For Better or Worse? Subjective Expectations and Cost-Benefit Trade-Offs in Health Behavior

2.1 “Stay Home”: First Lockdown’s Rules in the UK

The UK entered a strict first lockdown with a TV announcement by Prime Minister Boris Johnson on March 23rd 2020, later than most European countries.¹⁷ This first lockdown remained effective until early June 2020, when the restrictions began to be gradually lifted, a few weeks after Johnson’s announcement of a conditional phased lifting plan which was aired on May 10th. A detailed timeline is displayed in Figure A1 of the Supplementary Appendix.

“Stay home” was the single most important message and rule citizens were given by the UK authorities during the first lockdown. All citizens were asked to minimize the time spent outside their home and, when outside, were required to stay (at least) 2 meters apart from anyone who did not belong to their own household. A “Stay home” message was texted to all registered mobile phones in the United Kingdom (Figure 1); the ubiquitous logo is shown in Figure 2. In practice, the stay-home rule was applied with varying specifics and bindingness across the following four main categories of citizens:

1. Self-isolating – Individuals testing positive to the Coronavirus or manifesting symptoms consistent with COVID-19.

2. Vulnerables – Individuals over 70 years of age and/or affected by specific health conditions (e.g., severe lung or heart conditions, certain types of cancer) and/or undergoing specific medical treatments (e.g., cancer treatments or medicine that weakens one’s immune system). This category also included pregnant women.

3. Key workers – People working in critical sectors (e.g., the National Health Service or NHS).

4. Others – Everyone else.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1:

Coronavirus: SMS messages

Notes: The government texted people across the UK to inform them of the new rules announced by the Prime Minister on 23 March 2020. This was made possible thanks to the cooperation of mobile phone operators.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 2:

Introductory Screen of the Coronavirus Expectations Section

The first two groups were subject to the strictest rules. Self-isolating individuals were not allowed to leave their home for any reason for 7 consecutive days, self-isolating households for 14 consecutive days. Vulnerable individuals were expected not to leave their home for 12 consecutive weeks.¹⁸ The remaining groups were allowed to go out, but to a limited extent and only for the following specific reasons:

1. shopping for basic necessities (food and medicines);

2. one form of exercise per day (such as running, walking, or cycling), alone or with one’s household members;

3. any medical need (including donating blood or helping a vulnerable person);

4. attending the funeral of a close relative;

5. commuting to/from work, only for key workers and those who could not work from home;

6. taking children to/from school or childcare, only for key workers and parents of vulnerable children.

Transgressors were liable to prosecution and the police was given the power to fully enforce the rules through monetary fines, dispersion of gatherings, and even arrests. The fine schedule was £60 for the first penalty note (£30 if paid within 14 days); £120 for the second penalty note; doubled amount on each further repeat offence.

No additional rules on specific protective or preventive behaviors other than social distancing were given during this initial phase. Mandatory face covering in indoor settings, for instance, was not introduced until later in the Summer of 2020 (23 July 2020). All this has implications for how we think about compliance, including our modelling framework in Subsection 2.2 and our data collection and survey measures in Section 3.

To make things realistic but also keep them tractable, we allow (non-)compliance to take the form of one of four conducts of behavior or actions, the first two capturing compliance (including forms of over- compliance) and the other two non-compliance (partial or full).¹⁹ Specifically, we take the government’s “stay home” rule as the main benchmark. This was a binding rule for the vulnerables and self-isolating, and a strongly recommended behavior for everyone else. Accordingly, we define the status quo conduct or action as “Never leave home”. Key workers and other non-vulnerable individuals who were not self-isolating, (or after completing their quarantine period), were allowed to leave their home, albeit in a very restricted manner and only for the reasons specified by the lockdown rules. We define the conduct or action of individuals who closely follow the lockdown rules as “Strict compliance”. Some individuals may, occasionally or systematically, fail to comply with the rules. We define the behavior of those who keep the main rules in mind but apply them with some discretion, leading to occasional non-compliance, as “General compliance”. Finally, we define the behavior of those who carry out with their own life as much as possible without following the rules as “Non-compliance”.

2.2 Compliance Choice with Uncertain Consequences

We now introduce a modeling framework to analyze (non-)compliance with the rules just described. In Section 4, we give the framework econometric implementation and estimate model parameters using data on individuals’ subjective expectations for the consequences of alternative compliance conducts and for own compliance over the following month (early May-early June 2020), which we collected during the week of May 3-10 2020, right before Boris Johnson’s announcement of the conditional lifting plan. This and related data from the baseline survey are described in Section 3.

Citizens face a choice among a discrete set of J conducts or actions, J . The set J includes the four (non-)compliance behaviors described above (J = 4), with j = 1 denoting “Never leave home”, j = 2 denoting “Strict compliance”, j = 3 denoting “General compliance”, and j = 4 denoting “Non-compliance”. We assume that everyone can choose among the four choice alternatives, so the choice set is homogeneous across the population.

