On 11 March 2020 the World Health Organization declared the novel coronavirus outbreak (COVID-19) a global pandemic. At the time of writing, over 16 million cases of COVID-19 had been confirmed worldwide, and more than 650,000 people had died from the virus. A priority amongst governments globally is limiting the spread of the virus. In Australia, this response included mandatory ‘lockdown’ restrictions which limited citizens’ freedom of movement. This article uses survey data from 1595 Australians to examine compliance with COVID-19 lockdown restrictions in the early stages of the pandemic. Results revealed that a substantial number of Australians did not comply fully with the measures. Further, while self-interest and health concerns motivated compliance, normative concerns regarding duty to support the authorities dominated compliance decisions. The findings’ implications for both compliance research and for authorities wanting to nurture voluntary compliance with public health orders are discussed.

Physical distancing measures have become the first line of defence for slowing COVID-19 virus transmission. However, studies have demonstrated that compliance with physical distancing restrictions has not been uniform. Police have also encountered widespread resentment of the restrictions, defiance, and people purposefully flouting restrictions. In this study, we examined factors associated with compliance with COVID-19 restrictions among those who held defiant attitudes toward police during the early stages of the pandemic in Australia. The study draws on survey data collected from 1595 Australians during the initial lockdown period in Australia. Regression analysis was applied to determine if two forms of defiance toward police (resistance and disengagement) were associated with reduced compliance with restrictions while controlling for other known correlates of compliance. We also identified factors that were associated with compliance among highly resistant and disengaged individuals. Findings indicate that defiant individuals were significantly less likely to comply with physical distancing restrictions. Among highly resistant and disengaged individuals, recent police-initiated encounters that were deemed to be procedurally unjust were also associated with reduced compliance. In addition, highly disengaged individuals were less likely to comply if they were concerned about ongoing loss of freedoms post-COVID-19. The implications of the findings for defiance and compliance research, as well as for COVID-19 policing strategies, are discussed.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an upswing in conspiracy theory beliefs, which creates challenges for effectively countering the pandemic, with higher rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy found among conspiracy theorists. Research suggests health risk perceptions, trust in government and anomie may mediate the relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs and vaccine hesitancy. However, the mediating role of trust in government and anomie on vaccine hesitancy have not been empirically examined in the context of COVID-19, and it is not clear whether different conspiracy theories have distinct mediational pathways to vaccine hesitancy. The current study examines the extent to which perceptions of the health threat posed by COVID-19, trust in government and anomie can explain the relationship between distinct COVID-19 conspiracy theories and COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Drawing on data from a national online survey of 779 Australian adults, a series of path analyses examining the influence of three distinct conspiracy theories on vaccination hesitancy revealed two key mediational pathways, which varied across conspiracy theory types. Anomie and per-

In 2020 governments worldwide implemented various laws and social distancing restrictions to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus. At the same time, conspiracy theories emerged purporting that authorities were using the COVID-19 pandemic to permanently control or harm citizens. These conspiracies undermined government responses to the pandemic and in some cases elicited civil disobedience. Using survey data from 779 Australians collected eight months into the pandemic, we examined the relationship between conspiracy beliefs, trust in the government, and duty to comply with authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also examined whether trust in government moderated the association between conspiracy beliefs and duty to comply. We found that those prone to conspiracy theory beliefs and who distrusted government were less likely to comply with authorities during the pandemic. We also found that trust in the government moderated the negative relationship between conspiracy beliefs and duty to comply; high trust served as a protective factor against conspiracy beliefs. Importantly, we found that how government actions were experienced and perceived during the pandemic were important correlates of Australians’ level of trust in the government. Our findings point to the importance of governments maintaining high trust in their efficacy and approach during a crisis.

In many Western countries, citizen knowledge of terrorist events is intrinsically shaped by the style of broadcasted messages published by the media. Media discourses regarding terrorist acts raise questions about how such rhetoric elicits fear in people who typically experience such events through news reports. However, we do not fully understand the impact of the media on perceptions of terrorism as clearly as we understand the relationship between the media and fear of crime. This study examines how media sources accessed actively (e.g., through newspapers; Internet) or passively (e.g., through television; radio) influence knowledge and fear of terrorism. We find receiving information about terrorism from multiple media sources increases fear of terrorism, but media sources accessed passively are not as influential as media sources accessed more actively. These results highlight how media consumption from various sources may affect one's fear of terrorism, and further illustrates how the role of perceived knowledge may exacerbate or mitigate fear.Implications for policy and practice are discussed.