» Articles » PMID: 33764463

A Behavioral Economics Perspective on the COVID-19 Vaccine Amid Public Mistrust

Overview
Date 2021 Mar 25
PMID 33764463
Citations 9
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The COVID-19 vaccine development, testing, and approval processes have moved forward with unprecedented speed in 2020. Although several vaccine candidates have shown promising results in clinical trials, resulting in expedited approval for public use from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, recent polls suggest that Americans strongly distrust the vaccine and its approval process. This mistrust stems from both the unusual speed of vaccine development and reports about side effects. This article applies insights from behavioral economics to consider how the general public may make decisions around whether or not to receive a future COVID-19 vaccine in a context of frequent side effects and preexisting mistrust. Three common cognitive biases shown to influence human decision-making under a behavioral economics framework are considered: confirmation bias, negativity bias, and optimism bias. Applying a behavioral economics framework to COVID-19 vaccine decision-making can elucidate potential barriers to vaccine uptake and points of intervention for clinicians and public health professionals.

Citing Articles

Dual decision-making routes for COVID-19 and influenza vaccines uptake in parents: A mixed-methods study.

Yuan J, Dong M, Ip D, So H, Liao Q Br J Health Psychol. 2025; 30(2):e12789.

PMID: 40052507 PMC: 11887008. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12789.


Structural and social factors affecting COVID-19 vaccine uptake among healthcare workers and older people in Uganda: A qualitative analysis.

Slivesteri S, Ssali A, Bahemuka U, Nsubuga D, Muwanga M, Nsereko C PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024; 4(5):e0002188.

PMID: 38809910 PMC: 11135783. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002188.


A latent profile analysis of residents' knowledge, attitude, and practice toward common chronic diseases among ethnic minority area in China.

Hu H, Xu Y, Shao Y, Liang Y, Wang Q, Luo S Front Public Health. 2022; 10:940619.

PMID: 35958853 PMC: 9357989. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.940619.


Economic Considerations in COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and Refusal: A Survey of the Literature.

Rawlings L, Looi J, Robson S Econ Rec. 2022; 98(321):214-229.

PMID: 35937100 PMC: 9347763. DOI: 10.1111/1475-4932.12667.


[COVID-19 vaccination: the case for it].

Cuestas E Rev Fac Cien Med Univ Nac Cordoba. 2022; 79(2):97-99.

PMID: 35700457 PMC: 9426338. DOI: 10.31053/1853.0605.v79.n2.36827.


References
1.
Lewandowsky S, Ecker U, Seifert C, Schwarz N, Cook J . Misinformation and Its Correction: Continued Influence and Successful Debiasing. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2015; 13(3):106-31. DOI: 10.1177/1529100612451018. View

2.
Jaklevic M . Flu Vaccination Urged During COVID-19 Pandemic. JAMA. 2020; 324(10):926-927. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.15444. View

3.
Stecula D, Kuru O, Albarracin D, Hall Jamieson K . Policy Views and Negative Beliefs About Vaccines in the United States, 2019. Am J Public Health. 2020; 110(10):1561-1563. PMC: 7483112. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305828. View

4.
Ledgerwood A, Boydstun A . Sticky prospects: loss frames are cognitively stickier than gain frames. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2013; 143(1):376-85. DOI: 10.1037/a0032310. View

5.
Nyhan B, Reifler J . Does correcting myths about the flu vaccine work? An experimental evaluation of the effects of corrective information. Vaccine. 2014; 33(3):459-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2014.11.017. View