IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01074-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vaccine hesitancy and monetary incentives

Author

Listed:
  • Ganesh Iyer

    (University of Berkeley, Haas School of Business)

  • Vivek Nandur

    (University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management)

  • David Soberman

    (University of Toronto, Rotman School of Management)

Abstract

Vaccine hesitancy is a significant barrier to reaching herd immunity and exiting the Covid-19 pandemic. This study examines the potential effectiveness of monetary incentives in conjunction with informational treatments about vaccine efficacy, lack of side effects, and zero costs. We elicit monetary valuations (both positive and negative) for the coronavirus vaccine by conducting an online randomized experiment on a representative sample of 2461 individuals across the US. The study elicits vaccination uptake, then participants’ valuations (willingness to pay (WTP) or the willingness to accept (WTA)) for the vaccine based upon the stated choice of participants to accept or reject the vaccine. We find that a $1000 incentive increases vaccination uptake up to 86.9%. We identify two distinct segments among the vaccine hesitants—“Reluctants” and “Unwillings”. Reluctants can be persuaded to vaccinate for some level of monetary incentive, whereas Unwillings indicate that no amount of monetary incentive will persuade them to vaccinate. The Unwillings are more likely to (a) think that the disease is insufficiently severe, (b) have less faith in the public health system, (c) be older, compared to the Reluctants.

Suggested Citation

  • Ganesh Iyer & Vivek Nandur & David Soberman, 2022. "Vaccine hesitancy and monetary incentives," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-10, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01074-y
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01074-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01074-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01074-y?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. Lacetera, Nicola & Macis, Mario, 2010. "Do all material incentives for pro-social activities backfire? The response to cash and non-cash incentives for blood donations," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 738-748, August.
    2. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Richard C. Ready & Patricia A. Champ & Jennifer L. Lawton, 2010. "Using Respondent Uncertainty to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias in a Stated Choice Experiment," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 86(2), pages 363-381.
    4. Champ, Patricia A. & Moore, Rebecca & Bishop, Richard C., 2009. "A Comparison of Approaches to Mitigate Hypothetical Bias," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 166-180, October.
    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. Jesús Villota-Miranda & R. Rodríguez-Ibeas, 2024. "Simple economics of vaccination: public policies and incentives," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 155-172, June.
    2. François, Abel & Gergaud, Olivier & Noury, Abdul, 2023. "Can health passport overcome political hurdles to COVID-19 vaccination?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Joshua S. Gans, 2023. "Vaccine Hesitancy, Passports, And The Demand For Vaccination," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(2), pages 641-652, May.
    4. Ahmed Asa’ad Al-Aghbari & Violet Naanyu & Stanley Luchters & Eunice Irungu & Kawthar Baalawy & Till Bärnighausen & Joy Mauti, 2023. "Reducing Barriers to COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: Community Ideas from Urban and Rural Kenya," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(23), pages 1-15, November.

    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. Hermann Donfouet & P. Jeanty & P.-A. Mahieu, 2014. "Dealing with internal inconsistency in double-bounded dichotomous choice: an application to community-based health insurance," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 317-328, February.
    2. Ladenburg, Jacob & Skotte, Maria, 2022. "Heterogeneity in willingness to pay for the location of offshore wind power development: An application of the willingness to pay space model," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 241(C).
    3. Jerrod Penn & Wuyang Hu, 2023. "Adjusting and Calibrating Elicited Values Based on Follow-up Certainty Questions: A Meta-analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 84(4), pages 919-946, April.
    4. Ronald B. Larson, 2019. "Promoting demand-based pricing," Journal of Revenue and Pricing Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 18(1), pages 42-51, February.
    5. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2020. "Ex-ante and ex-post measures to mitigate hypothetical bias. Are they alternative or complementary tools to increase the reliability and validity of DCE estimates?," Working Papers 2020-20, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    6. William F. Vásquez & Jennifer M. Trudeau & Jessica Alicea‐Planas, 2021. "Immediate and informative feedback during a pandemic: Using stated preference analysis to predict vaccine uptake rates," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(12), pages 3123-3137, December.
    7. Picard, Julien & Banerjee, Sanchayan, 2023. "Behavioural spillovers unpacked: estimating the side effects of social norm nudges," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 120566, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John M., 2016. "Can you ever be certain? Reducing hypothetical bias in stated choice experiments via respondent reported choice certaintyAuthor-Name: Beck, Matthew J," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 149-167.
    9. Sergio Colombo & Wiktor Budziński & Mikołaj Czajkowski & Klaus Glenk, 2022. "The relative performance of ex‐ante and ex‐post measures to mitigate hypothetical and strategic bias in a stated preference study," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(3), pages 845-873, September.
    10. Dadhi Adhikari & Jennifer A. Thacher & Janie M. Chermak & Robert P. Berrens, 2017. "Linking Forest to Faucets in a Distant Municipal Area: Public Support for Forest Restoration and Water Security in Albuquerque, New Mexico," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(01), pages 1-34, January.
    11. Zhai, Qianqian & Kassas, Bachir & Zhao, Shuoli & Chen, Lijun & Chen, Chao, 2020. "Investigating Preference Inconsistencies in Incentive Structures that Account for House Money Effects," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304584, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. Fifer, Simon & Rose, John & Greaves, Stephen, 2014. "Hypothetical bias in Stated Choice Experiments: Is it a problem? And if so, how do we deal with it?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 164-177.
    13. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    14. Catherine M. H. Keske & Adam Mayer, 2014. "Visitor Willingness to Pay U.S. Forest Service Recreation Fees in New West Rural Mountain Economies," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 28(1), pages 87-100, February.
    15. Helga Fehr-Duda & Robin Schimmelpfennig, 2018. "Wider die Zahlengläubigkeit: Sind Befragungsergebnisse eine gute Grundlage für wirtschaftspolitische Entscheidungen?," ECON - Working Papers 297, Department of Economics - University of Zurich, revised Dec 2018.
    16. Donfouet, Hermann Pythagore Pierre & Mohamed, Shukri F. & Otieno, Peter & Wambiya, Elvis & Mutua, Martin Kavao & Danaei, Goodarz, 2020. "Economic valuation of setting up a social health enterprise in urban poor-resource setting in Kenya," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 266(C).
    17. Ana Faria Lopes & Gorm Kipperberg, 2020. "Diagnosing Insensitivity to Scope in Contingent Valuation," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(1), pages 191-216, September.
    18. Atozou, Baoubadi & Tamini, Lota D. & Bergeronm, Stephane & Doyon, Maurice, 2020. "Factors Explaining the Hypothetical Bias: How to Improve Models for Meta-Analyses," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), March.
    19. Luchini, Stéphane & Watson, Verity, 2013. "Uncertainty and framing in a valuation task," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 204-214.
    20. Courtney Bir & Nicole Olynk Widmar, 2020. "Consistently biased: documented consistency in self-reported holiday healthfulness behaviors and associated social desirability bias," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 7(1), pages 1-11, December.

    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:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01074-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.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.