ArticlePloS one2015
Beyond Rational Decision-Making: Modelling the Influence of Cognitive Biases on the Dynamics of Vaccination Coverage.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Behavioural change models for infectious disease transmission: a systematic review (2010-2015).Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2016Pooled it
- A Latent Profile Analysis of Vaccine Decision-Making Among Black Adults in South Central Los Angeles.Vaccines · 2026Article
- Heterogeneous risk tolerance, in-groups, and epidemic waves.Frontiers in applied mathematics and statistics · 2024Article
- Mapping the Cognitive Biases Related to Vaccination: A Scoping Review of the Literature.Vaccines · 2023Article
- Vaccination under pessimistic expectations in clinical trials and immunization campaigns.Journal of public economic theory · 2022Article
- Does social influence affect COVID-19 vaccination intention among the unvaccinated?Evolutionary human sciences · 2022Article
- Vaccine hesitancy: evidence from an adverse events following immunization database, and the role of cognitive biases.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Active pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine groups: Their group identities and attitudes toward science.PloS one · 2021Article
- The effects of source expertise and trustworthiness on recollection: the case of vaccine misinformation.Cognitive processing · 2020Article
- The Timing and Nature of Behavioural Responses Affect the Course of an Epidemic.Bulletin of mathematical biology · 2020Article
- Economic and Behavioral Influencers of Vaccination and Antimicrobial Use.Frontiers in public health · 2020Review
- Stochasticity in cultural evolution: a revolution yet to happen.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTheoretical studies predict that it is not possible to eradicate a disease under voluntary vaccination because of the emergence of non-vaccinating "free-riders" when vaccination coverage increases. A central tenet of this approach is that human behaviour follows an economic model of rational choice. Yet, empirical studies reveal that vaccination decisions do not necessarily maximize individual self-interest. Here we investigate the dynamics of vaccination coverage using an approach that dispenses with payoff maximization and assumes that risk perception results from the interaction between epidemiology and cognitive biases.
methodsWe consider a behaviour-incidence model in which individuals perceive actual epidemiological risks as a function of their opinion of vaccination. As a result of confirmation bias, sceptical individuals (negative opinion) overestimate infection cost while pro-vaccines individuals (positive opinion) overestimate vaccination cost. We considered a feedback between individuals and their environment as individuals could change their opinion, and thus the way they perceive risks, as a function of both the epidemiology and the most common opinion in the population.
resultsFor all parameter values investigated, the infection is never eradicated under voluntary vaccination. For moderately contagious diseases, oscillations in vaccination coverage emerge because individuals process epidemiological information differently depending on their opinion. Conformism does not generate oscillations but slows down the cultural response to epidemiological change.
conclusionFailure to eradicate vaccine preventable disease emerges from the model because of cognitive biases that maintain heterogeneity in how people perceive risks. Thus, assumptions of economic rationality and payoff maximization are not mandatory for predicting commonly observed dynamics of vaccination coverage. This model shows that alternative notions of rationality, such as that of ecological rationality whereby individuals use simple cognitive heuristics, offer promising new avenues for modelling vaccination behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.