Abstract  We investigate heterogeneity in health insurance choice using data from a controlled laboratory experiment. Participants make consecutive choices from sets of insurance plans that vary in premium, deductible, and complementary coverage of illnesses. We find that there is considerable heterogeneity in how much individuals are willing to pay for certain plan attributes. To better understand these differences, we account for individual risk preferences using a rank-dependent expected utility (RDEU) model and assess the welfare effects of plan choices. At the aggregate level, we find welfare losses under both the normative RDEU model and the descriptive EV model. At the individual level, however, the results are more differentiated: for some individuals, choices are consistent with their RDEU preferences, whereas for others, choices do not fit either model, suggesting either decision errors or reliance on heuristics. 

Abstract  We examine how risk preferences influence vaccination decisions and subsequent behavior in a pandemic context. Using data from 2,701 individuals from seven European countries, we employed an incentivized'virus risk elicitation task', adapted from a bomb risk elicitation task, to elicit individual risk preferences in a health-related context. In the first part of the experiment, all participants faced a risk of infection without the option of vaccination. In the second part, some participants were offered a vaccination option that reduced potential losses from infection. We found that most participants were risk-averse and that there was an inverse U-shaped relationship between risk preferences and vaccination uptake: individuals with risk preferences closer to neutrality were more likely to opt for vaccination. Among participants who chose vaccination, we observed an increase in social interaction, which is consistent with risk compensation behavior. These results provide evidence on the relationship between risk preferences, vaccination decisions, and post-vaccination behavior, offering insights into the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and informing the design of future public health strategies.

Abstract  We examine the impact of framing on individuals’ risk-taking behavior in the context of health risks during the coronavirus outbreak. We elicit risk attitudes from a sample of 3385 individuals across seven European countries using an incentivized decision-making task. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three versions of the task: one involving the risk of a bomb explosion, one involving the risk of contracting an infectious disease, and one involving opening an empty box. We find that the framing of the task significantly affects risk-taking behavior, with participants exhibiting greater risk aversion in the health task than in the bomb or neutral task. This framing effect is observed in the majority of the countries studied.

Abstract  We examine the impact of framing on individuals’ risk-taking behavior in the context of health risks during the coronavirus outbreak. We elicit risk attitudes from a sample of 3385 individuals across seven European countries using an incentivized decision-making task. Participants are randomly assigned to one of three versions of the task: one involving the risk of a bomb explosion, one involving the risk of contracting an infectious disease, and one involving opening an empty box. We find that the framing of the task significantly affects risk-taking behavior, with participants exhibiting greater risk aversion in the health task than in the bomb or neutral task. This framing effect is observed in the majority of the countries studied.

Abstract  European COvid Survey (ECOS), a longitudinal study spanning eight European countries, was initiated early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Its purpose was to comprehend public perceptions, trust, knowledge, and behaviors related to COVID-19, including vaccination. The study aimed to enable timely monitoring and assess relationships between these variables, producing evidence for policy and research in Europe. ECOS pursued a dual objective: first, conducting quick descriptive analyses at the end of fieldwork to produce policy-relevant evidence and share timely findings on sentiments toward containment policies, vaccinations, and vaccine types through press releases and events. These findings were valuable as they were both prompt and representative of national populations. Second, ECOS aimed to address health-economic research questions for an academic audience, utilizing advanced analytic methodologies. The resulting data-based research from ECOS provided an empirical foundation to understand longitudinal phenomena and relationships, contributing to a deeper comprehension of socioeconomic processes and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, it offered informed findings for policymakers to shape effective responses and policies.

This technical report provides an account of the design, development, and methodology of 11 data collections henceforth referred to as waves of the survey, which were fielded between April 2020 and December 2022.