Peers for the fearless: Social norms facilitate preventive behaviour when individuals perceive low COVID-19 health risks

Measuring the frequency and determinants of COVID-19 prevention behaviours: a cross-sectional assessment of large-scale programmes in seven countries, late 2020

OBJECTIVES

This multicountry analysis aimed to assess the prevalence of key hygiene prevention behaviours and their determinants, associated with international non-governmental organisation (WaterAid) hygiene behaviour change programmes for COVID-19 prevention. The goal of this analysis is to inform future outbreak preparedness and pandemic response in low and middle-income countries.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Households in seven countries where WaterAid implemented a first-phase COVID-19 response programme in 2020 (Ethiopia, Ghana, Nepal, Nigeria, Rwanda, Tanzania and Zambia).

PARTICIPANTS

3033 adults (1469 men and 1564 women, alternately sampled from one household to the next to maintain gender balance) in specific programme areas (211 villages) surveyed between October and November 2020.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Self-reported primary outcomes were: a composite measure of HWWS for prevention of respiratory infection/COVID-19 (total of 5 key moments); respondent increased HWWS behaviour after the COVID-19 pandemic; respondent always wears a mask in public spaces; respondent always practices physical distancing in public spaces.

RESULTS

Most respondents (80%) reported increasing their handwashing behaviour after the pandemic, but practice of HWWS at COVID-19-specific prevention moments was low. Mask wearing (58%) and physical distancing (29%) varied substantially between countries. Determinants of key behaviours were identified, including age and socioeconomic status, perceived norms, self-regulation and the motive of protecting others. Incidence rate ratios or odds ratios and 95% CIs for a range of psychosocial determinants for each of the four primary outcomes are reported.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings highlight that leveraging behaviour-specific emotional drivers and norms, reducing common barriers and promoting targeted messages about specific behaviours and actions individuals can take to reduce risk are necessary to support large-scale behaviour change. Learning from the COVID-19 response to more effectively integrate novel behaviours into existing health promotion will be vital for disease prevention and outbreak resilience.

Compliance with social norms in the face of risks: Delineating the roles of uncertainty about risk perceptions versus risk perceptions

Social norms are often considered as behavioral guidelines to mitigate health and environmental risks. However, our understanding of the magnitude of their impact on risk-mitigating behaviors and how perceptions of risks affect the magnitude remains limited. Given the increasing importance of understanding factors influencing behavioral responses to health and environmental risks, this research examines whether the relationship between social norms and behavioral intention to mitigate health and environmental risks is a function of (1) risk perceptions and (2) uncertainty about risk perceptions. A cross-sectional survey involving a national sample (N = 803) across three health and environmental risks (i.e., infectious diseases, climate change, and water shortage) is conducted. The results reveal a three-way interaction between descriptive norms, uncertainty about susceptibility, and uncertainty about severity on behavioral intention to mitigate the risk. Individuals exhibit the strongest intention to engage in risk-mitigating behaviors when they perceive prevailing social norms and are uncertain about their susceptibility to the risk and the severity of the risk. Moreover, injunctive norms interact with uncertainty about susceptibility to influence behavioral intention, such that the more uncertain individuals feel about their vulnerability to a risk, the stronger the impact of injunctive norms is on behavioral intention. Neither descriptive nor injunctive norms interact with perceived risks to influence behavioral intention. This study contributes valuable insights into the interplay between social norms, uncertainty about perceived risk, and behavioral intention, and offers valuable theoretical and practical implications.

Association Between Risk Perceptions of COVID-19, Political Ideology, and Mask-Wearing Behavior After the Outbreak: A Cross-Sectional Survey in South Korea

Purpose

After the declaration by the World Health Organization signaling the conclusion of the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries lifted mandatory mask-wearing regulations. This study aimed to investigate factors such as risk perception and political ideology associated with continued adherence to mask-wearing among specific populations, particularly when it is no longer deemed necessary.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study including a sample of 1001 respondents stratified by sex, age (≥ 18 years), and region from January 31 to February 2, 2023, after the mandatory mask regulation was lifted in South Korea. Multivariate logistic regression models were applied to estimate the relationships between risk perceptions, political ideology, and mask-wearing maintenance, adjusting for factors such as sex, age, occupation, and trust in the government.

Results

Our results indicated significant associations between age, self-reported household economic status, political ideology, affective risk perception, and perceived effectiveness of the government's COVID-related measures with indoor mask-wearing. Specifically, liberals were more likely to keep mask-wearing indoors than conservatives (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.33-3.59); and those who perceived a greater affective risk of COVID-19 (aOR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.96-3.10), along with those who perceived the government's countermeasures as inadequate, were more inclined to maintain the habit of wearing masks indoors (aOR: 1.90; 95% CI: 1.19-3.03).

