IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v332y2023ics0277953623004501.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evolution of preferences for COVID-19 vaccine throughout the pandemic – The choice experiment approach

Author

Listed:
  • Daziano, Ricardo
  • Budziński, Wiktor

Abstract

In this study, we employ a choice experiment to study individual preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the US. A unique characteristic of the microdata (N = 5671) is that the survey was conducted in five distinct waves from October 2020 to October 2021. Because of this dynamic feature, it is possible to control for evolving pandemic conditions such as the number of COVID-19 active cases, vaccination uptake, and the frequency of Google searches related to the vaccines. Furthermore, we employ a hybrid choice model to incorporate respondents' attitudes related to their perceived vulnerability to diseases, as well as their perceived health status. The hybrid choice model was extended to incorporate latent classes as well as random effects. We find that the rate of vaccinated individuals in the population actually increases the probability of vaccine hesitancy, and therefore may discourage people to get vaccinated. This may be evidence of free-riding behavior. On the other hand, the number of COVID-19 cases has a positive effect on the probability of getting vaccinated, suggesting that individuals react to the pandemic conditions by taking some protective measures. Google trend data do not seem to have a straightforward effect on the vaccination demand, but it increases consumers’ willingness to pay for several vaccine characteristics. With respect to the analyzed attitudes, we find that perceived uninfectability is a significant driver of vaccine hesitancy, probably related to the frequent “natural immunity” argument. In turn, germ aversion has a positive effect on the probability of getting vaccinated as well as on the marginal willingness to pay. Finally, health status has a limited effect on whether the individual will decide to vaccinate or not.

Suggested Citation

  • 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).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:332:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623004501
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116093
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953623004501
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116093?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. Sarrias, Mauricio, 2020. "Individual-specific posterior distributions from Mixed Logit models: Properties, limitations and diagnostic checks," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    2. Neil F. Johnson & Nicolas Velásquez & Nicholas Johnson Restrepo & Rhys Leahy & Nicholas Gabriel & Sara El Oud & Minzhang Zheng & Pedro Manrique & Stefan Wuchty & Yonatan Lupu, 2020. "The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views," Nature, Nature, vol. 582(7811), pages 230-233, June.
    3. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2022. "Endogeneity and Measurement Bias of the Indicator Variables in Hybrid Choice Models: A Monte Carlo Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 605-629, November.
    4. Chorus, Caspar G. & Kroesen, Maarten, 2014. "On the (im-)possibility of deriving transport policy implications from hybrid choice models," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 217-222.
    5. McPhedran, Robert & Toombs, Ben, 2021. "Efficacy or delivery? An online Discrete Choice Experiment to explore preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in the UK," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    6. Hershey, John C. & Asch, David A. & Thumasathit, Thi & Meszaros, Jacqueline & Waters, Victor V., 1994. "The Roles of Altruism, Free Riding, and Bandwagoning in Vaccination Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 59(2), pages 177-187, August.
    7. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Budziński, Wiktor, 2019. "Simulation error in maximum likelihood estimation of discrete choice models," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 73-85.
    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. 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).
    10. Ewen Callaway, 2020. "Russia’s fast-track coronavirus vaccine draws outrage over safety," Nature, Nature, vol. 584(7821), pages 334-335, August.
    11. Agranov, Marina & Elliott, Matt & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2021. "The importance of Social Norms against Strategic Effects: The case of Covid-19 vaccine uptake," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Ricardo A. Daziano, 2022. "A choice experiment assessment of stated early response to COVID-19 vaccines in the USA," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 1-16, December.
    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. Malte Welling & Ewa Zawojska & Julian Sagebiel, 2022. "Information, Consequentiality and Credibility in Stated Preference Surveys: A Choice Experiment on Climate Adaptation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 82(1), pages 257-283, May.
    2. Strazzera, Elisabetta & Meleddu, Daniela & Atzori, Rossella, 2022. "A hybrid choice modelling approach to estimate the trade-off between perceived environmental risks and economic benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    3. Fanny Velardo & Verity Watson & Pierre Arwidson & François Alla & Stéphane Luchini & Michaël Schwarzinger, 2021. "Regional Differences in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in December 2020: A Natural Experiment in the French Working-Age Population," Post-Print hal-03513452, HAL.
    4. Krueger, Rico & Daziano, Ricardo A., 2022. "Stated choice analysis of preferences for COVID-19 vaccines using the Choquet integral," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    5. Hess, Stephane & Lancsar, Emily & Mariel, Petr & Meyerhoff, Jürgen & Song, Fangqing & van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline & Alaba, Olufunke A. & Amaris, Gloria & Arellana, Julián & Basso, Leonardo J. & Ben, 2022. "The path towards herd immunity: Predicting COVID-19 vaccination uptake through results from a stated choice study across six continents," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 298(C).
    6. Valeria M. Toledo‐Gallegos & Jed Long & Danny Campbell & Tobias Börger & Nick Hanley, 2021. "Spatial clustering of willingness to pay for ecosystem services," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(3), pages 673-697, September.
    7. Faccioli, Michela & Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Glenk, Klaus & Martin-Ortega, Julia, 2020. "Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    8. Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2022. "Endogeneity and Measurement Bias of the Indicator Variables in Hybrid Choice Models: A Monte Carlo Investigation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 83(3), pages 605-629, November.
    9. Ahi, Jülide Ceren & Aanesen, Margrethe & Kipperberg, Gorm, 2023. "Testing the sensitivity of stated environmental preferences to variations in choice architecture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. 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).
    11. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    12. Kruse, Tobias & Atkinson, Giles, 2022. "Understanding public support for international climate adaptation payments: Evidence from a choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 194(C).
    13. Buechel, Berno & Klößner, Stefan & Meng, Fanyuan & Nassar, Anis, 2023. "Misinformation due to asymmetric information sharing," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 150(C).
    14. Falco, Paolo & Zaccagni, Sarah, 2020. "Promoting social distancing in a pandemic: Beyond the good intentions," OSF Preprints a2nys, Center for Open Science.
    15. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    16. Amelia S Knopf & Peter Krombach & Amy J Katz & Rebecca Baker & Gregory Zimet, 2021. "Measuring research mistrust in adolescents and adults: Validity and reliability of an adapted version of the Group-Based Medical Mistrust Scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, January.
    17. Shahzeen Z. Attari & David H. Krantz & Elke U. Weber, 2014. "Reasons for cooperation and defection in real-world social dilemmas," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 316-334, July.
    18. Agranov, Marina & Elliott, Matt & Ortoleva, Pietro, 2021. "The importance of Social Norms against Strategic Effects: The case of Covid-19 vaccine uptake," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    19. Wang, Jianwei & Xu, Wenshu & Chen, Wei & Yu, Fengyuan & He, Jialu, 2021. "Information sharing can suppress the spread of epidemics: Voluntary vaccination game on two-layer networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 583(C).
    20. Janice Y. Jung & Barbara A. Mellers, 2016. "American attitudes toward nudges," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 11(1), pages 62-74, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19 vaccine; Choice experiment; Pandemic conditions; Hybrid choice model; Perceived vulnerability to disease;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • D12 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Consumer Economics: Empirical Analysis
    • D91 - Microeconomics - - Micro-Based Behavioral Economics - - - Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior

    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:332:y:2023:i:c:s0277953623004501. 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.