Decisions involving health and economic losses during the COVID-19 pandemic
Main Article Content
Abstract
We investigated choices between the sacred values and other quantities. Such decisions may be impossible to avoid during a pandemic. And then we studied perception of the COVID-19 pandemic and psychological mechanism behind such choices. Perception of the pandemic was investigated in the first part of this study in which 330 respondents from Prolific Academic evaluated the negative health consequences of being sick with COVID-19, the related fear and perceived risk. Evaluations were made for both themselves and people of different ages from a general population. Participants also evaluated the effectiveness of the spring lockdown in 2020 and answered questions concerning false beliefs about the pandemic. In the second part of this study we tested to what extent acceptance of economic costs of a lockdown is explained by decisions based on: (1) tradeoffs between health and economic losses; (2) a single criterion - either health or economic losses; and (3) the mechanisms described by Terror Management Health Model. Participants declared acceptance of economic costs of possible lockdown for different levels (ranging from low to high) of three pandemic indices: daily new cases, daily new deaths and the basic reproduction number of infection. Acceptance of economic costs increases when the perceived effectiveness of the earlier lockdown is high, when elderly people are perceived as threatened and when subjects do not hold false beliefs about the pandemic. A majority of respondents (57%) was sensitive to the level of health loss: the higher health losses, the higher economic costs were accepted. These respondents used a compensatory strategy to balance health and economic losses. The others reacted in a way consistent with a single criterion strategy – ca 20% accepted no economic costs and ca 15% accepted any economic costs to fight pandemic, independently of the level of health losses and the way in which they were described.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00135-9
2. Chorsu CG, Pudane B, Mouter N, Campbell D. Taboo trade-off aversion: a discrete choice model and empirical analysis. J Choice Model. 2018;27:47-49. doi:10.1016
3. Daw T, Coulthard S, Cheung W, Brown K, Abunge C, Galafassi D. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112:6949-6954. doi:10.1073/pnas. 1414900112
4. Fiske AP, Tetlock PE. Taboo trade-offs: reactions to transactions that transgress the spheres of justice. Polit Psychol. 2002;18(2):255-297.
doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00058
5. Tetlock PE, Kristel O V., Elson SB, Green MC, Lerner JS. The psychology of the unthinkable: taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:78, 853–870. doi:10.1037/0022- 514.78.5.853
6. Leuker C, Samartzidis L, Hertwig R. What makes a market transaction morally repugnant? PsyArXiv. 2020;April 23.
doi:10.31234/osf.io/ dgz4s
7. Suter RS, Pachur T, Hertwig R. How Affect Shapes Risky Choice: Distorted Probability Weighting Versus Probability Neglect. J Behav Decis Mak. 2016;29(4):437-449. doi:10.1002/bdm.1888
8. Pachur T, Hertwig R, Wolkewitz R. The affect gap in risky choice: Affect-rich outcomes attenuate attention to probability information. Decision. 2014;1(1):64-78. doi:10.1037/dec0000006
9. Payne JW, Bettman JR, Johnson EJ. Behavioral Decision Research: A Constructive Processing Perspective. Annu Rev Psychol. 1992;43(1):87-131. doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.43.020192.000511
10. Hogarth RM. Judgment and Choice. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
11. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P. Contingent Weighting in Judgment and Choice.; 2019. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511803475.029
12. Goldstein WM. Judgments of relative importance in decision making: Global vs local interpretations of subjective weight. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process. 1990;47(2):313-336. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(90)90041-7
13. Beattie J, Baron J. Investigating the effect of stimulus range on attribute weight,. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1991;17(2):571-585. doi:https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.571
14. Fischer GW, Damodaran N, Laskey KB, Lincoln D. Preferences for Proxy Attributes. Manage Sci. 1987;33(2):198-214. doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.2.198
15. Pyszczynski T, Solomon S, Greenberg J. Thirty Years of Terror Management Theory: From Genesis to Revelation. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2015;52(December 2015):1-70. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.03.001
16. Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. A Terror Management Theory of Social Behavior: The Psychological Functions of Self-Esteem and Cultural Worldviews. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1991;24(C):93-159. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7
17. Routledge C, Vess M. Handbook of Terror Management Theory. Elsevier Academic Press; 2019. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-81184-3.00013-5
18. Courtney EP, Goldenberg JL, Boyd P. The contagion of mortality: A terror management health model for pandemics. Br J Soc Psychol. 2020;59:607-617. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12392.
19. Bultman P, Arndt J. The Implications of death for health: A Terror Management health Model for behavioral health promotion. 2008;115(4):1032-1053. doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013326
20. Miller BL. Science Denial and COVID Conspiracy Theories Potential Neurological Mechanisms and Possible ResponsesNo Title. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2020. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.21332
21. Fox-Glassman KT, Weber EU. What makes risk acceptable? Revisiting the 1978 psychological dimensions of perceptions of technological risks. J Math Psychol. 2016;75:157-169. doi:10.1016/J.JMP.2016.05.003
22. Brewer NT, Chapman GB, Gibbons FX, Gerrard M, McCaul KD, Weinstein ND. Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Heal Psychol. 2007;26(2):136-145. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.136
23. Weinstein ND, Kwitel A, McCaul KD, Magnan RE, Gerrard M, Gibbons FX. Risk perceptions: Assessment and relationship to influenza vaccination. Heal Psychol. 2007;26(2):146-151.
doi:10.1037/0278-6133.26.2.146
24. Bottemanne H, Morlaàs O, Fossati P, Schmidt L. Does the Coronavirus Epidemic Take Advantage of Human Optimism Bias? Front Psychol. 2020;11(August):1-5. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02001
25. Moutsiana C, Garrett N, Clarke RC, Lotto RB, Blakemore SJ, Sharot T. Human development of the ability to learn from bad news. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110(41):16396-16401. doi:10.1073/pnas.1305631110
26. Dorn F, Lange B, Braml M, et al. The challenge of estimating the direct and indirect effects of COVID-19 interventions – Toward an integrated economic and epidemiological approach. Econ Hum Biol. 2023;49(October 2022):1-10. doi:10.1016/j.ehb.2022.101198
27. Green T, Venkataramani AS. Trade-offs and Policy Options — Using Insights from Economics to Inform Public Health Policy. N Engl J Med. 2022;5(386):405-408. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmp2104360.
28. Case SM, O’Leary J, Kim N, Tinetti ME, Fried TR. Older Adults’ Recognition of Trade-Offs in Healthcare Decision-Making. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63(8):1658-1662. doi:10.1111/jgs.13534
29. Luce MF, Bettman JR, Payne JW. Emotional Decisions Tradeoff Difficulty and Coping. Monogr J Consum Res. 2001;(1):1-209.
30. Luce MF, Payne JW, Bettman JR. Emotional Trade-Off Difficulty and Choice. J Mark Res. 1999;36(2):143-159. doi:10.1177/002224379903600201
31. Luce MF, James RB, John WP. An integrated model of trade-off difficulty and consumer choice. J Consum Res. 2001;(1):11. http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=710083631&Fmt=7&clientId=12010&RQT=309&VName=PQD.