & Sarkar, Sumit, 2025. "Bargaining over taking from a powerless third party: The role of social preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    19. Arroyos-Calvera, Danae & Covey, Judith & Loomes, Graham & McDonald, Rebecca, 2019. "The efficiency-equity trade-off, self-interest, and moral principles in health and safety valuation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 238(C), pages 1-1.
    20. Clot, Sophie & Andriamahefazafy, Fano & Grolleau, Gilles & Ibanez, Lisette & Méral, Philippe, 2015. "Compensation and Rewards for Environmental Services (CRES) and efficient design of contracts in developing countries. Behavioral insights from a natural field experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 85-96.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:324:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623002125. 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.