scholarly journals A behavioral economics perspective on the COVID-19 vaccine amid public mistrust

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Londeree Saleska ◽  
Kristen R Choi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Vaccine Development ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Vaccine Decision Making ◽  
To Receive

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.

scholarly journals When to be vaccinated? What to consider? Modelling decision-making and time preference for COVID-19 vaccine through a conjoint experiment approach

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samson W.H. Yuen ◽  
Ricci P.H. Yue ◽  
Bobo H.P. Lau ◽  
Siu Man Ng ◽  
Cecelia L.W. Chan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Side Effects ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Head Start ◽  
Time Preference ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Vaccination Programs ◽  
Conjoint Experiment ◽  
To Receive ◽  
New Vaccines

How do citizens choose COVID-19 vaccines, and when do they wish to be vaccinated? A choice-based conjoint experiment was fielded in Hong Kong to examine factors that shape citizens preference toward COVID-19 vaccines and their time preference to be vaccinated, which is overlooked in extant literature. Results suggest people are most concerned about vaccines efficacy and severe side-effects, and that cash incentives are not useful in enhancing vaccine appeal. The majority of respondents show low intention for immediate vaccination, and many of them want to delay their vaccination. Further analysis shows that their time preference is shaped more by respondent characteristics than vaccine attributes. In particular, confidence in the vaccine, trust in government, and working in high-risk professions are associated with earlier timing for vaccine uptake. Meanwhile, forced COVID testing would delay vaccination. The findings offer a novel view in understanding how people decide whether and when to receive new vaccines, which have pivotal implications for a head start of any mass vaccination programs.

Cognitive Biases in Decision Making in Post-Bureaucratic Organizations

2017 ◽  
pp. 358-382
Author(s):  
Marie-Therese Claes ◽  
Thibault Jacquemin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Rational Choice Theory ◽  
Choice Theory ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Rational Decision ◽  
Bureaucratic Organization ◽  
System 2 ◽  
System 1

In today's post-bureaucratic organization, where decision-making is decentralized, most managers are confronted with highly complex situations where time-constraint and availability of information makes the decision-making process essential. Studies show that a great amount of decisions are not taken after a rational decision-making process but rather rely on instinct, emotion or quickly processed information. After briefly describing the journey of thoughts from Rational Choice Theory to the emergence of Behavioral Economics, this chapter will elaborate on the mechanisms that are at play in decision-making in an attempt to understand the root causes of cognitive biases, using the theory of Kahneman's (2011) System 1 and System 2. It will discuss the linkage between the complexity of decision-making and post-bureaucratic organization.

Personality, Relationships, and Decision Making with Relational Dynamics

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 52-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
David S. Bathory
Keyword(s):  
Game Theory ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Economic Model ◽  
Economic Models ◽  
Relational Dynamics ◽  
Dsm V ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Variable Probability

Within the field of Economics there is great interest in predicting the future. In creating Economic Models the rationale has been to create fixed equations that can account for all variables associated with the issues of capital, labor, wages, prices, tariffs and taxes but few models explored the human variable. Probability Statistics bases decision making models upon mathematical predictions. Game Theory is an economic model that begins to explain the rationale of human decision making, but fails to account for flawed thinking and pathology. Relational Dynamics attempts to provide a means of understanding the strategies used in communication and decision making. Within humanity, not all decisions are made rationally and to account for illogical choices, psychology has provided theories of pathology to explain human idiosyncrasies. This paper will explore personality disorders as described by the DSM V and Relational Dynamics in an attempt to understand how pathology influences relationships, decision making and behavioral economics.

Behavioral Decision Theory

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuhisa Takemura
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Theory ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Behavioral Finance ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Behavioral Decision Theory ◽  
Behavioral Decision ◽  
Descriptive Theory ◽  
Human Decision

Behavioral decision theory is a descriptive psychological theory of human judgment, decision making, and behavior that can be applied to political science. Behavioral decision theory is closely related to behavioral economics and behavioral finance. Behavioral economics is an attempt to understand actual human economic behavior, and behavioral finance studies human behavior in financial markets. Research on people’s decision making represents an important part of these fields, in which various aspects overlap with the scope of behavioral decision theory. Behavioral decision theory focuses on the decision-making phenomena that are broadly divisible into those under certainty, those under risk, and others under uncertainty that includes ambiguity and ignorance. What are the theoretical frameworks that could be used to explain the decision-making phenomenon? Although numerous theories related to decision making have been developed, they are, in essence, often broadly divided into two types: normative theory and descriptive theory. The former is intended to support rational decision making. The latter describes how people actually make decisions. Both normative and descriptive theories reflect the nature of actual human decision making to a degree. Even descriptive theory seeks a certain level of rationality in actual human decision making. Consequently, the two are mutually indistinguishable. Nonetheless, a major example of normative theory is regarded as the system of utility theory that is widely used in economics. A salient example of descriptive theory is behavioral decision theory. Utility theory has numerous variations, such as linear and nonlinear utility theories. Most theories have established axioms and mathematically developed principles. In contrast, behavioral decision theory covers a considerably wide range of variations of theoretical expressions, including theories that have been developed mathematically (such as prospect theory) and those expressed only with natural language (such as multiattribute decision-making process models). Behavioral decision theory has integrated the implications of the normative theory, descriptive theory, and prescriptive theory that help people to make better decisions.