Individuals are forward looking, so their compliance decision depends on what they expect to result from it in the future. Each individual, denoted by i, derives utility U_i(θ⃗), where is a finite vector of consequences or outcomes. Because the elements of θ⃗ are uncertain at the time of choice, the individual forms subjective probabilities, , over the consequences of choosing each alternative, and then selects the SEU-maximizing alternative , Following standard subjective expected utility theory, we specify (1) to be additively separable in the elements of θ⃗ and, for each element of θ⃗, multiplicatively separable in the subjective probability and utility. Letting denote binary outcomes and continuous ones, person i’s choice problem becomes: where P_ijk ≡ P_ij (b_k = 1) is i’s subjective probability that b_k = 1 will result (e.g., i gets infected), if j is chosen; Δu_ik = u_i(b_k = 1) − u_i(b_k = 0) is the utility difference i derives from the occurrence of b_k = 1 (e.g., i gets infected) relative to the occurrence of b_k = 0 (e.g., i does not get infected); E_ijk ≡ E_ij(s_k) is i’s subjective expectation for s_k (e.g., monetary fine), if j is chosen; and γ_ik represents the associated (dis)utility. Being constant across actions, the term drops out of the choice.²⁰,²¹

This specification allows the utility parameters to vary across decision makers, but not across choice alternatives. The elements of , on the other hand, can vary unrestrictedly across individuals and alternatives.²² This modeling framework views compliance behavior as subjectively rational, in the sense that compliance decisions result from individuals maximizing their SEU. It does not imply, however, that individuals have correct or rational expectations over the consequences of alternative conducts of compliance. Put differently, our framework maintains that individuals make compliance decisions based on their expectations and utilities over the consequences of alternative conducts of compliance, but makes no assumptions about the rational or non-rational nature of decision makers’ expectations.

We specify i’s SEU in (2) as a function of the following probabilities (expectations):

• k = 1: Probability that i will contract the Coronavirus following j, P_ij(Corona);

• k = 2: Probability that i will not find intensive care unit (ICU) space in the hospital while needing hospitalization due to the complications of COVID-19 following j, P_i(no ICU space|acute COVID, Corona) × P_i(acute COVID|Corona) × P_ij(Corona);

• k = 3: Probability that i will die of COVID-19 following j, P_i(dying of COVID|Corona)× P_ij(Corona);

• k = 4: Probability that i will infect people with whom s/he lives following j, P_ij(Infecting people living with) (for i’s living with others);

• k = 5: Probability that i will infect people s/he does not live with following j, P_ij(Infecting people not living with);

• k = 6: Probability that i will be caught transgressing following j, P_ij(caught);²³

• k = 7: Expected monetary fine that i will receive if caught transgressing following j, E_i(fine|caught) × P_ij(caught);²⁴

• k = 8: Probability that i will not become unhappy or depressed following j, 1 − P_ij(Depressed);

• k = 9: Probability that i will not gain weight or become unfit following j, 1 − P_ij(Gain weight/become unfit);

• k = 10: Probability that i’s relationships with family and close friends or colleagues will not deteriorate following j, 1 − P_ij(Worse relationships);

• k = 11: Probability that i will not lose her job following j, 1 − P_ij(Lose job) (for working i’s);

• k = 12: Probability that i will not fall behind with exams following j, 1−P_ij(Fall behind with exams) (for studying i’s);

• k = 13: Probability that i will not run out of money following j, 1−P_ij(Run out of £).

As explained shortly in Section 3, these probabilities are either directly elicited in the survey (those of outcomes 1, 4, 5, and 6), or are constructed from elicited ones (those of outcomes 2, 3, 7). For example, the probability of outcome k = 3 following action j is constructed by multiplying the probability of contracting the Coronavirus with or without symptoms following j by the probability of developing COVID-19 with acute symptoms and by the probability of passing away from COVID-19 conditional on contracting the Coronavirus, both of which were directly elicited by our survey. The elicited unconditional probabilities are listed in Section 3.4. The probability of each outcome k ∈ 8-13 is constructed as one minus the probability of the complement event, which was elicited in the survey. This choice of framing is made for communication. First, recall that in equation (2), Δu_ik represents the difference in utility that person i obtains from the occurrence of outcome k (b_k = 1) relative to the occurrence of the complement outcome (b_k = 0). For individuals with standard preferences, we expect Δu_ik to be negative for outcomes 1-7 (i.e., disutilities) and positive for outcomes 8-13 (i.e., utilities). In Section 4, we will estimate the model parameters, thus empirically testing these hypotheses.

Second, in the econometric implementation of Section 4, we take A1 (“never leave home”) as the reference action and we model choice of A2 (strict compliance), A3 (general compliance), or A4 (noncompliance) relative to A1 (the government’s benchmark). As a result, the relevant variables for choice of A2, A3, or A4 over A1 are the perceived returns to A2, A3, and A4 relative to A1.²⁵ As argued by example in Section 1, for reasonable configurations of individuals’ expectations, the differences in the probabilities (or expectations) for outcomes 1-7 following actions A2, A3, and A4 versus action A1 are likely to capture increased perceived risks of negative outcomes (or “negative perceived returns”), whereas those for outcomes 8-13 are likely to represent increased perceived likelihoods of positive outcomes (or “positive perceived returns”). We analyze these perceived returns and the underlying subjective probabilities in Sections 3 and 4.

