Vaccine Choice, Trust in Institutions, and the Intention to Get Vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: Evidence from an Online Experiment

N. Aoki
{"title":"Vaccine Choice, Trust in Institutions, and the Intention to Get Vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2: Evidence from an Online Experiment","authors":"N. Aoki","doi":"10.30636/jbpa.51.275","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Amidst the global struggle to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2, this study investigates whether the number of vaccine options (the size of the choice set) predicts the public’s intention to get vaccinated, and whether this effect depends on their trust in institutions – a system in which a collection of actors – from scientists and vaccine developers to public servants and front-line health workers – is working to fight the pandemic and to develop and approve vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and deliver them to the public. Using an online experiment conducted in Japan (N = 600), the study tested whether choice set sizes of 1, 2, and 4 make a difference in the intention to get vaccinated. The study found that the intention was higher when the subjects were given two vaccine options to choose from, rather than offered a single vaccine, when trust was low, but this effect was negative when the subject trusted institutions highly. The study did not find strong evidence to support the effect of presenting a choice set of four. Based on these findings, this study offers nuanced suggestions for vaccine policy.","PeriodicalId":407938,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Public Administration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30636/jbpa.51.275","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Amidst the global struggle to achieve herd immunity against SARS-CoV-2, this study investigates whether the number of vaccine options (the size of the choice set) predicts the public’s intention to get vaccinated, and whether this effect depends on their trust in institutions – a system in which a collection of actors – from scientists and vaccine developers to public servants and front-line health workers – is working to fight the pandemic and to develop and approve vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 and deliver them to the public. Using an online experiment conducted in Japan (N = 600), the study tested whether choice set sizes of 1, 2, and 4 make a difference in the intention to get vaccinated. The study found that the intention was higher when the subjects were given two vaccine options to choose from, rather than offered a single vaccine, when trust was low, but this effect was negative when the subject trusted institutions highly. The study did not find strong evidence to support the effect of presenting a choice set of four. Based on these findings, this study offers nuanced suggestions for vaccine policy.
疫苗选择、对机构的信任和接种SARS-CoV-2疫苗的意愿:来自在线实验的证据
在全球努力实现对SARS-CoV-2的群体免疫之际,本研究调查了疫苗选择的数量(选择集的大小)是否预测了公众接种疫苗的意愿,以及这种效果是否取决于他们对机构的信任——在这个系统中,从科学家和疫苗开发人员到公务员和一线卫生工作者等一群行为者正在努力抗击疫情,开发和批准针对SARS-CoV-2的疫苗并将其交付给公众。通过在日本进行的一项在线实验(N = 600),该研究测试了1、2和4的选择集大小是否会对接种疫苗的意愿产生影响。研究发现,在信任度较低的情况下,当受试者从两种疫苗中进行选择时,而不是提供单一疫苗时,这种意愿更高,但当受试者高度信任机构时,这种影响是负面的。这项研究没有找到强有力的证据来支持四种选择的效果。基于这些发现,本研究为疫苗政策提供了细致入微的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信