IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cca/wpaper/730.html

Are Anti-Vaxxers Anti-Social? How Convictions Shape Prosocial Behavior and Vaccination Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Amnon Maltz
  • Moti Michaeli
  • Sapir Gavriel

Abstract

We identify a “truncated U-shape†relationship between pro-social behavior and Covid-19 vaccination status. Non-vaxxers display the highest pro-sociality, partially vaccinated individuals the lowest, and fully vaccinated individuals lie in between. This pattern is interpreted as a reflection of the effect of personal convictions on vaccination decisions and pro-social behavior. Our key insights are incorporated in a model where the likelihood of actions aligning with preferences depends on the strength of convictions, which is heterogeneous across individuals. Our findings illuminate the complex interplay between preferences and actions in socially relevant contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Amnon Maltz & Moti Michaeli & Sapir Gavriel, 2024. "Are Anti-Vaxxers Anti-Social? How Convictions Shape Prosocial Behavior and Vaccination Decisions," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 730 JEL Classification: D, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    • Handle: RePEc:cca:wpaper:730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.carloalberto.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/n.730.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Catola, Marco & D’Alessandro, Simone & Guarnieri, Pietro & Pizziol, Veronica, 2021. "Personal norms in the online public good game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    2. Campos-Mercade, Pol & Meier, Armando N. & Schneider, Florian H. & Wengström, Erik, 2021. "Prosociality predicts health behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    3. Henrike Sternberg & Janina Isabel Steinert & Tim Büthe, 2024. "Compliance in the public versus the private realm: Economic preferences, institutional trust and COVID‐19 health behaviors," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(5), pages 1055-1119, May.
    4. Chad Kendall & Tommaso Nannicini & Francesco Trebbi, 2015. "How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 105(1), pages 322-353, January.
    5. Christoph Engel, 2011. "Dictator games: a meta study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(4), pages 583-610, November.
    6. Carlin, Bruce Ian & Dorobantu, Florin & Viswanathan, S., 2009. "Public trust, the law, and financial investment," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 321-341, June.
    7. Ben-Ner, Avner & Kong, Fanmin & Putterman, Louis, 2004. "Share and share alike? Gender-pairing, personality, and cognitive ability as determinants of giving," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 581-589, October.
    8. Cappelen, Alexander & Liu, Yiming & Nielsen, Hedda & Tungodden, Bertil, 2024. "Fairness in a Society of Unequal Opportunities," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 17/2024, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    9. Umer, Hamza, 2020. "Revisiting generosity in the dictator game: Experimental evidence from Pakistan," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    10. Guerra, Alice & Harrington, Brooke, 2018. "Attitude–behavior consistency in tax compliance: A cross-national comparison," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 184-205.
    11. Bartscher, Alina Kristin & Seitz, Sebastian & Siegloch, Sebastian & Slotwinski, Michaela & Wehrhöfer, Nils, 2021. "Social capital and the spread of covid-19: Insights from european countries," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    12. Ahmed, Ali M. & Salas, Osvaldo, 2011. "Implicit influences of Christian religious representations on dictator and prisoner's dilemma game decisions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 242-246, May.
    13. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    14. Michèle Belot & Raymond Duch & Luis Miller, 2010. "Who should be called to the lab? A comprehensive comparison of students and non-students in classic experimental games," Discussion Papers 2010001, University of Oxford, Nuffield College.
    15. Fiedler, Marina & Haruvy, Ernan, 2009. "The lab versus the virtual lab and virtual field--An experimental investigation of trust games with communication," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 716-724, November.
    16. Barrios, John M. & Benmelech, Efraim & Hochberg, Yael V. & Sapienza, Paola & Zingales, Luigi, 2021. "Civic capital and social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic☆," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    17. Valerio Capraro & David G. Rand, 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    18. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2023. "The Preference Survey Module: A Validated Instrument for Measuring Risk, Time, and Social Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 69(4), pages 1935-1950, April.
    19. Chen, Chia-Ching & Chiu, I-Ming & Smith, John & Yamada, Tetsuji, 2013. "Too smart to be selfish? Measures of cognitive ability, social preferences, and consistency," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 112-122.
    20. Michaeli, Moti & Spiro, Daniel, 2015. "Norm conformity across societies," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 51-65.
