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

Abstract

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 These doubts are based on outdated models of group psychology.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.

A Siege on Positive Ageing: Experiences of identity threat and coping among Older Adults during COVID-19 pandemic

“…Gonçalves et al (2021) also reported on the resilience and fast adaption to the changed realities of life in older adults. Some of the participants reported a newfound sense of shared community with neighbours and a feeling of national solidarity (see also Drury et al, 2021). In other words, in line with SIMIC, thriving was associated with maintaining, recovering and gaining new groups during this crisis, as these provide a range of psychological and social resources to cope more effectively with the social challenges of the situation .…”

“…Gonçalves et al (2021) discussed the repercussions of social isolation, pointing to the deprivations and negative affect experienced by older adults in different countries as the result of increasing social isolation during COVID-19. Conversely, works have also suggested some positive outcomes from the pandemic, in the form of increased community solidarity and support, which may counter the negative impacts of social isolation (Bowe et al, 2020;Drury et al, 2021;Jetten et al, 2020;Wolf et al, 2020). Previous research on crises demonstrates that people may experience increased belief in community efficacy (McNamara et al, 2013), and develop a new shared identity that can endure beyond the immediate disaster response time-period (Drury et al, 2016;Ntontis, et al, 2018).…”

Re-opening live events and large venues after Covid-19 ‘lockdown’: Behavioural risks and their mitigations

“…Both ONS (2020c) and the UCL survey (Fancourt et al, 2020c) reported in mid-July that only about half respondents were consistently maintaining physical distancing. In terms of process or mechanism, these trends are contemporaneous with several factors, all of which could contribute (Drury, Carter, Ntontis, & Tekin Guven, 2021): decline in trust in the government (Fancourt et al, 2020c, p. 16), decline sense of national togetherness , and decline in perceived risk (ONS, 2020b). Over the summer and early autumn, however, adherence levels, including distancing, levelled off and remained relatively high, with little evidence of public 'fatigue' (Michie, West, & Harvey, 2020)…”

Systematic review of interventions to promote the performance of physical distancing behaviours during pandemics/epidemics of infectious diseases spread via aerosols or droplets

“…Longitundinal survey studies (Hagger et al, 2020;Hamilton et al, 2020;Norman et al, 2020;Rozendaal et al, 2020;Van Bavel et al, 2020;Vignoles et al, 2021) and guidance documents / recommendation papers (e.g. Bonell et al, 2020;Drury et al, 2021;SPI-B, 2020;Templeton et al, 2020) have identified several predictors that are associated with the theoretical domains of social influences, beliefs about capability, beliefs about consequences, behavioural regulation, and knowledge. These predictors influenced subsequent physical distancing behaviour.…”