IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10728-d900417.html

Behavioral Approach to the COVID-19 Vaccination Policy: An Empirical Study in Serbia

Author

Listed:
  • Aleksandar S. Mojašević

    (Faculty of Law, University in Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Dejan Vučetić

    (Faculty of Law, University in Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

  • Jelena Vučković

    (Faculty of Law, University in Kragujevac, 34000 Kragujevac, Serbia)

  • Stefan Stefanović

    (Faculty of Law, University in Niš, 18000 Niš, Serbia)

Abstract

The article presents the results of empirical research on the general population’s attitudes towards the COVID-19 vaccination policy in the Republic of Serbia. The research aims to examine if and to what extent the respondents were vaccinated against COVID-19, their attitudes towards the vaccination policy, and, especially, why they did not get vaccinated or were hesitant. The research was conducted on a sample of the general population ( n = 501) by distributing a specially designed questionnaire comprising twelve open and closed questions. The starting hypothesis was that there was significant resistance to vaccination and that respondents were reluctant to get vaccinated due to distrust not only of the COVID-19 vaccines but also of the Serbian health authorities and the public vaccination policy. The findings confirm this hypothesis and reveal specific reasons for resistance and hesitancy, including concerns about the vaccine’s safety, side effects, and insufficiently tested vaccines. A large number of respondents disclosed distrust in the health authorities and noted that they were not prone to changing their minds. The authors explain these reasons by numerous cognitive biases. The conclusion provides an overview of specific behavioral measures for improving the effectiveness of the vaccination policy in Serbia.

Suggested Citation

  • Aleksandar S. Mojašević & Dejan Vučetić & Jelena Vučković & Stefan Stefanović, 2022. "Behavioral Approach to the COVID-19 Vaccination Policy: An Empirical Study in Serbia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-19, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10728-:d:900417
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10728/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/17/10728/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Awijen, Haithem & Ben Zaied, Younes & Nguyen, Duc Khuong, 2022. "Covid-19 vaccination, fear and anxiety: Evidence from Google search trends," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 297(C).
    3. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Samuelson, William & Zeckhauser, Richard, 1988. "Status Quo Bias in Decision Making," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-59, March.
    5. Mostafa Saidur Rahim Khan & Somtip Watanapongvanich & Yoshihiko Kadoya, 2021. "COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among the Younger Generation in Japan," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(21), pages 1-17, November.
    6. Arkadiusz Sieroń, 2020. "Does the COVID-19 pandemic refute probability neglect?," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(7-8), pages 855-861, August.
    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. Lovric, M. & Kaymak, U. & Spronk, J., 2008. "A Conceptual Model of Investor Behavior," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2008-030-F&A, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    2. Karle, Heiko & Schumacher, Heiner & Vølund, Rune, 2023. "Consumer loss aversion and scale-dependent psychological switching costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 214-237.
    3. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    4. Zhorin, Victor, 2026. "The Mortality Input Problem: Trajectory-Dependent Death and the Lifecycle Model," MPRA Paper 129315, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Firpo, Sergio & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kobus, Martyna & Parker, Thomas & Rosa-Dias, Pedro, 2025. "Loss aversion and the welfare ranking of policy interventions," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 252(PB).
    6. Leković Milјan, 2020. "Cognitive Biases as an Integral Part of Behavioral Finance," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 75-96, March.
    7. Joseph Teal & Petko Kusev & Renata Heilman & Rose Martin & Alessia Passanisi & Ugo Pace, 2021. "Problem Gambling ‘Fuelled on the Fly’," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-14, August.
    8. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    9. Elbæk, Christian T. & Lystbæk, Martin Nørhede & Mitkidis, Panagiotis, 2022. "On the psychology of bonuses: The effects of loss aversion and Yerkes-Dodson law on performance in cognitively and mechanically demanding tasks," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    10. Han Bleichrodt, 2002. "A new explanation for the difference between time trade‐off utilities and standard gamble utilities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(5), pages 447-456, July.
    11. Tian, Ye & Li, Yudi & Sun, Jian, 2022. "Stick or carrot for traffic demand management? Evidence from experimental economics," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 235-254.
    12. Armando Holzknecht & Jürgen Huber & Michael Kirchler & Teresa Steinbacher, "undated". "Knowledge and Beliefs About Behavioral Biases," Working Papers 2024-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    13. Kuhberger, Anton, 1998. "The Influence of Framing on Risky Decisions: A Meta-analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 23-55, July.
    14. Miklós Antal & Ardjan Gazheli & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2012. "Behavioural Foundations of Sustainability Transitions. WWWforEurope Working Paper No. 3," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 46424.
    15. Fershtman, Chaim, 1996. "On the value of incumbency managerial reference points and loss aversion," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 245-257, April.
    16. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    17. Fryza, Stefanie & Mattos, Fabio, 2010. "Producers’ Grain Marketing Decisions: A Study in the Canadian Markets," 2010 Conference, April 19-20, 2010, St. Louis, Missouri 285323, NCR-134/ NCCC-134 Applied Commodity Price Analysis, Forecasting, and Market Risk Management.
    18. Shlomo Benartzi & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Myopic Loss Aversion and the Equity Premium Puzzle," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(1), pages 73-92.
    19. Mercè Roca & Robin Hogarth & A. Maule, 2006. "Ambiguity seeking as a result of the status quo bias," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 175-194, May.
    20. Simon Gächter & Eric J. Johnson & Andreas Herrmann, 2022. "Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 599-624, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:17:p:10728-:d:900417. 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 The email address of this maintainer does not seem to be valid anymore. Please ask MDPI Indexing Manager to update the entry or send us the correct address (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.