    21. Marco Catola & Simone D'Alessandro & Pietro Guarnieri & Veronica Pizziol, 2021. "Personal norms in the online public good game," Discussion Papers 2021/276, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
    22. Gilg, Andrew & Barr, Stewart, 2006. "Behavioural attitudes towards water saving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 400-414, May.
    23. Michael Kurschilgen, 2023. "Moral awareness polarizes people’s fairness judgments," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 61(2), pages 339-364, August.
    24. Capraro, Valerio & Rand, David G., 2018. "Do the Right Thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(1), pages 99-111, January.
    25. Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
    26. Juvan, Emil & Dolnicar, Sara, 2014. "The attitude–behaviour gap in sustainable tourism," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 76-95.
    27. Fang, Ximeng & Freyer, Timo & Ho, Chui-Yee & Chen, Zihua & Goette, Lorenz, 2022. "Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    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. Alt, Marius & Bruns, Hendrik & Della Valle, Nives, 2024. "The more the better? Synergies of prosocial interventions and effects on behavioural spillovers," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    2. Bašić, Zvonimir & Verrina, Eugenio, 2024. "Personal norms — and not only social norms — shape economic behavior," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 239(C).
    3. Capraro, Valerio & Rodriguez-Lara, Ismael, 2025. "Moral preferences in ultimatum and impunity games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    4. Fang, Ximeng & Freyer, Timo & Ho, Chui-Yee & Chen, Zihua & Goette, Lorenz, 2022. "Prosociality predicts individual behavior and collective outcomes in the COVID-19 pandemic," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 308(C).
    5. Paetzel, Fabian & Sausgruber, Rupert, 2018. "Cognitive ability and in-group bias: An experimental study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 280-292.
    6. Armin Falk & Anke Becker & Thomas Dohmen & Benjamin Enke & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde, 2018. "Global Evidence on Economic Preferences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 133(4), pages 1645-1692.
    7. Pol Campos-Mercade & Claes Ek & Magnus Soderberg & Florian H. Schneider, 2025. "Social Preferences and Environmental Externalities," CESifo Working Paper Series 11895, CESifo.
    8. Jorge N Zumaeta, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Seven Standard Experimental Paradigms Comparing Student to Non-student," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 13(2), pages 22-33.
    9. Pau Juan-Bartroli & Jos'e Ignacio Rivero-Wildemauwe, 2025. "Social preferences or moral concerns: What drives rejections in the Ultimatum game?," Papers 2510.22086, arXiv.org.
    10. Étienne Dagorn & Martina Dattilo & Matthieu Pourieux, 2022. "Preferences matter! Political Responses to the COVID-19 and Population’s Preferences," Economics Working Paper Archive (University of Rennes & University of Caen) 2022-01, Center for Research in Economics and Management (CREM), University of Rennes, University of Caen and CNRS.
    11. Sharma, Smriti, 2015. "Gender and distributional preferences: Experimental evidence from India," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 113-123.
    12. Walkowitz, Gari, 2017. "On the Validity of Cost-Saving Methods in Dictator-Game Experiments: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 83309, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Walkowitz, Gari, 2019. "On the Validity of Probabilistic (and Cost-Saving) Incentives in Dictator Games: A Systematic Test," MPRA Paper 91541, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Jeworrek, Sabrina & Waibel, Joschka, 2021. "Alone at home: The impact of social distancing on norm-consistent behavior," IWH Discussion Papers 8/2021, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    15. Bilancini, Ennio & Boncinelli, Leonardo & Guarnieri, Pietro & Spadoni, Lorenzo, 2023. "Delaying and motivating decisions in the (Bully) dictator game," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Guo, Yiting & Shachat, Jason & Walker, Matthew J. & Wei, Lijia, 2023. "On the generalizability of using mobile devices to conduct economic experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    17. Smriti Sharma, 2015. "Gender and Distributional Preferences: Experimental Evidence from India," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2015-062, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    18. Umer, Hamza & Kurosaki, Takashi & Iwasaki, Ichiro, 2022. "Unearned Endowment and Charity Recipient Lead to Higher Donations: A Meta-Analysis of the Dictator Game Lab Experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    19. Kai Barron & Robert Stüber & Roel van Veldhuizen, 2022. "Moral Motive Selection in the Lying-Dictator Game," CESifo Working Paper Series 9911, CESifo.
    20. Pietro Guarnieri & Lorenzo Spadoni, 2024. "Norms and anti-coordination: elicitation and priming in an El Farol Bar Game experiment," Discussion Papers 2024/303, Dipartimento di Economia e Management (DEM), University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cca:wpaper:730. 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: Giovanni Bert (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fccaait.html .

    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.