Conscious Consideration of Herd Immunity in Influenza Vaccination Decisions

Published in: American Journal of Preventive Medicine, v. 45, no. 1, July 2013, p. 118-121

Posted on on July 01, 2013

by Andrew M. Parker, Raffaele Vardavas, Christopher Steven Marcum, Courtney A. Gidengil

Read More

Access further information on this document at American Journal of Preventive Medicine

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination decisions may be influenced by perceived risk reduction related to herd immunity. PURPOSE: This paper examines how free-riding (i.e., foregoing vaccination because of reduced risk perceptions related to herd immunity) or protective benefits to the community affect vaccination decisions. METHODS: A survey of a nationally representative panel of U.S. adults (N=442 respondents; data collected and analyzed during 2012) asked about how respondents made vaccination decisions, including whether and how vaccination among the members of respondents' social networks influenced their own vaccination decisions. RESULTS: Most individuals (61%) reported that vaccination in the social network would not influence their decision. Among those perceiving being influenced by vaccination in their social network, most stated that an increase in network vaccination coverage would make them more likely to get vaccinated, rather than less. Overall, only 6% (28 of 442) gave a response consistent with the reduced-risk logic of herd immunity, which was more common among those stating that they would be less likely to get vaccinated (emphasizing free-riding) than among those more likely to get vaccinated (emphasizing social protection; 33% vs 11%, two-sided, p=0.0005). The reduced-risk logic of herd immunity, and more specifically free-riding, is consciously considered by relatively few individuals. Far more common are social influences bolstering personal vaccination, such as peer pressure and social learning (6% vs 11%, two-sided, p=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: Interventionists may be more successful by capitalizing on existing social-influence considerations than by trying to combat the conscious lure of free-riding.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.