流行病中的社会接触:理性vs.启发式

IF 1.2 Q3 ECONOMICS

Research in Economics Pub Date : 2023-03-01 DOI:10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.007

Matthew S. Wilson

{"title":"流行病中的社会接触:理性vs.启发式","authors":"Matthew S. Wilson","doi":"10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>During the Covid pandemic, people weighed the benefits of social contact against the risks to their health. Ideally, people would respond based on the true infection rate; this is the <em>rational model</em>. However, there was high uncertainty, so perhaps people relied upon the <em>heuristic model</em> instead. I estimate revealed preferences for health and social contact at the county level and find evidence in favor of the heuristic model. This is important since many models of optimal policy assume that people respond to the true infection rate.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46094,"journal":{"name":"Research in Economics","volume":"77 1","pages":"Pages 159-177"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social contact in a pandemic: Rationality vs. heuristics\",\"authors\":\"Matthew S. Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rie.2023.01.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>During the Covid pandemic, people weighed the benefits of social contact against the risks to their health. Ideally, people would respond based on the true infection rate; this is the <em>rational model</em>. However, there was high uncertainty, so perhaps people relied upon the <em>heuristic model</em> instead. I estimate revealed preferences for health and social contact at the county level and find evidence in favor of the heuristic model. This is important since many models of optimal policy assume that people respond to the true infection rate.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Economics\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 159-177\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944323000078\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Economics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090944323000078","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间，人们权衡了社会接触的好处与健康风险。理想情况下，人们会根据真实感染率做出反应;这是理性模型。然而，由于存在很大的不确定性，所以人们可能会转而依赖启发式模型。我估计了县级对健康和社会接触的偏好，并找到了支持启发式模型的证据。这一点很重要，因为许多最优政策模型假设人们对真实感染率做出反应。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Social contact in a pandemic: Rationality vs. heuristics

During the Covid pandemic, people weighed the benefits of social contact against the risks to their health. Ideally, people would respond based on the true infection rate; this is the rational model. However, there was high uncertainty, so perhaps people relied upon the heuristic model instead. I estimate revealed preferences for health and social contact at the county level and find evidence in favor of the heuristic model. This is important since many models of optimal policy assume that people respond to the true infection rate.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Research in Economics ECONOMICS-

CiteScore

1.40

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

89 days

期刊介绍： Established in 1947, Research in Economics is one of the oldest general-interest economics journals in the world and the main one among those based in Italy. The purpose of the journal is to select original theoretical and empirical articles that will have high impact on the debate in the social sciences; since 1947, it has published important research contributions on a wide range of topics. A summary of our editorial policy is this: the editors make a preliminary assessment of whether the results of a paper, if correct, are worth publishing. If so one of the associate editors reviews the paper: from the reviewer we expect to learn if the paper is understandable and coherent and - within reasonable bounds - the results are correct. We believe that long lags in publication and multiple demands for revision simply slow scientific progress. Our goal is to provide you a definitive answer within one month of submission. We give the editors one week to judge the overall contribution and if acceptable send your paper to an associate editor. We expect the associate editor to provide a more detailed evaluation within three weeks so that the editors can make a final decision before the month expires. In the (rare) case of a revision we allow four months and in the case of conditional acceptance we allow two months to submit the final version. In both cases we expect a cover letter explaining how you met the requirements. For conditional acceptance the editors will verify that the requirements were met. In the case of revision the original associate editor will do so. If the revision cannot be at least conditionally accepted it is rejected: there is no second revision.