3.1 Data Collection

To recruit our sample we use Prolific Academic, an online platform providing participants for web-based research, including web surveys.²⁶ It is considered to be a source of high-quality participants and data (e.g., Peer et al. (2017)), superior to otherwise similar research platforms.²⁷ Prolific Academic has been increasingly used for web-based research in economics and other social sciences, including for COVID- related research (e.g., Akesson et al. (2020), Buso et al. (2020), and Campos-Mercade et al. (2021)). A useful feature of Prolific Academic is the possibility of requesting age-gender-ethnicity representative samples for the UK and the US. For our study, we took advantage of this feature and requested an age-gender-ethnicity representative sample of the UK population during early May of 2020.²⁸

We collected our data by means of two web surveys: a lengthier baseline, which we fielded on May 3-10, 2020, and a short follow-up, which we fielded on May 28, 2020. We describe each of them in turn.

3.1.1 Baseline Survey

Baseline overview.The baseline survey is structured in five main sections, as follows:

1. You and Your Health – This section covers the respondent’s age, gender, self-rated health, health conditions and history, height and weight to construct BMI, including changes since the start of the pandemic.

2. Corona Knowledge – This section measures the respondent’s awareness of the situation (e.g., existence of the Coronavirus and related COVID-19 disease, lockdown status) and the respondent’s familiarity with various aspects of the ongoing pandemic (e.g., COVID-19 symptoms, protective behaviors, pandemic statistics, lockdown rules).

3. Corona Experience – This section asks questions about the respondent’s experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-19, in first-person and through family, friends, or acquaintances.

4. Corona Behaviors – This section elicits respondent’s habits during the lockdown (e.g., number of days the person went out, specific behaviors when outside, etc.).

5. Corona Expectations – This sections measures: (i) risk perceptions related to the Coronavirus over the following 4 weeks (e.g., unconditional probability of contracting the virus, of developing COVID-19 symptoms conditional on contracting the virus, etc.); (ii) perceptions of risks related to Coronavirus and risks related to the lockdown, under alternative scenarios regarding the respondent’s compliance behavior in the following 4 weeks (e.g., the probability of contracting the Coronavirus conditional on actions A1-A4 described above, the probability of developing depression conditional on actions A1-A4, etc.); (iii) the respondent’s subjective probability of following each of the four compliance conducts (A1-A4); (iv) the respondent’s probability of compliance under hypothetical scenarios of the compliance behavior of others living in his/her same local authority, and an estimate of the proportion (between 0% and 100%) of people living in their local authority who would follow each of the A1-A4 conducts in the following 4 weeks. This section includes also some questions eliciting the respondent’s familiarity with the concepts of chance and percent and the respondent’s interpretation of the non-compliance scenarios (A3-A4).

6. Background Information – This section covers additional demographics (e.g., marital status, parental status, and household structure); information on the respondent’s socioeconomic status (e.g., education, employment status, work mode, and income bracket, including changes since the start of the pandemic); IQ (via Raven’s matrices); time and risk preferences.

Expectations battery. After eliciting respondents’ knowledge, experience, and behavior with regard to various aspects of the pandemic and lockdown, we began the Corona Expectations section (E) with an introductory screen reporting basic information about the government’s lockdown rules. This includes the main “Stay Home” rule to protect the NHS and save lives, some information on enforcement, and a note on the fact that specifics may vary across categories of citizens: the introductory screen is reported in Figure 2; more detailed information on citizens’ categories and category-specific rules followed.²⁹ Sharing basic information about the lockdown and its rules at the beginning of Section E was a deliberate design choice we made. Because the baseline was fielded about 5 weeks into the lockdown, we thought it important to gather data on respondents’ familiarity with main aspects of the pandemic and lockdown to learn if/to what extent it differed across respondents. Moreover, in order for the expectations questions and scenarios we posed in Section E to be understandable by and meaningful to everyone, we thought it important to create a common knowledge base on the main lockdown rules and on the meaning of compliance or lack thereof for different types of citizens.

All expectations for binary or discrete events of Section E were elicited using a visual 0-100 linear scale of percent chance, with a clickable slider to minimize response anchoring.³⁰ This format has been also found to have desirable properties with respect to the use of “focal” responses (0, 50, 100)³¹ and rounding of reports.³² As an example, Figure 3 displays the survey screen with the question eliciting the percent chance of contracting the Coronavirus in the next 4 weeks.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 3:

Example of Expectation Elicitation Question, Unconditional

3.2 Sample Description

Our sample consists of 1,100+ adults living in the UK on May 3-10, 2020. The sample is representative with respect to age, gender, and ethnicity.

Table 1 shows sample statistics for gender, age, ethnicity, education, household income, location, citizen category (i.e., vulnerable, self-isolating, and key worker), employment status, cohabitation status, prior experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-19, degree of literacy regarding the Coronavirus/COVID- 19, willingness to take risks, and patience.

We confirm that the sample is representative by gender, age, and ethnicity. We have 41% of the respondents with at least an undergraduate degree (slightly more educated than the population), 15% of the respondents on low income (less than £16,000/year), 10% of the respondents self-identifying as belonging to the vulnerable category, 15% self-isolating, 16% key workers, an equal percentage (28.5%) of other working and other not working, and 16% of respondents living alone.

Using the responses to our questions in Section (C) of the survey (Corona Experience), we created a COVID-19 experience index, capturing the respondent’s prior experience with the Coronavirus/COVID- 19, obtained through personal experience or through that of family and/or friends.³⁶ The index ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means no prior experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-19 and 1 means that the respondent indicated having some form or degree of experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-

19 in all questions of the experience battery. The sample distribution of the COVID-19 experience index ranges from 0 to 0.762, with nearly 31% of respondents reporting no prior experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-19. The sample mean is 0.127 and the sample standard deviation is 0.144, indicating that at the time of the survey respondents had limited prior experience with the Coronavirus/COVID-19 on average, but also revealing substantial heterogeneity across respondents in their prior experience with the virus and related illness.

Similarly, we used the responses to our questions in Section (B) of the survey (Corona Knowledge) to create a COVID-19 literacy index, capturing the respondent’s degree of knowledge and familiarity with respect to the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic.³⁷ The index ranges between 0 and 1, where 0 means complete unawareness of the Coronavirus/COVID-19 pandemic and 1 means that the respondent displayed awareness about the ongoing pandemic and answered correctly all questions requiring familiarity with statistics regarding the virus, the related illness, and the lockdown rules. The sample distribution of the COVID-19 literacy index ranges from 0.492 to 0.915. The sample mean is 0.753 and the sample standard deviation is 0.066, indicating that at the time of the survey respondents had a relatively high degree of knowledge and familiarity with the pandemic on average, and that COVID-19 literacy is much less dispersed than COVID-19 experience in our sample.

Respondents’ willingness to take risks and their degree of patience were elicited using Falk et al. (2016)’s risk and patience scales. Essentially, respondents are asked to rate their willingness to take risks and their willingness to abstain from something today in order to afford more tomorrow on a 0-10 scale. 46% of respondents rate their willingness to take risks to be 5 or higher and 57% of respondents rate their patience 6 or higher. Hence, we constructed two binary indicators for willingness to take risks to be ≥5 (‘High Willingness to Take Risks’) and willingness to abstain from something today to be ≥ 6 (‘High Patience’).

3.3 Compliance Plans As Subjective Choice Probabilities

We start from the end of the expectations section (E) and begin by describing respondents’ compliance plans for the upcoming month, which we elicited probabilistically as the respondent’s likelihood of following each compliance conduct or action in A1-A4. In Section 4, we use these data as left-hand-side variables in our model of compliance behavior.

Elicitation

As for all probabilistic expectations we elicited in our survey, compliance probabilities were measured on a 0-100 percent chance scale using clickable sliders. In this case, the question screen displayed four sliders, one for each of the four compliance conducts or actions, A1-A4. For each conduct or action, the respondent was asked to select on the corresponding slider a number between 0 percent and 100 percent reflecting the likelihood that she would follow that conduct over the next 4 weeks. At the bottom of the screen, the sum of the four responses was displayed to help the respondent select four probabilities summing to 100 percent. The question screen is shown in Figure 4.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 4:

Elicitation of Choice Probabilities

3.4 Perceived Coronavirus and Related Risks, Not Conditioned on Compliance

We now turn to the other questions of Section E, eliciting respondents’ perceptions of Coronavirus- related risks. We begin with the unconditional expectations and then continue with those contingent on alternative compliance conducts in the next subsection.

3.5 Perceived Risks and Benefits of Non-Compliance, As Choice-Conditioned Subjective Probabilities

We now describe the expectations that we elicited conditional on alternative compliance conducts.

Elicitation. We elicited expectations for four Coronavirus-related events or risks, under four alternative and mutually exclusive hypothetical scenarios corresponding to each of the four compliance conducts or actions A1-A4. The expectations are:

1. The percent chance that the person would contract the Coronavirus (with or without symptoms) over the next 4 weeks.

2. The percent chance that the person would infect with Coronavirus someone living with her over the next 4 weeks.

3. The percent chance that the person would infect with Coronavirus someone not living with her over the next 4 weeks.

4. The percent chance that the person would be caught transgressing over the next 4 weeks.⁴⁶

To illustrate, Figure A10 shows the survey screen with the question eliciting the subjective probability of contracting the Coronavirus over the next 4 weeks under the four compliance conducts. The display is similar to that for elicitation of compliance probabilities, with the difference that in this case the four probabilities do not need to some up to one.

We additionally elicited expectations for five events or outcomes, capturing aspects of a person’s wellbeing in different domains (personal health, personal relationships, work/study, and personal finances). As for the Coronavirus-related risks, each of these questions was asked under four alternative and mutually exclusive hypothetical scenarios corresponding to each of the four compliance conducts or actions A1-A4. The expectations are:

1. The percent chance that the person would become unhappy or depressed over the next 4 weeks.

2. The percent chance that the person would gain weight or become unfit over the next 4 weeks.

3. The percent chance that the person’s relationship with family, friends, and/or colleagues would deteriorate over the next 4 weeks.

4. The percent chance that the person would lose her job (for working respondents) or fall behind with exams (for students) over the next 4 weeks.

5. The percent chance that the person (and her family) would run out of money over the next 4 weeks.

For the latter set of outcomes, moving forward we work with the probabilities of the complement events. As previously explained, this is done for interpretation. In particular, we tend to think of the first set of outcomes as Coronavirus-related risks, which are likely higher under non-compliance than under compliance, thus capturing the perceived costs or risks of non-compliance. On the other hand, we tend to think of the second set of outcomes as other kinds of risks, which are likely lower under non- compliance than under compliance, thus capturing the perceived benefits or returns to non-compliance.

4.1 Econometric Implementation

At the time of choice, the decision problem of person i has the form where compared to (2), we have suppressed the subscript i from the utility parameters, now assumed homogeneous across individuals,⁴⁹ and have introduced an additive term, ε_ij, capturing components of the decision maker’s SEU that are unobserved by the econometrician.⁵⁰ Under the standard revealed preference argument, whereby each person’s compliance behavior coincides with her SEU-maximizing conduct or action, where 1 {·} is the indicator function and d_ij= 0 ∀j ̸= j^∗, observation of in a population or sample of individuals along with the individuals’ subjective expectations over the uncertain consequences of alternative compliance conducts, , enables identification of the unknown utility parameters, , given assumptions on the distribution of unobservables, across the population.

Recall, however, that our survey elicits respondents’ compliance plans for the next 4 weeks in the form of choice probabilities. At the time of the survey, the decision problem of person i has the form where q_ij∗ is person i’s subjective probability of choosing action j^∗ in the next 4 weeks and where, for simplicity, no explicit notation for time is used. The right-hand side of equation (5) provides a subjective random utility interpretation of elicited choice probabilities, , which are probabilistic versions of stated choices. It says that person i holds subjective probability q_ij∗ that following compliance conduct j^∗ will be optimal over the next 4 weeks, in the sense that it will yield a higher SEU than any of the other feasible compliance conducts.

The term ɛ_ij in problem (5) has a partially different interpretation from that of term ε_ij in problem (3)-(4). ɛ_ij may be thought of as a composite term, ɛ_ij = ϑ_ij +ξ_ij, where ϑ_ij captures factors unknown to the econometrician but known to the decision maker (like ε_ij in (3)-(4)), whereas ξ_ij represents factors unknown to both the decision maker and the econometrician. In the taxonomy of Manski (1999) (see also Blass, Lach and Manski (2010) and Arcidiacono et al. (2020)), ξ_ij represents resolvable uncertainty. As such, it captures all those factors that are unknown to person i when she is asked to make predictions , but would be known to her in the actual choice situation, that is, when she decides what compliance conduct to follow.

Person i’s subjective distribution Q_i over expresses the person’s resolvable uncertainty on her hypothetical or future optimal action. It is however important to note that if a person perceives no resolvable uncertainty about her optimal course of action at the time she is asked to predict compliance, she can express her certainty by reporting corner probabilities equal to 1 (for the optimal conduct she is certain to follow) or 0 (for the remaining conducts). Hence, eliciting choice probabilities is more informative than asking stated choices.

To implement (5) econometrically and provide estimates of the model parameters, we follow Ar-cidiacono et al. (2020) and assume that the components of are i.i.d. Type 1 Extreme Value according to both the econometrician and decision maker. Under this assumption, the choice probabilities, , have the familiar exponential closed form and are therefore invertible by applying the natural logarithm to each side of (6).⁵¹ Thus, applying the log-odds transformation to (6) yields the following linear specification: where “Never leave home” is the reference action (j = 1 or A1); the alternative-specific constant for A1 is normalized to 0 (α₁ = 0); β_k denotes a generic element of the vector of utility parameters, , to be estimated; ΔP_ijk denotes a generic element of the vector of person i’s perceived returns (or risks) of choosing each of actions A2, A3, or A4 over the reference action A1, .

We estimate the parameters of (7) by least squares, using data on respondents’ subjective probabilities over choices on the left-hand side and on respondents’ subjective probabilities (expectations) over choice consequences on the right-hand side. That is, to estimate the basic specification with homogeneous utility parameters, we use the data , where N denotes sample size.⁵²

4.2 Basic Specification With Homogeneous Utility Parameters

Table 8 presents least squares (LS) estimates of model (7). The first five coefficients represent the (dis-)utility weights attached to the corresponding Coronavirus-related risks, which we view as costs or risks of non-compliance. The sixth coefficient captures the nonmonetary (psychological) cost of being fined and the seventh the monetary one. These, too, may be viewed as costs or risks of non-compliance, since there are no sanctions, monetary or otherwise, for staying at home or strictly complying to the lockdown rules. The last six coefficients represent the utility weights attached to the corresponding health, relationship, and financial outcomes, which we view as benefits or returns of non-compliance.

As expected, Coronavirus-related risks have negative associated utility weights. The only exception is the utility coefficient of contracting the Coronavirus with or without symptoms (β₁), whose estimate is positive but statistically insignificant. A possible interpretation is that there is no disutility from contracting the Coronavirus per se, that is, beyond the disutility associated with its health-harming consequences, which are captured by the other risks included in the utility specification.⁵³

The largest estimated disutilities are those from being caught transgressing (β₆)⁵⁴ and from passing away due to the health complications of COVID-19 (β₃), followed by those from infecting non-cohabiting and cohabiting others (β₅ and β₄).⁵⁵ The smallest albeit statistically significant coefficient among the first group is that multiplying the expected fine (β₇). The estimated disutility of not being able to find the needed ICU space (β₂) is sizable in magnitude but not statistically significant.

Moving to the benefits, the largest utility weight is β₈, associated with avoiding becoming unhappy or depressed, the mental health outcome.⁵⁶ Its estimate is of a similar magnitude (in absolute value) to the estimated disutility of infecting non-cohabiting others (β₅). The utility weight associated with not losing one’s job (β₁₁) follows; the coefficient’s magnitude is similar to the disutility of not finding ICU space, but its estimate is statistically significant.⁵⁷ The utilities associated to the remaining outcomes are smaller in magnitude and statistically insignificant.

As a robustness check, Table A1 in the Supplementary Appendix reports least absolute deviations (LAD) estimates of model (7). The LAD estimates are very similar to the LS ones in both signs and magnitudes, but display some differences in estimation precision. For example, the disutility of passing away due to the complications of COVID-19 is no longer statistically significant in Table A1. On the other hand, the utility of avoiding becoming unfit/gaining weight, that of avoiding a deterioration of personal relationships and that of avoiding running out of money are now statistically significant.

Taken together, these estimates reveal the existence of trade-offs underlying compliance decisions and provide a first quantification of them. It is of course possible that individuals with different characteristics or circumstances use different sets of utility weights to resolve the trade-offs underlying compliance decisions. We investigate this aspect next.

4.3 Investigating Heterogeneity in Utilities

In Table 9, we re-estimate the model by allowing the utility parameters to vary by gender, vulnerability status, and prior experience with COVID-19.⁵⁸ Each preference parameter Δu_k, where k indexes the outcomes listed by row (k ∈ 1−13), is modelled as β_const+β_male1_i {male}+β_vulnerable1_i {vulnerable}+β_{COVID-19 experience > 0}1_i {COVID-19 experience > 0}, where 1_i {male} equals 1 if respondent i is male and 0 otherwise; 1_i {vulnerable} equals 1 if respondent i is vulnerable and 0 otherwise; and 1_i {COVID-19 experience > 0} equals 1 if respondent i has prior experience with COVID-19 and 0 otherwise. Thus, the estimates shown in the first column of Table 9 refer to the utility coefficients of the reference group, corresponding to non-vulnerable female respondents without prior COVID-19 experience. The estimates shown in the following columns represent the utility parameters of the remaining groups, corresponding to seven possible gender-vulnerability-COVID-19 experience combinations described in the columns’ labels.

The estimates in Table 9 provide evidence of heterogeneity in utility parameters by person’s characteristics and circumstances. In terms of risks, vulnerable respondents have large in magnitude and statistically significant disutilities of contracting the Coronavirus and of infecting people they live with, whereas nonvulnerable respondents have a larger and statistically significant disutility of infecting people they do not live with; also, male nonvulnerable respondents with prior COVID-19 experience have a larger disutility of passing away for COVID-19. In terms of benefits, vulnerable respondents have a larger utility of avoiding deterioration of relationships, while nonvulnerable ones have a larger utility of becoming unhappy/depressed, avoiding losing their job, and running behind with exams.⁵⁹

In addition to being a function of utilities, choice probabilities are also a function of perceived returns to (non-)compliance, which too may vary across individuals. In the next two subsections, we investigate the predictors of individuals’ perceived returns to (non-)compliance and we decompose observed group differences in choice probabilities between a component explained by variation in utilities and a component explained by variation in expectations.

4.4 Investigating Heterogeneity in Expectations

In Table 10, we estimate best linear predictors of perceived risks of noncompliance (top panel) and perceived returns to noncompliance (bottom panel) conditional on gender, vulnerability status, and prior experience with COVID-19. Perceived risks and returns are defined and constructed as individual-level differences in subjective probabilities over choice consequences across pairs of compliance actions. For each consequence, k = 1, …, 13, the differences in the corresponding choice-contingent probabilities are computed relative to the benchmark conduct j = 1 or A1 (Never leave home). Each column corresponds to a separate perceived risk or return: for each of them, the probability differences across pairs of actions (A4-A1, A3-A1, A2-A1) are pooled.

We find evidence of significant heterogeneity in perceived risks and returns by gender, vulnerability status, and prior experience with COVID-19. For example, vulnerable respondents have higher perceived risks of not finding ICU space with acute COVID and of passing away from COVID associated to leaving home (A2-A4) versus staying home (A1), a lower perceived risk of being caught transgressing, and lower perceived returns to noncompliance for nearly all consequences. Male respondents have lower perceived risks in general (i.e., for all consequences), associated to leaving versus staying home, and higher perceived returns of avoiding deterioration of relationships. Respondents with prior COVID-19 experience have higher perceived risks (for nearly all consequences), associated to leaving home, and selected higher perceived returns (e.g., avoid becoming unfit/gaining weight and losing job) or lower ones (e.g., avoid relationships deterioration).

4.5 Decomposing Group Differences in Choice Probabilities: Expectations versus Preferences

In Subsection 3.3, we have documented that compliance probabilities vary by gender and vulnerability status. We now apply an Oaxaca (1973)-Blinder (1973) decomposition to the model in order to decompose the observed differences in the (log of the) probability of choosing action j ∈ 2-4 relative to action j = 1 between genders and vulnerability statuses into the share explained by group differences in perceived risks/returns (expectations) and the share explained by group differences in utility parameters (preferences).

Table 11 shows the results of the decomposition. The higher average compliance probabilities – and corresponding lower average noncompliance probabilities – of female respondents relative their male counterparts are explained by both differences in expectations and preferences; whereas, the higher average noncompliance probabilities – and corresponding lower average compliance probabilities – of nonvulnerable respondents relative to their vulnerable counterparts seems to be completely driven by differences in preferences between the two groups.

4.6 Do People Need “Stay Home” Compensation?

At the peak of the pandemic, worried about further spread of infections, the UK Government introduced a debated compensation scheme for the self-isolating on low income. According to this scheme, workers on low income in parts of England with a high incidence of Coronavirus cases (e.g., Blackburn, Darwen, Pendle, and Oldham) could claim money. The scheme started off with a trial amount of £130 for eligible individuals who tested positive to the Coronavirus and had to self-isolate for 10 days, plus £182 to other members of their household who had to self-isolate for 14 days as a consequence.⁶⁰ After the introduction of the NHS Test and Trace Service (TTS) at the end of May 2020, the trial compensation was eventually transformed into a £500 Test and Trace Support Payment for people on low incomes who had to self-isolate due to Coronavirus (for England only).⁶¹

Given the heated debate generated by the existence and amount of this compensation, we use our model and estimates to shed some light on the issue. In particular, following Delavande (2008), we use an indifference condition based on the model to compute for each individual in our sample the amount of money, , that makes her indifferent between her optimal compliance conduct, j_i^*, and the government’s “Stay Home” benchmark, j = 1, The empirical distribution of is shown in Figure 5. About 25% of the sample requires compensation to be indifferent between staying home and their optimal choice. The estimated mean compensation is £300-350 for four weeks.⁶² Consistent with the heterogeneity in preferences and expectations described earlier, vulnerable respondents are less likely to need compensation (22%) and require less-than-average compensation (£169-206).⁶³ Respondents with prior COVID-19 experience are more likely to need compensation (26-27%) and require more-than-average compensation (£356-412). Male respondents are less likely to need compensation (20%), but require more-than-average compensation (£466-523). Of particular relevance to the public debate, we find that respondents on low income are less likely to need compensation (21%), but require more-than-average compensation (£556-577). This amount is in the ballpark of the amount granted by the Government in the trial phase (£130 over 10 days, plus an additional amount for family members), but substantially lower than the amount eventually granted at regime (£500 over 10 days).⁶⁴

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 5:

Distribution of the Monetary Amount Required to be Indifferent Between Never Leaving Home and Optimal Choice

5.1 The Effect of Others Living in the Same Municipality

In our baseline survey, we elicit respondent’s beliefs about the proportion of people living in their LA who will follow each of the four actions A1-A4 in the subsequent four weeks. We additionally elicit respondents’ subjective probabilities of following actions A1-A4 under alternative hypothetical scenarios about the compliance behavior of others living in their LA. We specify two scenarios. In a low-compliance scenario, the hypothesized distribution of others’ behavior is 10% A1, 15% A2, 25% A3, and 50% A4 – or 25% compliance versus 75% non-compliance. In a high-compliance scenario, the hypothesized distribution is 50% A1, 25% A2, 15% A3, and 10% A4 – or 75% compliance versus 25% non-compliance.

We use the latter measures to construct within-respondent differences in action-specific probabilities between low- and high-compliance scenarios, that is, P(A_j|Low compliance) − P(A_j|High compliance) for j = 1, 2, 3, 4.⁶⁵ We additionally aggregate the latter across compliance actions (A1 + A2) and non-compliance actions (A3 + A4). Table 12 reports mean and standard deviation of the empirical distributions of these measures in the overall sample and in selected sub-samples (by vulnerability status, gender, COVID-19 experience, COVID-19 literacy, and risk tolerance). On average, moving from a high to a low scenario of others’ compliance implies a decrease in the respondent’s own probability of strict compliance (A2) and an increase in both the probability of staying at home (A1) and the probabilities of non-compliance (A3-A4). Thus, the average response is non-monotonic across actions, suggesting that when surrounding others comply less and trust breaks down, some individuals expect to do the same (increased likelihood of A3-A4), while others expect to engage in protective behavior (increased likelihood of A1).

