Compliance without fear: Individual-level protective behaviour during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Objectives: The outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic required rapid public compliance with advice from health authorities. Here, we ask who was most likely to do so during the first wave of the pandemic.

Design: Quota-sampled cross-sectional and panel data from eight Western democracies (Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States).

Methods: We fielded online public opinion surveys to 26,508 citizens between 19 March and 16 May. The surveys included questions about protective behaviour, perceptions of the pandemic (threat and self-efficacy), as well as broader attitudes towards society (institutional and interpersonal trust). We employ multilevel and fixed-effects regression models to analyse the relationship between these variables.

Results: Consistent with prior research on epidemics, perceptions of threat turn out as culturally uniform determinants of both avoidant and preventive forms of protective behaviour. On this basis, authorities could foster compliance by appealing to fear of COVID-19, but there may be normative and practical limits to such a strategy. Instead, we find that another major source of compliance is a sense of self-efficacy. Using individual-level panel data, we find evidence that self-efficacy is amendable to change and exerts an effect on protective behaviour. Furthermore, the effects of fear are small among those who feel efficacious, creating a path to compliance without fear. In contrast, two other major candidates for facilitating compliance from the social sciences, interpersonal trust and institutional trust, have surprisingly little motivational power during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions: To address future waves of the pandemic, health authorities should thus focus on facilitating self-efficacy in the public.

Keywords: COVID-19; efficacy; fear; protective behaviour; trust.

Figure 1

Selection of countries for data collection. Note: Solid black (avoidant behaviour) and grey (preventive) lines are the developments in the present measures of self‐reported protective behaviour. Dashed lines are the developments in policy stringency (Hale et al.,2020). Grey bars display the developments in the COVID‐19 case counts per capita.

Figure 2

Correlations between protective behaviour and psychological correlates. Note: Correlations from our benchmark model. Filled black circles (grey triangles) show the estimated country‐specific correlations between each of the psychological variables and avoidant behaviour (preventive behaviour). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals.

Figure 3

Country‐specific correlations between protective behaviour and psychological correlates. Note: Filled black circles (grey triangles) show the estimated country‐specific correlations between each of our psychological variables and avoidant behaviour (preventive behaviour). Black (grey) dashed lines refer to the estimated overall associations in Figure 2. Error bars are 95 % confidence intervals that show whether the country‐specific correlations are statistically significantly different from overall associations

Figure 4

Do self‐efficacy and trust moderate the correlation between worry and protective behaviour? Note: Solid black lines show predicted values at high levels of each moderator, black dashed lines show predicted values at medium levels, and solid grey lines show predicted values at low levels

Figure 5

Country‐specific moderations. Note: Filled black circles (grey triangles) show the estimated country‐specific moderations. Error bars are 95 % confidence intervals that show whether the country‐specific moderations are statistically significantly different from overall moderations (see Figure 4)