Perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice arising from global lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review

Abstract

This aim of this scoping review is to map what is known about perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice within the context of the general population’s experience of ‘lockdowns’ imposed by governments worldwide in response to the increased transmission of COVID-19. Arksey & O’Malley’s (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews was chosen. A sensitive search strategy was devised and conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using the following search terms: (adherence OR acceptance OR agreement OR trust OR distrust OR compliance OR willing*) OR (perceived coerc* OR percept* coerc* OR pressure OR force OR influence OR control OR threat OR justice) AND (lockdown) AND (COVID OR SARS-CoV-2 OR COVID-19). The database search initially produced 41,628 articles to screen. A total of 40 articles were included in this review and the following five themes were identified from the studies: perceived acceptability and willingness to adhere to lockdown; perceived control during lockdown; perceived pressures arising from lockdown; perceived threat of sanction from others and the procedural (in)justice of lockdown. Our synthesis suggests that i) individuals experienced an initial willingness and tolerance of lockdown that lessened over time as perceptions of personal control decreased; ii) that social influences may pressure individuals to follow or break lockdown rules; and iii) that justifiability and proportionality together with individuals’ perceptions of harm from COVID-19 may impact the extent to which individuals adhere to lockdown. Furthermore, the review found an absence of information regarding specific individual characteristics and circumstances that increase the likelihood of experiencing perceived coercion and its related constructs and highlights a need for a better understanding of the cultural and socioeconomic factors affecting perceptions of, and adherence to, lockdown.

Pandemic lockdowns: who feels coerced and why? - a study on perceived coercion, perceived pressures and procedural justice during the UK COVID-19 lockdowns

“…Participants spoke of experiencing anxiety and low mood linked to lockdown and a sense of ‘entrapment’ in this and previous studies [ 8 , 21 ]. Unlike a previous scoping review by the authors, perceived pressure in the form of social norms and perceived control in the form of conspiracy theories did not feature within this study [ 7 ].…”

“…A subsequent national lockdown took effect from 5th November for four weeks merging into a three then four ‘tiered’ system before another national lockdown on 6th January 2021 and phased return between March and July 2021. A recent scoping review on perceived coercion within the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, gave an early indication that many individuals met lockdowns with an initial acceptance that decreased over time as a sense of intrusiveness by authorities emerged worldwide [ 6 , 7 ]. It also highlighted a link between low perceived control and greater depressive and anxious symptomatology [ 8 ], As found in the scoping review, it remains unclear as to who perceives lockdowns as more coercive and procedurally unjust and whether there are specific individual experiences and characteristics that increase the likelihood of these perceptions and of potentially dissatisfaction and disengagement with restrictions [ 7 ].…”

Public health partnerships with faith-based organizations to support vaccination uptake among minoritized communities: A scoping review

“…Despite these contributions, our scoping review highlights limitations in the ways that FBOs' contributions are not well-documented. The findings of this scoping review, echoing others [213], point to a critical need to further evaluate the impact of initiatives.…”

Lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic: lessons from a polarized scenario in Brazil

“…A scoping review showed that participants were more likely to accept lockdown when there was a perception of risk from the disease and when communications were articulated by authorities in whom they trusted ( Ranieri et al, 2023 ). In Brazil, the federal government showed a notoriously denialist stance toward the pandemic that discouraged mask wearing and social distancing ( Idrovo et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Another factor observed in the anti-lockdown Cluster was greater sadness over the possibility of lockdown and a feeling of deprivation of freedom. The relationship between perceived coercion and lockdown has been assessed in some studies, and a review has suggested that people who feel less control over their lived experiences suffered greater anxiety, depression, and a feeling of imprisonment ( Ranieri et al, 2023 ). Another factor potentially contributing to greater sadness in the anti-lockdown group may suggest suffering linked to neoliberal ideologies that can contribute to the anguish many people experienced during the pandemic.…”