Conclusion

Our study highlighted the multifaceted factors influencing mask-wearing behavior in the post-COVID-19 era. Even after adjusting for various confounding factors, such as age, sex, and trust in the government, an association remained between affective risk perception, political ideology, and mask-wearing behavior. However, further research for psychological mechanisms is needed to foster a culture of preventive behaviors proportional to the risk of infection.

Make No Apologies: Fear of Negative Evaluation, Depressive Symptoms, and the Mediating Role of Accounting for COVID-Safe Behavior Amongst People at High-Risk for Severe Illness

With the goal of understanding unique and important threats to the mental health of people who are especially vulnerable to severe illness as a result of COVID-19, this study investigated associations between such individuals' fear of negative evaluation, tendency to "account for" practicing COVID-safe behaviors, and depressive symptoms. Grounded in perspectives on self-presentation, normative influence, and cognitive dissonance, we hypothesized that fear of negative evaluation would relate positively to accounting for COVID-safe behaviors, which, in turn, would associate positively with increased depressive symptoms. The results showed that increased fear of negative evaluation predicted an increased use of apologies and excuses, which in turn were positively related to depressive symptoms. Justifications for COVID-safe behaviors were not significantly associated with either fear of evaluation or depressive symptoms. The practical and theoretical implications are discussed.

The Effect of Information Exposure on Stigma Toward the COVID-19 Patient Mediated by Perceived Risk, Attribution of Blame and Protection Norm Conformity

This study employed the model of stigma communication (MSC) to analyze how exposure to COVID-19-related information affected stigma-related information sharing about people who contracted COVID-19 during the pandemic and examined the cognitive process of the MSC in a collectivist culture. Based on a survey of 526 social media users during the COVID-19 pandemic in China, the study found that exposure to contact tracing information and pandemic control information had different impact on stigma-related information sharing through a series of cognitive variables. A dual-path model showed that perceived personal risk influenced stigma-related information sharing through attribution of blame toward the infected (the personal path), while perceived social risk influenced stigma-related information sharing through protection norm conformity (the social path). Compared to the personal path, the social path is more salient in shaping stigmatized attitudes and behaviors. The findings and discussions added to our understanding of the intricate stigma communication process in a collectivist culture.

The contribution of risk perception and social norms to reported preventive behaviour against selected vector-borne diseases in Guyana

Preventing vector-borne diseases (VBDs) mainly relies on effective vector control tools and strategies, which in turn depend on population acceptance and adherence. Inspired by the abundant recent literature on SARS-COV-2, we investigate the relationship between risk perception and preventive behaviour for selected VBDs and the extent to which risk perception is determined by social norms. We use cross-sectional data collected from 497 individuals in four regions of Guyana in 2017. We use a conditional mixed process estimator with multilevel coefficients, estimated through a Generalized Linear Model (GLM) framework, applying a simultaneous equation structure. We find robust results on malaria: risk perception was significantly influenced by the risk perception of the reference group across different definitions of the reference group, hinting at the existence of social norms. Risk perception significantly increased the likelihood of passive behaviour by 4.48%. Less clear-cut results were found for dengue. This study applies quantitative social science methods to public health issues in the context of VBDs. Our findings point to the relevance of tailoring communications on health risks for VBDs to groups defined at the intersection of socio-economic and demographic characteristics. Such tailored strategies are expected to align risk perception among reference groups and boost preventive behaviour.

Satisfaction With Governmental Risk Communication Both Increases and Decreases COVID-19 Mitigation Behaviours

Objectives: Over 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic, and intense societal and governmental response, a wealth of research has examined risk perceptions and public risk mitigation behaviours. The vast majority of this inquiry has focused on health risks. Nevertheless, as a "total social fact" influencing nearly every aspect of quotidian life, the pandemic engenders a wide range of risk perceptions. Methods: Via a survey (N = 4,206) of representative samples of the general public in five European countries (Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom), we explore perceptions of a range of personal/public health, economic, and societal risks. We also investigate the effects of perceptions of official governmental risk communication in one's country on risk perceptions and risk mitigation behaviours. Results: Structural equation modelling reveals that whilst perceptions of effective risk communication directly increase behaviours that mitigate COVID-19 health risks, these same perceptions indirectly decrease behaviour frequency via a mediated relationship with societal risk perceptions. Conclusion: The findings highlight the import of governmental authorities analysing and communicating about the range of risk perceptions citizens might have about a "total social fact" such as COVID-19.

