‘Distancers’ and ‘non‐distancers’? The potential social psychological impact of moralizing COVID‐19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change

Prosser, Annayah Miranda Beatrice; Judge, Madeline; Bolderdijk, Jan Willem; Blackwood, Leda; Kurz, Tim

doi:10.1111/bjso.12399

Cited by 80 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There has been some shaming and stigmatising of those who are perceived not to be adhering. 50 However, structural inequalities have been shown to affect ability to comply. 24 In the same way that disadvantaged demographics are overrepresented in the infection and death figures, 25 , 51 some groups have been less able to distance and were obliged to go into work on sometimes crowded trains, and were limited to busy public spaces when taking exercise.…”

Section: Adherence To the Required Public Health Behavioursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public behaviour in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the role of group processes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In the absence of a vaccine, behaviour by the public is key to the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, as with other types of crises and emergencies, there have been doubts about the extent to which the public are able to engage effectively with the required behaviour. These doubts are based on outdated models of group psychology. Aims and argument We analyse the role of group processes in the COVID-19 pandemic in three domains: recognition of threat, adherence by the public to the required public health behaviours (and the factors that increase such adherence) and actions of the many community mutual aid groups that arose during lockdown. In each case, we draw upon the accumulated research on behaviour in emergencies and disasters, as well as the latest findings in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, to show that explanations in terms of social identity processes make better sense of the patterns of evidence than alternative explanations. Conclusions If behaviour in the pandemic is a function of mutable group processes rather than fixed tendencies, then behavioural change is possible. There was evidence of significant change in behaviour from the public, particularly in the early days of the pandemic. Understanding the role of group processes means we can help design more effective interventions to support collective resilience in the public in the face of the pandemic and other threats. We draw out from the evidence a set of recommendations on facilitating the public response to COVID-19 by harnessing group processes.

show abstract

Section: Adherence To the Required Public Health Behavioursmentioning

confidence: 99%

Public behaviour in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the role of group processes

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, larger public segments did not take these warnings seriously, ignoring the warnings (Prosser et al, 2020). In the US, for example, a recent survey reports that up to 85% of customers at local grocery and retail stores do not practice physical distancing (Khoa et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Brand anthropomorphism, love and defense: does attitude towards social distancing matter?

Ali

Doğan

Amin

et al. 2021

The Service Industries Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The few existing studies on what drives adherence to distancing rules have been limited either due to focussing on single factors and personal reasons, such as the fear of contracting the disease [8][9][10] , and/or due to their relatively narrow geographical and cultural scope 11 . Yet, impactful opinion pieces from diverse disciplines have consistently called for researchers and policymakers to consider the complex social influences from both our close social circles and more broadly from others in our communities [12][13][14][15] . So far, empirical support for this proposal was lacking 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social influence matters: We follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does

Tunçgenç¹,

M²,

Sulik³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do we adopt new rules, such as social distancing? While decades of psychology research stresses the importance of social influence on individual behaviour, many COVID-19 campaigns focused on convincing individuals that distancing is the right thing to do. In a global dataset (114 countries, n=6674), we investigated how social influences predict people’s adherence to distancing rules during the pandemic. Analyses showed that people practised distancing more when they thought their close social circle did so; this social influence mattered more than people thinking distancing was the right thing. People’s adherence also aligned with their fellow citizens’, but only if they deeply bonded with their country. Personal vulnerability to the disease predicted distancing more for people with larger social circles. Empathy, collective efficacy and collectivism also significantly predicted distancing. During crises, policymakers can achieve behavioural change by emphasising shared values and harnessing the social influence of close friends and relatives.

show abstract

‘Distancers’ and ‘non‐distancers’? The potential social psychological impact of moralizing COVID‐19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change

Cited by 80 publications

References 29 publications

Public behaviour in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the role of group processes

Public behaviour in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: understanding the role of group processes

Brand anthropomorphism, love and defense: does attitude towards social distancing matter?

Social influence matters: We follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About