SHARED DECISION MAKING IN ONCOLOGY AND PALLIATIVE CARE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A Glare
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Based Medicine

Background: Cancer raises many questions for people afflicted by it. Do I want to have genetic testing? Will I comply with screening recommendations? If I am diagnosed with it, where will I have treatment? What treatment modalities will I have? Will I go on a clinical trial? Am I willing to bankrupt my family in the process of pursuing treatment? Will I write an advance care plan? Will I accept hospice if I have run out of available treatment options? Most of these questions have more than one correct answer, and the evidence for the superiority of one option over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation. Often the best choice between two or more valid approaches depends on how individuals value their respective risks and benefits; “preference-based medicine” may be more important than “evidence-based medicine.” There are various models for eliciting preferences, but applying them can raise a number of challenges. Objectives: To present the concepts, the value, the strategies, the quandaries, and the potential pitfalls of Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Palliative Care. Method: Narrative review. Results: Some challenges to practicing preference-based medicine in oncology and palliative care include: some patients don’t want to participate in shared decision making (SDM); the whole situation needs to be addressed, not just part of it; but are some topics out of bounds? Cognitive biases apply as much in SDM as any other human decision making, affecting the choice; how numerically equivalent data are framed can also affect the outcome; conducting SDM is also important at the end of life. Conclusions: By being aware of the potential pitfalls with SDM, clinicians are more able to facilitate the discussion so that the patients’ choices truly reflect their informed preferences, at a time when stakes and emotions are high.

scholarly journals Role of Healthcare Providers� Recommendation Style in HPV Vaccine Decision-Making among Haitian Parents and Female Patients

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 68-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dudith Pierre-Victor ◽  
Dionne P. Stephens ◽  
Rachel Clarke ◽  
Kemesha Gabbidon ◽  
Purnima Madhivanan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hpv Vaccine ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Vaccine Uptake ◽  
Transmitted Infection ◽  
Haitian Women ◽  
Female Patients ◽  
Vaccine Decision Making

Background and Purpose: The strong influence of physician recommendation on vaccine uptake is well established in the literature. However, its influence on HPV vaccine decision-making among young Haitian women is understudied. This study investigated the role of healthcare providers� recommendation style in Haitian parents� and female patients� HPV vaccine decision-making. Methods: Thirty selfidentified Haitian women aged 17-26 years were recruited from a large university campus in the Southeastern United States (N=30). They completed in-depth face-to-face interviews regarding their HPV vaccine decision-making process. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: Provider recommendation was cited as a major factor that influenced HPV vaccine uptake. Additionally, the framing of the HPV vaccine message greatly influenced vaccine decisions. Messages that framed the vaccine as a preventive measure for cervical cancer or as a preventive vaccine without an emphasis on the sexual transmission route of the virus were most effective. Messages that framed the vaccine as a preventive measure against a sexually transmitted infection did not positively influence young women to be vaccinated. Conclusions: These findings indicate that providers� recommendation style highly affects HPV vaccine decision. Thus, appropriate HPV vaccine framing is important for encouraging vaccine uptake in this ethnic group.

Behavioral Economics and Public Policy 102: Beyond Nudging

2015 ◽  
Vol 105 (5) ◽  
pp. 396-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saurabh Bhargava ◽  
George Loewenstein
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Health Insurance ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Policy Instruments ◽  
Design And Implementation ◽  
Alternative Approach ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Policy Problems

Policymakers have recently embraced Behavioral Economics as an alternative approach which recognizes the limits and consequences of human decision-making. Early applications of BE (“nudges”) produced notable successes and helped to set the stage for more aggressive applications aimed at the deeper causes of policy problems. We contend that policies that aspire to simplify products and incentives, rather than choice environments, aggressively protect consumers from behavioral exploitation, and leverage BE to enhance the design and implementation of traditional policy instruments offer solutions commensurate with contemporary challenges. Case studies in health insurance, privacy, and climate change illustrate the application of these ideas.

An Experimental Study of Feedback and Risk in Engineering Decision-Making

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mojtaba Arezoomand ◽  
Jesse Austin-Breneman
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Experimental Study ◽  
Behavioral Economics ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Factor Of Safety ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Design Factor ◽  
Objective Risk ◽  
Managing Risk ◽  
To Receive

Effectively managing risk is crucial to successful engineering design. Formal methods offer strategies for making decisions under uncertainty and mitigating risk. However, insights from other fields such as cognitive science and behavioral economics suggest that decision-makers may exhibit behaviors in response to feedback which can undermine these strategies. This study presents results from an experiment in which participants were tasked with selecting a design factor of safety for four design prompts under objective risk conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive only negative or positive feedback after each decision. Results suggest that the type of feedback influenced the choice of factor of safety even though subjects were provided with the exact benefits and probabilities of all possible outcomes. This experiment suggests further study of the mechanisms by which engineering decision-makers incorporate feedback is necessary.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document