IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i8p4842-d795256.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study

Author

Listed:
  • Jinzi Zhang

    (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China)

  • Pu Ge

    (Institute of Chinese Medical Sciences, University of Macau, Macau 999078, China)

  • Xialei Li

    (School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, China)

  • Mei Yin

    (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China)

  • Yujia Wang

    (School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Harbin Medical University, Harbin 150081, China)

  • Waikit Ming

    (Department of Infectious Diseases and Public Health, Jockey Club College of Veterinary Medicine and Life Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Jinhui Li

    (School of Journalism and Communication, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China)

  • Pei Li

    (Hong Kong Institute of Health Education, Hong Kong 999077, China)

  • Xinying Sun

    (School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)

  • Yibo Wu

    (School of Public Health, Peking University, Beijing 100191, China)

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to investigate the differences in public vaccination preference for the COVID-19 vaccine with different personality characteristics. Methods: Based on the Big Five Personality Inventory (BFI-10), a total of 1200 respondents were categorized by personality characteristics using Latent Profile Analysis (LPA). The preference of members the public with different personality characteristics for COVID-19 vaccination was investigated based on a discrete choice experiment (DCE). Results: All respondents were divided into three groups, named the General and Stable type (79.67%), Conscientious and Agreeable type (9.5%), and Open and Extroverted type (10.83%). For the percentage importance of vaccine attributes, both the General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable type respondents considered cost to be the most important (41.93% and 34.95% respectively). However, the Open and Extroverted type respondents considered efficacy as the most important (31.05%). In our conditional logit model (CLOGIT), for vaccine adverse effects, the General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable type respondents preferred “very mild”, while the Open and Extroverted type preferred “mild” (OR:1.108, 95%CI 0.977–1.256). The Open and Extroverted type had a higher willingness to pay (WTP) for the most preferred vaccine level compared to the other types. Conclusions: The Open and Extroverted respondents have the highest willingness to vaccinate. The General and Stable type and Conscientious and Agreeable respondents think that the cost of the vaccine is the most important attribute, and prefer the mildest side effects. The Open and Extroverted type think that vaccine efficacy is the most important attribute, prefer “mild” side effects, and have higher willingness to pay for their favorite vaccine level.

Suggested Citation

  • Jinzi Zhang & Pu Ge & Xialei Li & Mei Yin & Yujia Wang & Waikit Ming & Jinhui Li & Pei Li & Xinying Sun & Yibo Wu, 2022. "Personality Effects on Chinese Public Preference for the COVID-19 Vaccination: Discrete Choice Experiment and Latent Profile Analysis Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-20, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4842-:d:795256
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4842/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/8/4842/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Esther Bekker-Grob & Bas Donkers & Marcel Jonker & Elly Stolk, 2015. "Sample Size Requirements for Discrete-Choice Experiments in Healthcare: a Practical Guide," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 8(5), pages 373-384, October.
    2. Vikas Soekhai & Esther W. Bekker-Grob & Alan R. Ellis & Caroline M. Vass, 2019. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: Past, Present and Future," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 201-226, February.
    3. Michael Clark & Domino Determann & Stavros Petrou & Domenico Moro & Esther Bekker-Grob, 2014. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Economics: A Review of the Literature," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 32(9), pages 883-902, September.
    4. Julie Riise Kolstad, 2011. "How to make rural jobs more attractive to health workers. Findings from a discrete choice experiment in Tanzania," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(2), pages 196-211, February.
    5. Jamie Murphy & Frédérique Vallières & Richard P. Bentall & Mark Shevlin & Orla McBride & Todd K. Hartman & Ryan McKay & Kate Bennett & Liam Mason & Jilly Gibson-Miller & Liat Levita & Anton P. Martine, 2021. "Psychological characteristics associated with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and resistance in Ireland and the United Kingdom," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 12(1), pages 1-15, December.
    6. Ariana Remmel, 2021. "COVID vaccines and safety: what the research says," Nature, Nature, vol. 590(7847), pages 538-540, February.
    7. Richard Carciofo & Jiaoyan Yang & Nan Song & Feng Du & Kan Zhang, 2016. "Psychometric Evaluation of Chinese-Language 44-Item and 10-Item Big Five Personality Inventories, Including Correlations with Chronotype, Mindfulness and Mind Wandering," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, February.
    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. Ziwei Zhang & Pu Ge & Mengyao Yan & Yuyao Niu & Diyue Liu & Ping Xiong & Qiyu Li & Jinzi Zhang & Wenli Yu & Xinying Sun & Zhizhong Liu & Yibo Wu, 2022. "Self-Medication Behaviors of Chinese Residents and Consideration Related to Drug Prices and Medical Insurance Reimbursement When Self-Medicating: A Cross-Sectional Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-19, October.

