IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0275823.html

Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials

Author

Listed:
  • Abigail A Marsh
  • Monica Magalhaes
  • Matthew Peeler
  • Sophie M Rose
  • Thomas C Darton
  • Nir Eyal
  • Josh Morrison
  • Seema K Shah
  • Virginia Schmit

Abstract

In human challenge trials (HCTs), volunteers are deliberately infected with an infectious agent. Such trials can be used to accelerate vaccine development and answer important scientific questions. Starting early in the COVID-19 pandemic, ethical concerns were raised about using HCTs to accelerate development and approval of a vaccine. Some of those concerns pertained to potential exploitation of and/or lack of truly informed consent from volunteers. Specific areas of concern arose around individuals who may be unusually risk-seeking or too economically vulnerable to refuse the payments these trials provide, as opposed to being motivated primarily by altruistic goals. This pre-registered study is the first large-scale survey to characterize people who, early in the pandemic, expressed interest and intention to volunteer to participate in COVID-19 HCTs. We found that individuals expressing interest in SARS-CoV-2 HCTs exhibit consistently altruistic motivations without any special indication of poor risk perception or economic vulnerability. In finding that, early in the pandemic, COVID-19 HCTs were able to attract volunteers whose values align with the nature of these trials, and who are not unusually vulnerable to exploitation, this study may allay some ethical concerns about the volunteers interested in participating in such trials.

Suggested Citation

  • Abigail A Marsh & Monica Magalhaes & Matthew Peeler & Sophie M Rose & Thomas C Darton & Nir Eyal & Josh Morrison & Seema K Shah & Virginia Schmit, 2022. "Characterizing altruistic motivation in potential volunteers for SARS-CoV-2 challenge trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(11), pages 1-21, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0275823
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0275823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275823
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275823&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0275823?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ewen Callaway & Heidi Ledford, 2021. "How to redesign COVID vaccines so they protect against variants," Nature, Nature, vol. 590(7844), pages 15-16, February.
    2. Ann-Renée Blais & Elke U. Weber, 2006. "A Domain-Specific Risk-Taking (DOSPERT) scale for adult populations," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 1, pages 33-47, July.
    3. Denny Borsboom, 2006. "The attack of the psychometricians," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 71(3), pages 425-440, September.
    4. Corey A Kalbaugh & Julianne M Kalbaugh & Lisa McManus & Jill A Fisher, 2021. "Healthy volunteers in US phase I clinical trials: Sociodemographic characteristics and participation over time," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-19, September.
    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. Eva M. Krockow & Masanori Takezawa & Briony D. Pulford & Andrew M. Colman & Samuel Smithers & Toshimasa Kita & Yo Nakawake, 2018. "Commitment-enhancing tools in Centipede games: Evidencing European–Japanese differences in trust and cooperation," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 61-72, January.
    2. Ranganathan, Kavitha & Lejarraga, Tomás, 2021. "Elicitation of risk preferences through satisficing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 32(C).
    3. Bose, Neha & Sgroi, Daniel, 2019. "The Role of Theory of Mind and “Small Talk” Communication in Strategic Decision-Making," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 409, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    4. Steven Andrew Culpepper & Herman Aguinis & Justin L. Kern & Roger Millsap, 2019. "High-Stakes Testing Case Study: A Latent Variable Approach for Assessing Measurement and Prediction Invariance," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 84(1), pages 285-309, March.
    5. Jean Spinks & Son Nghiem & Joshua Byrnes, 2021. "Risky business, healthy lives: how risk perception, risk preferences and information influence consumer’s risky health choices," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 22(5), pages 811-831, July.
    6. Volker Thoma & Elliott White & Asha Panigrahi & Vanessa Strowger & Irina Anderson, 2015. "Good Thinking or Gut Feeling? Cognitive Reflection and Intuition in Traders, Bankers and Financial Non-Experts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-17, April.
    7. Nicolao Bonini & Stefania Pighin & Enrico Rettore & Lucia Savadori & Federico Schena & Sara Tonini & Paolo Tosi, 2019. "Overconfident people are more exposed to “black swan” events: a case study of avalanche risk," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 57(4), pages 1443-1467, October.
    8. Philippe Sterkens & Adelina Sharipova & Stijn Baert, 2024. "Disclosing the ‘Big C’: what does cancer survivorship signal to employers?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 25(4), pages 671-688, June.
    9. Arunachalam Narayanan & Brent B. Moritz, 2015. "Decision Making and Cognition in Multi-Echelon Supply Chains: An Experimental Study," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 24(8), pages 1216-1234, August.
    10. Omar N. Solinger & Woody van Olffen & Robert A. Roe & Joeri Hofmans, 2013. "On Becoming (Un)Committed: A Taxonomy and Test of Newcomer Onboarding Scenarios," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 1640-1661, December.
    11. Alice Wieland & James Sundali & Markus Kemmelmeier & Rakesh Sarin, 2014. "Gender differences in the endowment effect: Women pay less, but won't accept less," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(6), pages 558-571, November.
    12. Denny Borsboom, 2022. "Possible Futures for Network Psychometrics," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 87(1), pages 253-265, March.
    13. Matteo M. Marini, 2021. "20 years of emotions and risky choices in the lab: A meta-analysis," Working Papers 2021/04, Economics Department, Universitat Jaume I, Castellón (Spain).
    14. Amanda Safford & James Sundali & Federico Guerrero, 2018. "Does Experiencing a Crash Make All the Difference? An Experiment on the Depression Babies Hypothesis," SAGE Open, , vol. 8(2), pages 21582440187, May.
    15. James Alm & Antoine Malézieux, 2021. "40 years of tax evasion games: a meta-analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(3), pages 699-750, September.
    16. Humaira Mumtaz & Iqbal Javed & Allah Bakhsh, 2019. "Impact of Psychological Consequences on Poverty: An Evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Economic Impact, Science Impact Publishers, vol. 1(3), pages 70-79.
    17. Debapriya Jojo Paul & Julia Henker & Sian Owen, 2019. "The aggregate impacts of tournament incentives in experimental asset markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(2), pages 441-476, June.
    18. Gürdal, Mehmet Y. & Kuzubaş, Tolga U. & Saltoğlu, Burak, 2017. "Measures of individual risk attitudes and portfolio choice: Evidence from pension participants," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 186-203.
    19. Deck, Cary & Lee, Jungmin & Reyes, Javier A. & Rosen, Christopher C., 2013. "A failed attempt to explain within subject variation in risk taking behavior using domain specific risk attitudes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 1-24.
    20. Christoph Buehren & Tim Meyer & Christian Pierdzioch, 2020. "Experimental Evidence on Forecaster (anti-) Herding in Sports Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202038, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

    More about this item

    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:plo:pone00:0275823. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.