No evidence that mask-wearing in public places elicits risk compensation behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic

Effect of face-covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 protective behaviours: A systematic review

During the COVID-19 pandemic, concerns were raised that face covering use may elicit risk compensation; a false sense of security resulting in reduced adherence to other protective behaviours such as physical distancing. This systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of face covering use on adherence to other COVID-19 related protective behaviours. Medline, Embase, PsychInfo, EmCare, medRxiv preprints, Research Square and WHO COVID-19 Research Database were searched for all primary research studies published from 1st January 2020 to 17th May 2022 that investigated the effect of face covering use on adherence to other protective behaviours in public settings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Papers were selected and screened in accordance with the PRISMA framework. Backwards and forwards citation searches of included papers were also conducted on 16th September 2022, with eligible papers published between 1st January 2020 and that date being included. A quality appraisal including risk of bias was assessed using the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' Quality Criteria Checklist. This review is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42022331961. 47 papers were included, with quality ranging from low to high. These papers investigated the effects of face covering use and face covering policies on adherence to six categories of behaviour: physical distancing; mobility; face-touching; hand hygiene; close contacts; and generalised protective behaviour. Results reveal no consistent evidence for or against risk compensation, with findings varying according to behaviour and across study types, and therefore confident conclusions cannot be made. Any policy decisions related to face coverings must consider the inconsistencies and caveats in this evidence base.

Airborne SARS-CoV2 virus exposure, interpersonal distance, face mask and perceived risk of infection

Participants judged the risk of an infection during a face to face conversation at different interpersonal distances from a SARS-CoV-2 infected person who wore a face mask or not, and in the same questionnaire answered questions about Corona related issues. Keeping a distance to an infected person serves as a protective measure against an infection. When an infected person moves closer, risk of infection increases. Participants were aware of this fact, but underestimated the rate at which the risk of infection increases when getting closer to an infected person, e.g., from 1.5 to 0.5 m (perceived risk increase = 3.33 times higher, objective = 9.00 times higher). This is alarming because it means that people can take risks of infection that they are not aware of or want to take, when they approach another possibly virus infected person. Correspondingly, when an infected person moves away the speed of risk decrease was underestimated, meaning that people are not aware of how much safer they will be if they move away from an infected person. The perceived risk reducing effects of a face mask were approximately correct. Judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances (with or without a mask) were unrelated to how often a person used a mask, avoided others or canceled meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Greater worry in general and in particular over COVID-19, correlated positively with more protective behavior during the pandemic, but not with judgments of infection risk at different interpersonal distances. Participants with higher scores on a cognitive numeracy test judged mask efficiency more correctly, and women were more worried and risk avoiding than men. The results have implications for understanding behavior in a pandemic, and are relevant for risk communications about the steep increase in risk when approaching a person who may be infected with an airborne virus.

People interact closer when a face mask is worn but risk compensation is at best partial

BACKGROUND

Wearing a face mask and keeping a minimal distance from others are common nonpharmaceutical interventions that governments may mandate or recommend to contain the spread of infectious diseases. The article addresses the following questions: (i) Do people interact closer when the face mask is worn? (ii) Do people interact closer because they believe that the mask reduces the risk of contagion? (iii) If the mask induces people to interact closer, does the increase in risk entailed by shorter distances entirely offset the decrease in risk offered by the mask?

METHODS

With a view to maximizing both the external and the internal validity of the study, between 2021 and 2022 we performed a large field experiment on real-life interactions (n > 4500) and a controlled laboratory experiment in virtual reality.

RESULTS

Converging between the field and the lab, the results indicate that in general people interact closer when the mask is worn, and in particular when they believe that the mask reduces the risk of contagion. However, even assuming a very low filtration efficacy and an extremely large distance-reducing effect of the mask, the counteracting effect of shorter interpersonal distances is never strong enough to entirely offset the mask's protection.

CONCLUSION

The distance-reducing effect of the mask is real but warrants no serious objection against a face mask policy.

Cross-Theoretical Compliance: An Integrative Compliance Analysis of COVID-19 Mitigation Responses in Israel

To understand the question why people obey or break rules, different approaches have focused on different theories and subsets of variables. The present research develops a cross-theoretical approach that integrates these perspectives. We apply this in a survey of compliance with COVID-19 pandemic mitigation rules in Israel. The data reveal that compliance in this setting was shaped by a combination of variables originating from legitimacy, capacity, and opportunity theories (but not rational choice or social theories). This demonstrates the importance of moving beyond narrow theoretical perspectives of compliance, to a cross-theoretical understanding-in which different theoretical approaches are systematically integrated.

Health Behaviours among Travellers Regarding Risk Compensation Following COVID-19 Vaccination in Taizhou, China

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, public transport was restricted in many countries because of the transmission risk. According to the risk compensation theory, travellers post-COVID-19 vaccination may encounter higher risks; however, no real-world studies provide such evidence. Therefore, we conducted a survey to assess whether risk compensation would occur among travellers' health-related behaviours after COVID-19 vaccination, potentially aggravating the transmission of the virus.

Materials and Methods

A self-administered online survey was designed and distributed over WeChat to identify the difference in health behaviours before and after COVID-19 vaccination among travellers at a train station in Taizhou, China, from 13 February to 26 April 2022.

Results

A total of 602 individuals completed the questionnaire. The results revealed no statistical difference between the health behaviours reported by the vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. Participants who received the first dose of the vaccine earlier showed no statistical difference in harmful health behaviours (hand washing frequency decreased by 4.1% (P=0.145) and the duration of public transport travel increased by 3.4% (P=0.437)), but showed better protective health behaviours (mask-wearing duration increased by 24.7% (P=0.014)). Compared to those vaccinated less than three times, participants vaccinated against COVID-19 three times showed no statistical differences in harmful health behaviours mask-wearing duration decreased by 7.0% (P=0.927), their hand washing frequency decreased by 4.8% (P=0.905), and the duration of public transport travel increased by 2.5% (P=0.287). After vaccination, when compared to themselves before vaccination, participants exhibited better health behaviours (increased hand washing frequency and mask-wearing duration, and decreased duration of public transport travel) to some extent.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study found no evidence of risk compensation among travellers. After being vaccinated, health behaviours partly improved among travellers.

Do the vaccinated perform less distancing, mask wearing and hand hygiene? A test of the risk compensation hypothesis in a representative sample during the COVID-19 pandemic

The “risk compensation hypothesis” holds that vaccinated individuals may be less motivated to protect themselves using other COVID-19 mitigation behaviors—e.g., masking, distancing and hand hygiene—given that they may percieve thier infection risk to be lower. The current investigation provides an empirical test of the risk compensation hypothesis in the COVID-19 context using prospective data from the Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Survey (CCES). The survey comprised 1,958 unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals drawn from a representative sample, using quota sampling to ensure substantial representation of unvaccinated individuals. Two waves of data were collected 6 months apart. Findings revealed that vaccinated individuals performed COVID-19 mitigation behaviors significantly more frequently than their unvaccinated counterparts, and they also showed lower rates of attenuation as the pandemic continued. In summary, our findings do not support the risk compensation hypothesis; instead they support the notion that people adopt vaccination and other protective behaviors in parallel.