IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04516843.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Consumer impatience: A key motive for Covid-19 vaccination

Author

Listed:
  • Marlène Guillon

    (MRE - Montpellier Recherche en Economie - UM - Université de Montpellier)

  • Phu Nguyen-Van

    (EconomiX - EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Bruno Ventelou

    (AMSE - Aix-Marseille Sciences Economiques - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - AMU - Aix Marseille Université - ECM - École Centrale de Marseille - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Marc Willinger

    (CEE-M - Centre d'Economie de l'Environnement - Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - Institut Agro Montpellier - Institut Agro - Institut national d'enseignement supérieur pour l'agriculture, l'alimentation et l'environnement - UM - Université de Montpellier)

Abstract

We study the behavioral determinants of COVID-19 vaccination uptake. The vaccine-pass policy, implemented in several countries in 2021, conditioned the access to leisure and consumption places to being vaccinated against COVID-19 and created an unprecedented situation where individuals' access to consumption goods and vaccine status were interrelated. We rely on a quasi-hyperbolic discounting model to study the plausible relationships between time preference and the decision to vaccinate in such context. We test the predictions of our model using data collected from a representative sample of the French population (N = 1034) in August and September 2021. Respondents were asked about their COVID-19 vaccination status (zero, one, or two doses), as well as their economic and social preferences. Preference elicitations were undertaken online through incentivized tasks, with parallel collection of self-stated preferences. Factors associated with COVID-19 vaccination were investigated using a logistic model. Both elicited and stated impatience were found to be positively associated with COVID-19 vaccination decisions. These results suggest that impatience is a key motivational lever for vaccine uptake in a context where the vaccination decision is multidimensional and impacts the consumption potential. Results also serve to highlight the potential effectiveness of public communications campaigns based on time preferences to increase vaccination coverage.

