Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 18:10.1111/jpet.12617.
doi: 10.1111/jpet.12617. Online ahead of print.

Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns

Hippolyte d'Albis  1 , Johanna Etner  2 , Josselin Thuilliez  3
Affiliations

Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns

Hippolyte d'Albis et al. J Public Econ Theory. .

Abstract

We provide one of the first formalizations of a vaccination campaign in a decision-theoretic framework. We analyze 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 behaviors of individuals participating in a clinical trial differ from individuals not participating. Individuals who are more optimistic toward vaccination participate more in trials. Their behaviors and efforts are also affected. As a result, because vaccine efficacy depends on unobserved behaviors 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.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Participating in trial and effort
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Aggarwal, D. , & Damodaran, U. (2020). Ambiguity attitudes and myopic loss aversion: Experimental evidence using carnival games. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25, 100258. 10.1016/j.jbef.2019.100258 - DOI
    1. Agnew, J. R. , Anderson, L. R. , Gerlach, J. R. , & Szykman, L. R. (2008). Who chooses annuities? An experimental investigation of the role of gender, framing, and defaults. American Economic Review, 98(2), 418–422. 10.1257/aer.98.2.418 - DOI
    1. Alary, D. , Gollier, C. , & Treich, N. (2013). The effect of ambiguity aversion on insurance and self‐protection. The Economic Journal, 123(573), 1188–1202. 10.1111/ecoj.12035 - DOI
    1. Attema, A. E. , Bleichrodt, H. , & L'Haridon, O. (2018). Ambiguity preferences for health. Health Economics, 27(11), 1699–1716. 10.1002/hec.3795 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Attema, A. E. , Bleichrodt, H. , L'Haridon, O. , Peretti‐Watel, P. , & Seror, V. (2018). Discounting health and money: New evidence using a more robust method. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 56(2), 117–140. 10.1007/s11166-018-9279- - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources