Abstract
We provide a framework to disentangle the role of preferences and beliefs in health behavior, and we apply it to compliance behavior during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Using rich data on subjective expectations collected during the spring 2020 lockdown in the UK, we estimate a simple model of compliance behavior with uncertain costs and benefits, which we employ to quantify the utility trade-offs underlying compliance, to decompose group differences in compliance plans, and to compute the monetary compensation required for people to comply. We find that, on average, individuals assign the largest disutility to passing away from COVID-19 and being caught transgressing, and the largest utility to preserving their mental health. But we also document substantial heterogeneity in preferences and/or expectations by vulnerability status, gender, and other individual characteristics. In our data, both preferences and expectations matter for explaining gender differences in compliance, whereas compliance differences by vulnerability status are mainly driven by heterogeneity in preferences. We also investigate the relationship between own and others’ compliance. When others fail to comply and trust breaks down, individuals respond heterogeneously depending on their own circumstances and characteristics. When others around them comply less, those with higher risk tolerance and those without prior COVID-19 experience plan to comply less themselves, while the vulnerables plan to comply more. When a high-level public figure breaches the rules, supporters of the opposing political party plan to comply less. These findings emphasize the need for public health policies to account for heterogenous beliefs, preferences, and responses to others in citizens’ health behaviors.
JEL Codes: C25, C83, D84, I12, I18.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 819752 DEVORHBIOSHIP - ERC-2018COG).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee of the Institute of Education at University College London gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵‡ We thank Mirko De Maria, Dylan D’Mello, Mirjam Otten, Martina Rovetto, and Elena Ashtari Tafti for able research assistance. Gabriella Conti has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No. 819752 DEVORHBIOSHIP - ERC-2018COG). This project has received full ethics approval by the UCL IOE Research Ethics Committee (REC 1348 “Perceived Costs and Benefits of COVID-19 Social Distancing Measures and Compliance Behaviours”). We are grateful to Sue Horton for discussing the paper at the 2021 AEA/ASSA Annual Meeting, to Michael Darden for his discussion at the 10th ASHEcon Annual Conference, tow Arthur Juet for his discussion at the Empirical Health Economics Workshop (EHEW) 2022, to Shuye Yu for his discussion at the 29th European Workshop on Econometrics and Health Economics (EWEHE), and to Kevin Thom for his discussion at the 2022 Annual Health Econometrics Workshop (AHEW). We also thank conference participants to the 2021 AEA/ASSA Annual Meeting, the 10th ASHEcon Annual Conference, the ECB-NYFed Conference on Expectations surveys, the IAAE 2022 Conference, the RHUL 2022 Workshop on “Global health, environment and labour”, the Empirical Health Economics Workshop (EHEW) 2022, the EEA-ESEM Congress 2022, the 29th European Workshop on Econometrics and Health Economics and the 2022 Annual Health Econometrics Workshop, as well as seminar participants at the University of Glasgow, UCL Social Research Institute, IZA Bonn, University of Wisconsin- Madison, Bocconi University, University of Copenhagen, University of Oxford, the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the European University Institute, NOVA University of Lisbon, NYU Abu Dhabi and the University of Innsbruck.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors, after publication.