Suggested Citation

  • Marlène Guillon & Phu Nguyen-Van & Bruno Ventelou & Marc Willinger, 2024. "Consumer impatience: A key motive for Covid-19 vaccination," Post-Print hal-04516843, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:hal-04516843
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socec.2024.102190
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04516843v1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-04516843v1/document
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socec.2024.102190?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
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Uri Gneezy & Jan Potters, 1997. "An Experiment on Risk Taking and Evaluation Periods," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 631-645.
    2. Serge Blondel & Sandra Chyderiotis & François Langot & Judith E. Mueller & Jonathan Sicsic, 2022. "Confiance, vaccination et télétravail pendant la crise de la Covid-19," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(1), pages 45-80.
    3. Magali Dauvin & Bruno Ducoudré & Éric Heyer & Pierre Madec & Mathieu Plane & Raul Sampognaro & Xavier Timbeau, 2020. "Évaluation au 26 juin 2020 de l’impact économique de la pandémie de la Covid-19 et des mesures du confinement et du déconfinement en France," Revue de l'OFCE, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 111-160.
    4. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    5. Shosh Shahrabani & Amiram Gafni & Uri Ben-Zion, 2008. "Low Flu Shot Rates Puzzle—Some Plausible Behavioral Explanations," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 52(1), pages 66-72, March.
    6. Tsutsui, Yoshiro & Benzion, Uri & Shahrabani, Shosh & Din, Gregory Yom, 2010. "A policy to promote influenza vaccination: A behavioral economic approach," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 238-249, October.
    7. James Andreoni & Charles Sprenger, 2012. "Estimating Time Preferences from Convex Budgets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3333-3356, December.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk & David Huffman & Uwe Sunde & Jürgen Schupp & Gert G. Wagner, 2011. "Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants, And Behavioral Consequences," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 522-550, June.
    9. Vischer, Thomas & Dohmen, Thomas & Falk, Armin & Huffman, David & Schupp, Jürgen & Sunde, Uwe & Wagner, Gert G., 2013. "Validating an ultra-short survey measure of patience," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 142-145.
    10. repec:cup:judgdm:v:6:y:2011:i:8:p:771-781 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Thaler, Richard, 1981. "Some empirical evidence on dynamic inconsistency," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 8(3), pages 201-207.
    12. Taisuke Imai & Tom A Rutter & Colin F Camerer, 2021. "Meta-Analysis of Present-Bias Estimation using Convex Time Budgets," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(636), pages 1788-1814.
    13. Murphy, Ryan O. & Ackermann, Kurt A. & Handgraaf, Michel J. J., 2011. "Measuring Social Value Orientation," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(8), pages 771-781, December.
    14. Gretchen B. Chapman & Elliot J. Coups, 1999. "Time Preferences and Preventive Health Behavior," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 19(3), pages 307-314, August.
    15. Arthur E. Attema & Han Bleichrodt & Olivier L’Haridon & Patrick Peretti-Watel & Valérie Seror, 2018. "Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 56(2), pages 117-140, April.
    16. Shane Frederick & George Loewenstein & Ted O'Donoghue, 2002. "Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(2), pages 351-401, June.
    17. George Loewenstein & Drazen Prelec, 1992. "Anomalies in Intertemporal Choice: Evidence and an Interpretation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 573-597.
    18. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1dencohv0a9q5rm9f065oaq9up is not listed on IDEAS
    19. David Laibson, 1997. "Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 112(2), pages 443-478.
    20. Brocas, Isabelle & Carrillo, Juan D. & Tarrasó, Jorge, 2018. "How long is a minute?," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 305-322.
    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. Galizzi, Matteo M. & Miraldo, Marisa & Stavropoulou, Charitini & van der Pol, Marjon, 2016. "Doctor–patient differences in risk and time preferences: A field experiment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 171-182.
    2. W. David Bradford & Paul Dolan & Matteo M. Galizzi, 2019. "Looking ahead: Subjective time perception and individual discounting," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 43-69, February.
    3. Dániel Horn & Hubert János Kiss, 2020. "Time preferences and their life outcome correlates: Evidence from a representative survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-26, July.
    4. Cheung, Stephen L. & Tymula, Agnieszka & Wang, Xueting, 2021. "Quasi-Hyperbolic Present Bias: A Meta-Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 14625, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Stefan A. Lipman & Arthur E. Attema, 2024. "A systematic review of unique methods for measuring discount rates," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 69(2), pages 145-189, October.
    6. Stephen L. Cheung & Agnieszka Tymula & Xueting Wang, 2022. "Present bias for monetary and dietary rewards," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(4), pages 1202-1233, September.
    7. Belzil, Christian & Sidibé, Modibo, 2016. "Internal and External Validity of Experimental Risk and Time Preferences," IZA Discussion Papers 10348, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Jindrich Matousek & Tomas Havranek & Zuzana Irsova, 2022. "Individual discount rates: a meta-analysis of experimental evidence," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(1), pages 318-358, February.
    9. Sébastien Foudi, 2024. "Are risk attitude, impatience, and impulsivity related to the individual discount rate? Evidence from energy-efficient durable goods," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(4), pages 627-661, June.
    10. Drouhin, Nicolas, 2020. "Non-stationary additive utility and time consistency," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 1-14.
    11. David Bradford & Charles Courtemanche & Garth Heutel & Patrick McAlvanah & Christopher Ruhm, 2017. "Time preferences and consumer behavior," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 119-145, December.
    12. Zexuan Wang & Ismaël Rafaï & Marc Willinger, 2023. "Does age affect the relation between risk and time preferences? Evidence from a representative sample," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 90(2), pages 341-368, October.
    13. Abdellaoui, Mohammed & Kemel, Emmanuel & Panin, Amma & Vieider, Ferdinand M., 2024. "Time for tea: Measuring discounting for money and consumption without the utility confound," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    14. Rafaï, Ismaël & Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2023. "Stated preferences outperform elicited preferences for predicting reported compliance with COVID-19 prophylactic measures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    15. Felix Koelle & Lukas Wenner, 2018. "Present-Biased Generosity: Time Inconsistency across Individual and Social Contexts," Discussion Papers 2018-02, The Centre for Decision Research and Experimental Economics, School of Economics, University of Nottingham.
    16. Nicolas Drouhin, 2016. "Non stationary additive utility and time consistency," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-01238584, HAL.
    17. Schleich, Joachim & Gassmann, Xavier & Meissner, Thomas & Faure, Corinne, 2019. "A large-scale test of the effects of time discounting, risk aversion, loss aversion, and present bias on household adoption of energy-efficient technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 377-393.
    18. Pia Rosina Pinger, 2017. "Predicting Experimental Choice Behavior and Life Outcomes from a Survey Measure of Present Bias," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(3), pages 2162-2172.
    19. Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. & Dahmann, Sarah C. & Kamhöfer, Daniel A. & Schildberg-Hörisch, Hannah, 2022. "The Predictive Power of Self-Control for Life Outcomes," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 197(C), pages 725-744.
    20. Ali al-Nowaihi & Sanjit Dhami, 2018. "Foundations for Intertemporal Choice," CESifo Working Paper Series 6913, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Time preferences; Time inconsistency; Health behavior; COVID-19 Vaccination;
    All these 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:hal:journl:hal-04516843. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.