No abstract

Most studies on norms and COVID-19 have ignored the group-based and dynamic nature of normative influence where self-relevant and salient groups might emerge and change along with their impact on health behaviours. The current research seeks to explore these issues using a three-wave longitudinal design with a representative sample of Australians (N wave 1 = 3024) where two group sources of potential normative influence (neighbourhood and national groups) and two COVID-19 health behaviours (physical distancing and hand hygiene) were investigated in May, June/July and September/October 2020. Results indicated that especially from Wave 1 to Wave 2 neighbourhood descriptive norms (rather than national or injunctive norms) had the most impact on health behaviours while controlling for demographic and individuallevel health variables. This demonstrates that groups and associated norms that influence behaviours vary across time. It is concluded that research on norms needs to study which groups matter and when.

There has been sustained interest in the intersection between social constructs and mental health from diverse disciplines including psychiatry, sociology and public health. However, no systematic attempt has been made to catalogue what is meant by ‘social’ by different researchers, how variables deemed ‘social’ constructs are linked to mental health, nor whether these patterns differ by academic discipline. Understanding interdisciplinary differences and commonalities may reveal opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration to enhance our understanding of how social factors relate to mental health. This article presents a prospectively registered systematic map of social approaches to mental health using an innovative synthesis methodology (coding all sentences from a random selection of N = 287 articles). Results indicated that although approaches are diverse, disciplinary overlap is substantial. Psychology and psychiatry led articles tend to focus on social skills or emotions as features of mental (ill-)health, while public health and social sciences led articles tend to focus on social relationships, status or context as determinants of mental (ill-)health. Medicine led articles were most likely to focus on social outcomes of mental (ill-)health. Potential growth areas are noted, particularly the relative dearth of intervention research drawing upon social approaches. The findings are discussed with a view towards enabling more effective interdisciplinary collaboration.