IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i17p10728-d900417.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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. Stefano DellaVigna, 2009. "Psychology and Economics: Evidence from the Field," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 315-372, June.
    2. Alex Imas & Sally Sadoff & Anya Samek, 2017. "Do People Anticipate Loss Aversion?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1271-1284, May.
    3. Leković Milјan, 2020. "Cognitive Biases as an Integral Part of Behavioral Finance," Economic Themes, Sciendo, vol. 58(1), pages 75-96, March.
    4. Bowman, David & Minehart, Deborah & Rabin, Matthew, 1999. "Loss aversion in a consumption-savings model," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 155-178, February.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Sandri, Serena & Schade, Christian & Mußhoff, Oliver & Odening, Martin, 2010. "Holding on for too long? An experimental study on inertia in entrepreneurs' and non-entrepreneurs' disinvestment choices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 30-44, October.
    8. Heutel, Garth, 2019. "Prospect theory and energy efficiency," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 236-254.
    9. Ulrich Schmidt & Horst Zank, 2012. "A genuine foundation for prospect theory," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 97-113, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Heiko Karle & Heiner Schumacher & Rune Vølund, 2020. "Consumer search and the uncertainty effect," Working Papers of Department of Economics, Leuven 657766, KU Leuven, Faculty of Economics and Business (FEB), Department of Economics, Leuven.
    13. Aurélien Baillon & Han Bleichrodt & Vitalie Spinu, 2020. "Searching for the Reference Point," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(1), pages 93-112, January.
    14. 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.
    15. Eddie Dekel & Barton L. Lipman, 2010. "How (Not) to Do Decision Theory," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 257-282, September.
    16. Masiero, Lorenzo & Qiu, Richard T.R., 2018. "Modeling reference experience in destination choice," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 58-74.
    17. Hwang, In Do, 2021. "Prospect theory and insurance demand: Empirical evidence on the role of loss aversion," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    18. David Hirshleife, 2015. "Behavioral Finance," Annual Review of Financial Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 7(1), pages 133-159, December.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:3:p:214-235 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Eyal Ert & Ido Erev, 2010. "On the Descriptive Value of Loss Aversion in Decisions under Risk," Harvard Business School Working Papers 10-056, Harvard Business School.
    21. Dietz, Simon & Venmans, Frank, 2019. "The endowment effect, discounting and the environment," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 67-91.

    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 (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.