To investigate this further, we look at patterns across sub-groups. We find that vulnerable respondents react by increasing the probability of both compliance actions (A1-A2) and decreasing the probability of non-compliance actions (A3-A4). Conversely, respondents with no prior COVID-19 experience and those with high risk tolerance react by decreasing the probability of both compliance actions (A1-A2) and increasing the probability of both non-compliance actions (A3-A4).

Individuals’ expected response may also depend on their prior belief about the compliance behavior of those living around them and on the extent to which the hypothesized scenario differs from it. To study this possibility we construct two ‘shock’ measures. The first is defined as “25% - the respondent’s perceived percentage of others’ complying (A1+A2)”, where 25% is the hypothesized proportion of compliers (A1+A2) in the low-compliance scenario. The second is defined as “75% - the respondent’s perceived percentage of others’ complying”, where 75% is the hypothesized proportion of compliers in the high-compliance scenario. In the left panel of Table 13, we regress respondents’ own probability of complying (A1+A2) under the scenario of others’ low compliance on the first shock measure. We do so in the overall sample (column 1), and also separately for respondents whose hypothetical shock is negative (column 2) and for respondents whose hypothetical shock is positive (column 3). The former group is more common than the latter, as on average respondents believe that about 60% of others around them comply to the lockdown rules (A1+A2); see Figure A9. Indeed, for the low-compliance case, the average hypothetical shock in the sample is about -34%. In the right panel of Table 13, we estimate similar regressions using the compliance probability and shock measures under the scenario of others’ high compliance. Obviously, in this case the most common hypothetical shock is positive, with the average hypothetical shock in the sample being about 16%.

We find that, on average, individuals respond by lowering their compliance probability in both scenarios; see columns 1 and 4. In the low-compliance scenario, the result is driven by respondents whose hypothetical shock is negative (column 2), while in the high-compliance scenario it is driven by respondents whose hypothetical shock is positive (column 6). Respondents in column 2 have prior beliefs about others’ compliance that are more optimistic than the behavior of others hypothesized in the low-compliance scenario they are given. These respondents plan to react to the lower-than-expected compliance of others by lowering their own compliance. On the other hand, respondents in column 6 have prior beliefs about others’ compliance that are more pessimistic than the behavior of others hypothesized in the high-compliance scenario they are given. These respondents, too, plan to react to the higher-than-expected compliance of others by lowering their own compliance.

5.2 The “Cummings Effect”

In this last sub-section, we study the effect of compliance behavior of a high-level public figure: the former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s chief aide, Dominic Cummings. As mentioned in 3.1.2, we used the launch of the NHS Test and Trace Service (TTS) on May 28th 2020 as pretense to field a short follow- up survey and implement a randomized sensitization intervention based on the “Dominic Cummings scandal”. A random half of the sample was shown the “Cummings screen” showcasing the timeline of the scandal (see Figure A3) at the beginning of the survey, and the other half of the sample was shown the screen at the end of the survey. We estimate the impact of this treatment on respondents’ compliance probabilities; given the political salience of our treatment, we do so separately for respondents supporting the Labour party and respondents supporting the Conservative party (measured at baseline).

Treatment effects estimates for the follow-up sample and the panel sample are shown in Tables 14 and 15, respectively. We find that reported compliance probabilities are sensitive to negative prompts. In Table 14, respondents randomized to the Cummings treatment (i.e., those who were shown the negative prompt before the expectation questions) report a lower probability (-7.6 p.p.) of A1 (never leave home) in the next 4 weeks, and a corresponding higher probability (+7.4 p.p.) of A3 (general compliance), but only if they support the Labour party. In Table 15, we exploit the panel structure of the data and evaluate whether the treatment changed the persistence of respondents’ compliance probabilities between baseline and follow-up. We find that those randomized to the Cummings treatment show a higher persistence of A3 (general compliance) in the next 4 weeks, independently of their political inclination.

The vast majority of respondents (95.72%) reported being aware about the Cummings episode, and a significant majority (81.94%) thought that Cummings had broken the lockdown rules.⁶⁶ Hence, we view our sensitization treatment as increasing the salience – rather than the awareness – of the Cummings episode. In this light, we interpret our findings as indicative of the role that trust in the government plays in affecting compliance behavior. We enrich the existing evidence, which has either documented associations between trust and compliance (e.g., Wright, Steptoe and Fancourt (2021), Fancourt, Steptoe and Wright (2020), and Bird et al. (2023)),⁶⁷ or willingness to comply (e.g., Pagliaro et al. (2021) and Burton et al. (2022)), or emphasized the role of trust as moderator of compliance (Bargain and Aminjonov, 2020).⁶⁸ Ours is the first evidence based on a randomized treatment.