IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-03920495.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns

Author

Listed:
  • Hippolyte d'Albis

    (PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - ENPC - École des Ponts ParisTech - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement)

  • Johanna Etner

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

  • Josselin Thuilliez

    (CES - Centre d'économie de la Sorbonne - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

Abstract

We provide one of the first formalizations of a vaccination campaign in a decisiontheoretic framework. We analyse a model where an ambiguity-averse individual must decide how much effort to invest into prevention in the context of a rampant disease. We study how ambiguity aversion affects the effort and the estimation of the vaccine efficacy in clinical trials and immunization campaigns. We find that the behaviours of individuals participating in a clinical trial differ from individuals not participating. Individuals who are more optimistic toward vaccination participate more in trials. Their behaviours and efforts are also affected. As a result, because vaccine efficacy depends on unobserved behaviours and efforts, the biological effect of the vaccine becomes difficult to evaluate. During the scale-up phase of a vaccination campaign, provided that vaccine efficacy is established, we show that vaccine hesitancy may still be rational.

Suggested Citation

  • Hippolyte d'Albis & Johanna Etner & Josselin Thuilliez, 2023. "Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns," Post-Print halshs-03920495, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-03920495
    DOI: 10.1111/jpet.12617
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    2. David Crainich & Louis Eeckhoudt & Mario Menegatti, 2019. "Vaccination as a trade-off between risks," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 5(3), pages 455-472, 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. Thuilliez, Josselin & Touré, Nouhoum, 2024. "Opinions and vaccination during an epidemic," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    2. Josselin Thuilliez & Nouhoum Touré, 2024. "Opinions and vaccination during an epidemic," Post-Print hal-04490900, HAL.
    3. Josselin Thuilliez & Nouhoum Touré, 2024. "Opinions and vaccination during an epidemic," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) hal-04490900, HAL.

    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. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2021. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Value of Diversification," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(3), pages 1639-1647, March.
    2. Sujoy Mukerji & Han N. Ozsoylev & Jean‐Marc Tallon, 2023. "Trading Ambiguity: A Tale Of Two Heterogeneities," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 64(3), pages 1127-1164, August.
    3. Loïc Berger, 2014. "The Impact of Ambiguity Prudence on Insurance and Prevention," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2014-08, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    4. Cherbonnier, Frédéric & Gollier, Christian, 2015. "Decreasing aversion under ambiguity," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 606-623.
    5. Peter, Richard & Ying, Jie, 2020. "Do you trust your insurer? Ambiguity about contract nonperformance and optimal insurance demand," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 180(C), pages 938-954.
    6. Aflaki, Sam, 2013. "The effect of environmental uncertainty on the tragedy of the commons," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 240-253.
    7. P. Battiston & M. Menegatti, 2022. "Interaction in Prevention: A General Theory and an Application to COVID-19 Pandemic," Economics Department Working Papers 2022-EP02, Department of Economics, Parma University (Italy).
    8. Fujii, Tomoki, 2017. "Dynamic Poverty Decomposition Analysis: An Application to the Philippines," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 69-84.
    9. André, Eric, 2014. "Optimal portfolio with vector expected utility," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 50-62.
    10. Simon Dietz & Falk Niehörster, 2021. "Pricing ambiguity in catastrophe risk insurance," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 46(2), pages 112-132, September.
    11. Miao, Jianjun & Wang, Neng, 2011. "Risk, uncertainty, and option exercise," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 442-461, April.
    12. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-04071242 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Klibanoff, Peter & Marinacci, Massimo & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2009. "Recursive smooth ambiguity preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(3), pages 930-976, May.
    14. Pavlo Blavatskyy, 2021. "A measure of ambiguity (Knightian uncertainty)," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 91(2), pages 153-171, September.
    15. Loïc Berger & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2020. "Risk, Ambiguity, And The Value Of Diversification," Working Papers hal-02910906, HAL.
    16. Ilke AYDOGAN & Loïc BERGER & Vincent THEROUDE, 2023. "More Ambiguous or More Complex? An Investigation of Individual Preferences under Model Uncertainty," Working Papers 2023-iRisk-02, IESEG School of Management.
    17. Hackbarth, Dirk & Miao, Jianjun, 2012. "The dynamics of mergers and acquisitions in oligopolistic industries," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 585-609.
    18. Stéphane Couture & Stéphane Lemarié & Sabrina Teyssier & Pascal Toquebeuf, 2024. "The value of information under ambiguity: a theoretical and experimental study on pest management in agriculture," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 96(1), pages 19-47, February.
    19. Crainich, David & Menegatti, Mario, 2021. "Self-protection with random costs," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 63-67.
    20. Soheil Ghili & Peter Klibanoff, 2021. "If It Is Surely Better, Do It More? Implications for Preferences Under Ambiguity," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7619-7636, December.
    21. Ilke Aydogan & Loïc Berger & Valentina Bosetti, 2023. "Unraveling Ambiguity Aversion," Post-Print hal-04370668, HAL.

    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:halshs-03920495. 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.