IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v305y2022ics0277953622004075.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public support for unequal treatment of unvaccinated citizens: Evidence from Denmark

Author

Listed:
  • Schuessler, Julian
  • Dinesen, Peter Thisted
  • Østergaard, Søren Dinesen
  • Sønderskov, Kim Mannemar

Abstract

While billions have been vaccinated against COVID-19, unvaccinated citizens remain a challenge to public health given their higher likelihood of passing on the virus. One way for governments to reduce this concern is to enact more restrictive rules and regulations for the unvaccinated citizens in order to incentivize them to become vaccinated and/or reduce their spread of the virus. However, such rule differentiation conflicts with liberal principles of equal treatment, thereby raising a trade-off between material (public health) and principled concerns. To gain legitimacy in trading off these difficult concerns, governments are likely to look to preferences in the general population. We therefore analyze to what extent unequal treatment of the unvaccinated in terms of differentiation of various rules and regulations finds support among the general public. In a pre-registered survey experiment, we investigate public support for various COVID-19 regulations (e.g., test fees, isolation pay, and hospital prioritization). In the experiment, we randomly assign respondents to evaluate regulations that either (i) apply to adults in general or (ii) only to those adults who deliberately have chosen not to be vaccinated. This design provides a valid means to assess support for unequal treatment of the unvaccinated by minimizing various concerns relating to survey responding. Furthermore, we examine how these preferences vary by individual vaccination status, trust in institutions, as well as over-time changes in severity of the pandemic. We find significantly (both statistically and substantively) higher support for restrictive policies when targeted exclusively toward the unvaccinated, which we interpret as support for unequal treatment of this group. We also uncover strong polarization in these preferences between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, but a much more limited role for trust and severity of the pandemic.

Suggested Citation

  • Schuessler, Julian & Dinesen, Peter Thisted & Østergaard, Søren Dinesen & Sønderskov, Kim Mannemar, 2022. "Public support for unequal treatment of unvaccinated citizens: Evidence from Denmark," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622004075
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953622004075
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115101?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Larsen & Jacob Nyrup & Michael Bang Petersen, 2020. "Do Survey Estimates of the Public’s Compliance with COVID-19 Regulations Suffer from Social Desirability Bias?," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(2).
    2. Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, 2004. "Social norms and human cooperation," Macroeconomics 0409026, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Siegal, G. & Siegal, N. & Bonnie, R.J., 2009. "An account of collective actions in public health," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(9), pages 1583-1587.
    4. Rosenfeld, Daniel L. & Tomiyama, A. Janet, 2022. "Jab my arm, not my morality: Perceived moral reproach as a barrier to COVID-19 vaccine uptake," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 294(C).
    5. Rossen, Isabel & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Dunlop, Patrick D. & Lawrence, Carmen, 2019. "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 23-27.
    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. Singh, Renu, 2023. "Priming COVID-19's consequences can increase support for investments in public health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).

    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. Claudy, Marius C. & Vijayakumar, Suhas & Campbell, Norah, 2022. "Reckless spreader or blameless victim? How vaccination status affects responses to COVID-19 patients," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 305(C).
    2. H Peyton Young, 2014. "The Evolution of Social Norms," Economics Series Working Papers 726, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    3. Kerri Brick & Martine Visser & Justine Burns, 2012. "Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence from South African Fishing Communities," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(1), pages 133-152.
    4. Schnellenbach, Jan, 2012. "Nudges and norms: On the political economy of soft paternalism," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 266-277.
    5. Wood, Reed M. & Juanchich, Marie & Ramirez, Mark & Zhang, Shenghao, 2023. "Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    6. Sandro Casal & Matteo Ploner & Alec N. Sproten, 2019. "Fostering The Best Execution Regime: An Experiment About Pecuniary Sanctions And Accountability In Fiduciary Money Management," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 57(1), pages 600-616, January.
    7. Funk, Matt, 2008. "On the Problem of Sustainable Economic Development: A Theoretical Solution to this Prisoner's Dilemma," MPRA Paper 19025, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 08 Jun 2008.
    8. Caserta, Maurizio & Distefano, Rosaria & Ferrante, Livio, 2022. "The Good of Rules: An experimental study on prosocial behavior," EconStor Preprints 266393, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    9. Daoust, Jean-François & Nadeau, Richard & Dassonneville, Ruth & Lachapelle, Erick & Bélanger, Éric & Savoie, Justin & van der Linden, Clifton, 2020. "How to survey citizens’ compliance with COVID-19 public health measures? Evidence from three survey experiments," SocArXiv gursd, Center for Open Science.
    10. Wang, Cynthia S. & Sivanathan, Niro & Narayanan, Jayanth & Ganegoda, Deshani B. & Bauer, Monika & Bodenhausen, Galen V. & Murnighan, Keith, 2011. "Retribution and emotional regulation: The effects of time delay in angry economic interactions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 46-54, September.
    11. Daniel McFadden, 2009. "The human side of mechanism design: a tribute to Leo Hurwicz and Jean-Jacque Laffont," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 13(1), pages 77-100, April.
    12. Michael Foley & Rory Smead & Patrick Forber & Christoph Riedl, 2021. "Avoiding the bullies: The resilience of cooperation among unequals," PLOS Computational Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(4), pages 1-18, April.
    13. Fabian Dvorak & Regina Stumpf & Sebastian Fehrler & Urs Fischbacher, 2024. "Generative AI Triggers Welfare-Reducing Decisions in Humans," Papers 2401.12773, arXiv.org.
    14. Akerlof, George A. & Snower, Dennis J., 2016. "Bread and bullets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 126(PB), pages 58-71.
    15. Bartoš, Vojtěch, 2021. "Seasonal scarcity and sharing norms," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 303-316.
    16. Paton Pak Chun Yam & Gary Ting Tat Ng & Wing Tung Au & Lin Tao & Su Lu & Hildie Leung & Jane M Y Fung, 2018. "The effect of subgroup homogeneity of efficacy on contribution in public good dilemmas," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(7), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Seres, Gyula & Balleyer, Anna Helen & Cerutti, Nicola & Danilov, Anastasia & Friedrichsen, Jana & Liu, Yiming & Süer, Müge, 2021. "Face masks increase compliance with physical distancing recommendations during the COVID-19 pandemic," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(2), pages 139-158.
    18. Marcin, Isabel & Robalo, Pedro & Tausch, Franziska, 2019. "Institutional endogeneity and third-party punishment in social dilemmas," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 243-264.
    19. Ahmed, Ali M., 2007. "Group identity, social distance and intergroup bias," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 324-337, June.
    20. Alin Halimatussadiah & Budy P. Resosudarmo & Diah Widyawati, 2014. "Social Capital to Induce a Contribution to Environmental Collective Action in Indonesia: An Experimental Method," Departmental Working Papers 2014-03, The Australian National University, Arndt-Corden Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    COVID-19; Vaccines; Policy; Trust;
    All these 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:eee:socmed:v:305:y:2022:i:c:s0277953622004075. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    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.