From delta to omicron: The role of individual factors and social context in self-reported compliance with pandemic regulations and recommendations

As SARS-CoV-2 spreads especially when larger groups gather (e.g., at the workplace), it is crucial to understand compliance with regulations and recommendations in such settings. Using data from adults in Germany (N = 29,355) assessed between October 2021 and February 2022, we investigated factors associated with self-reported compliance in both private and working life and how these relate to each other. The results indicate that private compliance was stronger among older individuals and females; among those who worried more about the pandemic situation and assumed that infection was more severe; among those who trusted the government more; and among those who did not perceive public health measures as exaggerated. Private compliance was also associated with personality traits; in particular, individuals who followed regulations and recommendations were likely to be more introverted, conscientious, open, and agreeable. Compliance at work related to both private compliance and colleagues' behaviors. Individuals whose private compliance was high also complied at work. However, when private compliance was low, compliance at work aligned with colleagues' behaviors; that is, compliance at work was high when colleagues complied and low when they did not. The observed effects were stable over time. In summary, they suggest that compliance with regulations and recommendations depends on individual risk perception, trust in government, perception of required or recommended measures, and social norms. To promote protective behaviors in contexts where larger groups gather (including workplaces), making positive social norms more salient (e.g., by supporting role models) may prove especially useful.

Descriptive, injunctive, or the synergy of both? Experimenting normative information on behavioral changes under the COVID-19 pandemic

Backgrounds

The effectiveness of citizens' behavioral changes to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2, such as avoiding large social events, relies on science communication from policymakers and collective action among peer citizens. Extant studies recognize the potential effects of information stimuli on citizens' behavioral changes, including what epidemiological experts request (injunctive information) and what surrounding people behave (descriptive information). Yet, they have insufficiently assessed the co-occurrence and possible interaction of multiple information stimuli.

Methods

1,819 Japanese citizens aged 18 or over were recruited for an experimental survey during March 1-3, 2021 and asked their views on a hypothetical wedding attendance in Japan while being exposed to randomly assigned normative information stimuli. Their willingness to attend a wedding asked before and after the intervention was measured. Infection risk perception was also asked as a mediating variable.

Results

Findings suggest the constant supremacy of descriptive information and no synergistic effects in the interaction of multiple information stimuli. We also report that the effects of injunctive and descriptive information vary according to participants' risk perception, age, and trust in experts.

Conclusion

Our experimental test enables a systematic assessment of multiple normative information and confirms the primacy of descriptive information as the main driver of behavioral change. Communication by medical experts has limitations but is still effective in specific categories of the population.

Varieties of Mobility Measures: Comparing Survey and Mobile Phone Data during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Human mobility has become a major variable of interest during the COVID-19 pandemic and central to policy decisions all around the world. To measure individual mobility, research relies on a variety of indicators that commonly stem from two main data sources: survey self-reports and behavioral mobility data from mobile phones. However, little is known about how mobility from survey self-reports relates to popular mobility estimates using data from the Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) and the Global Positioning System (GPS). Spanning March 2020 until April 2021, this study compares self-reported mobility from a panel survey in Austria to aggregated mobility estimates utilizing (1) GSM data and (2) Google's GPS-based Community Mobility Reports. Our analyses show that correlations in mobility changes over time are high, both in general and when comparing subgroups by age, gender, and mobility category. However, while these trends are similar, the size of relative mobility changes over time differs substantially between different mobility estimates. Overall, while our findings suggest that these mobility estimates manage to capture similar latent variables, especially when focusing on changes in mobility over time, researchers should be aware of the specific form of mobility different data sources capture.

Predictors for adherent behavior in the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional telephone survey

Background

During the COVID-19 pandemic, protective measures have been prescribed to prevent or slow down the spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and protect the population. Individuals follow these measures to varying degrees. We aimed to identify factors influencing the extent to which protective measures are adhered to.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey (telephone interviews) was undertaken between April and June 2021 to identify factors influencing the degree to which individuals adhere to protective measures. A representative sample of 1,003 people (age >16 years) in two Austrian states (Carinthia, Vorarlberg) was interviewed. The questionnaire was based on the Health Belief Model, but also included potential response-modifying factors. Predictors for adherent behavior were identified using multiple regression analysis. All predictors were standardized so that regression coefficients (β) could be compared.

Results

Overall median adherence was 0.75 (IQR: 0.5-1.0). Based on a regression model, the following variables were identified as significant in raising adherence: higher age (β = 0.43, 95%CI: 0.33-0.54), social standards of acceptable behavior (β = 0.33, 95%CI: 0.27-0.40), subjective/individual assessment of an increased personal health risk (β = 0.12, 95%CI: 0.05-0.18), self-efficacy (β = 0.06, 95%CI: 0.02-0.10), female gender (β = 0.05, 95%CI: 0.01-0.08), and low corona fatigue (behavioral fatigue: β = -0.11, 95%CI: -0.18 to -0.03). The model showed that such aspects as personal trust in institutions, perceived difficulties in adopting health-promoting measures, and individual assessments of the risk of infection, had no significant influence.

Conclusions

This study reveals that several factors significantly influence adherence to measures aimed at controlling the COVID-19 pandemic. To enhance adherence, the government, media, and other relevant stakeholders should take the findings into consideration when formulating policy. By developing social standards and promoting self-efficacy, individuals can influence the behavior of others and contribute toward coping with the pandemic.

Your health vs. my liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims-i.e., "flatten the curve" graphs-an effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic. Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment's additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.