    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. John Buckell & Vrinda Vasavada & Sarah Wordsworth & Dean A. Regier & Matthew Quaife, 2022. "Utility maximization versus regret minimization in health choice behavior: Evidence from four datasets," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 363-381, February.
    2. Huls, Samare P.I. & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2022. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data? The role of model complexity in a discrete choice experiment about colorectal cancer screening," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).
    3. Swait, J. & de Bekker-Grob, E.W., 2022. "A discrete choice model implementing gist-based categorization of alternatives, with applications to patient preferences for cancer screening and treatment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    4. Liu, Yun & Kong, Qingxia & de Bekker-Grob, Esther W., 2019. "Public preferences for health care facilities in rural China: A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 237(C), pages 1-1.
    5. de Bekker-Grob, E.W. & Donkers, B. & Bliemer, M.C.J. & Veldwijk, J. & Swait, J.D., 2020. "Can healthcare choice be predicted using stated preference data?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    6. Ashlyn Hansen & Scott D. Brown & Marie B. H. Yap, 2021. "Enhancing Engagement of Fathers in Web-Based Preventive Parenting Programs for Adolescent Mental Health: A Discrete Choice Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-19, November.
    7. Dunsch, Felipe Alexander & Velenyi, Edit, 2019. "Job Preferences of Frontline Health Workers in Ghana - A Discrete Choice Experiment," SocArXiv bqx5k, Center for Open Science.
    8. Conti, G.; & Giustinelli, P.;, 2022. "For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs in Health Behavior: An Application to Lockdown Compliance in the United Kingdom," Health, Econometrics and Data Group (HEDG) Working Papers 22/14, HEDG, c/o Department of Economics, University of York.
    9. Brouwers, Jonas & Cox, Bianca & Van Wilder, Astrid & Claessens, Fien & Bruyneel, Luk & De Ridder, Dirk & Eeckloo, Kristof & Vanhaecht, Kris, 2021. "The future of hospital quality of care policy: A multi-stakeholder discrete choice experiment in Flanders, Belgium," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(12), pages 1565-1573.
    10. John Buckell & Joachim Marti & Jody L. Sindelar, 2017. "Should Flavors be Banned in E-cigarettes? Evidence on Adult Smokers and Recent Quitters from a Discrete Choice Experiment," NBER Working Papers 23865, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Sydenham, Rikke Vognbjerg & Jarbøl, Dorte Ejg & Hansen, Malene Plejdrup & Justesen, Ulrik Stenz & Watson, Verity & Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov, 2022. "Prescribing antibiotics: Factors driving decision-making in general practice. A discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    12. Sriwastava, Ambuj & Reichert, Peter, 2023. "Reducing sample size requirements by extending discrete choice experiments to indifference elicitation," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    13. Peter Zweifel, 2022. "Preference measurement in health using experiments," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(1), pages 49-66, March.
    14. Jackson Bunyangha & Agnes. W. N. Muthumbi & Anthony Egeru & Robert Asiimwe & Dunston W. Ulwodi & Nathan. N. Gichuki & Mwanjalolo. J. G. Majaliwa, 2022. "Preferred Attributes for Sustainable Wetland Management in Mpologoma Catchment, Uganda: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-18, June.
    15. Viberg Johansson, Jennifer & Shah, Nisha & Haraldsdóttir, Eik & Bentzen, Heidi Beate & Coy, Sarah & Kaye, Jane & Mascalzoni, Deborah & Veldwijk, Jorien, 2021. "Governance mechanisms for sharing of health data: An approach towards selecting attributes for complex discrete choice experiment studies," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    16. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    17. Joachim Marti & John Buckell & Johanna Catherine Maclean & Jody L. Sindelar, 2016. "To ‘Vape’ or Smoke? A Discrete Choice Experiment Among U.S. Adult Smokers," NBER Working Papers 22079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. 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).
    19. Osborne, Matthew & Lambe, Fiona & Ran, Ylva & Dehmel, Naira & Tabacco, Giovanni Alberto & Balungira, Joshua & Pérez-Viana, Borja & Widmark, Erik & Holmlid, Stefan & Verschoor, Arjan, 2022. "Designing development interventions: The application of service design and discrete choice experiments in complex settings," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    20. Rowen, Donna & Powell, Philip A. & Hole, Arne Risa & Aragon, Maria-Jose & Castelli, Adriana & Jacobs, Rowena, 2022. "Valuing quality in mental healthcare: A discrete choice experiment eliciting preferences from mental healthcare service users, mental healthcare professionals and the general population," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 301(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:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:8:p:4842-:d:795256. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.