Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States

Rooij, Benjamin van; Bruijn, Anne Leonore de; Folmer, Chris Reinders; Kooistra, Emmeke Barbara; Kuiper, Malouke Esra; Brownlee, Megan; Olthuis, Elke; Fine, Adam

doi:10.31234/osf.io/qymu3

Cited by 94 publications

(96 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Extending the findings of Study 2, we speculate that in addition to impulsive buying tendencies, the perceived severity of COVID-19 and experience of life tedium during the pandemic may also increase a variety of impulsive behaviors. van Rooij et al (2020) found that in the United States, impulsivity during the pandemic led to a violation in coronavirus control measures. Mesa Vieira et al (2020) also found that a sharp rise in the divorce rate in China during the pandemic may be associated with increased impulsive decisions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Severity of COVID-19 and Post-pandemic Consumption Willingness: The Roles of Boredom and Sensation-Seeking

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The COVID-19 pandemic restricts people's activities and makes consumer businesses suffered. This study explored the relationship between the perceived severity of COVID-19 and the post-pandemic consumption willingness. Study 1 surveyed 1464 Chinese people in March 2020, found the perceived severity of COVID-19 during the pandemic significantly increased the willingness to consume post-pandemic, and boredom stemming from limited activities and sensation-seeking expressions mediated this effect. Study 2 conducted an experiment with 174 participants in August 2020, found a high level of perceived severity of COVID-19 and the experience of life tedium during the pandemic significantly increased individuals' impulsive buying tendencies after the pandemic. The results suggested the level of perceived severity of COVID-19 may influence people's post-pandemic consumption patterns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceived Severity of COVID-19 and Post-pandemic Consumption Willingness: The Roles of Boredom and Sensation-Seeking

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…compliance are related to personality, political orientation, and demographics [15][16][17]. What these studies have in common is a reliance on people's self-reports, which are limited by social desirability and recall bias.…”

Section: Plos Onementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, with some exceptions [8,9], the extant research on social distancing has not been able to directly evaluate whether people keep their distance. Instead, a growing body of work relies on aggregated location data from cell phones to determine adherence to stay-at-home directives [10][11][12][13][14] or on people's self-reports about their willingness to comply with a wide variety of social distancing directives [15][16][17]. Neither of these approaches are suitable to assess whether people comply to 1.5 meter distance guidelines, because they are insufficiently accurate in determining proximity or because they do not provide objective information on people's behavior.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social distancing compliance: A video observational analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Virus epidemics may be mitigated if people comply with directives to stay at home and keep their distance from strangers in public. As such, there is a public health interest in social distancing compliance. The available evidence on distancing practices in public space is limited, however, by the lack of observational data. Here, we apply video observation as a method to examine to what extent members of the public comply with social distancing directives. Data Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) footage of interactions in public was collected in inner-city Amsterdam, the Netherlands. From the footage, we observed instances of people violating the 1.5-meter distance directives in the weeks before, during, and after these directives were introduced to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic. Results We find that people complied with the 1.5-meter distance directives when these directives were first introduced, but that the level of compliance started to decline soon after. We also find that violation of the 1.5-meter distance directives is strongly associated with the number of people observed on the street and with non-compliance to stay-at-home directives, operationalized with large-scale aggregated location data from cell phones. All three measures correlate to a varying extent with temporal patterns in the transmission of the COVID-19 virus, temperature, COVID-19 related Google search queries, and media attention to the topic. Conclusion Compliance with 1.5 meter distance directives is short-lived and coincides with the number of people on the street and with compliance to stay-at-home directives. Potential implications of these findings are that keep- distance directives may work best in combination with stay-at-home directives and place-specific crowd-control strategies, and that the number of people on the street and community-wide mobility as captured with cell phone data offer easily measurable proxies for the extent to which people keep sufficient physical distance from others at specific times and locations.

show abstract

“…The burgeoning literature examines the effect of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) [ 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ], a state’s capacity to respond to the pandemic [ 10 , 11 , 12 ], or factors affecting compliance with NPIs [ 13 , 14 ]. Studies seem to reach a consensus that lockdown is effective in containing COVID-19, but are only based on single-country studies [ 5 , 8 ] and do not even explain what lockdown means in different countries [ 7 , 15 , 16 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and the Implications for Human Rights

Hong

Hwang

Park

2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many governments swiftly decided to order nationwide lockdowns based on limited evidence that such extreme measures were effective in containing the epidemic. A growing concern is that governments were given little time to adopt effective and proportional interventions protecting citizens’ lives while observing their freedom and rights. This paper examines the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in containing COVID-19, by conducting a linear regression over 108 countries, and the implication for human rights. The regression results are supported by evidence that shows the change in 10 selected countries’ responding strategies and their effects as the confirmed cases increase. We found that school closures are effective in containing COVID-19 only when they are implemented along with complete contact tracing. Our findings imply that to contain COVID-19 effectively and minimize the risk of human rights abuses, governments should consider implementing prudently designed full contact tracing and school closure policies, among others. Minimizing the risk of human rights abuses should be a principle even when full contact tracing is implemented.

show abstract

Compliance with COVID-19 Mitigation Measures in the United States

Cited by 94 publications

References 63 publications

Perceived Severity of COVID-19 and Post-pandemic Consumption Willingness: The Roles of Boredom and Sensation-Seeking

Perceived Severity of COVID-19 and Post-pandemic Consumption Willingness: The Roles of Boredom and Sensation-Seeking

Social distancing compliance: A video observational analysis

Effect of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions and the Implications for Human Rights

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About