Determinants of protective behaviours during a nationwide lockdown in the wake of the COVID‐19 pandemic

Abstract

Objectives. Without pharmaceutical measures available, endorsement of protective behaviours, such as hygiene behaviours, social distancing, and adherence to recommended behaviours in case of symptoms is of key importance to curb the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Based on an extended version of the protection motivation theory, this study examined the role of perceived risks to oneself and to others, self-efficacy, response efficacy, and perceived social norms for intentions to and the endorsement of several protective behaviours and alternative behaviours known to be ineffective. Further, it was hypothesised that effects of risk perceptions depended on high levels of self-efficacy.Design. Data were collected by telephone at the beginning of the lockdown in Switzerland with a large sample (N = 1,009) representative of the adult Swiss population.Methods. All predictors (self-efficacy, response efficacy, perceived social norms, intentions) but risk perceptions were assessed for hygiene behaviours, social distancing, adherence to recommended behaviours in case of symptoms, and alternative measures known to be ineffective.Results. Across all analyses of intentions for and endorsement of protective and alternative behaviours, response efficacy and self-efficacy emerged as the most important predictors. Social norms were mainly related to intentions, but not to behaviours. The different risk perceptions were rarely and inconsistently related to intentions and behaviours. No consistent pattern of interactions between self-efficacy and risk perceptions emerged. Conclusion.This study demonstrates that even in the face of a pandemic of an unknown virus, the resources (self-efficacy, response efficacy) rather than the risk perceptions have the potential to promote protective behaviours.

Worry and behaviour at the start of the COVID-19 outbreak: Results from three UK surveys (the COVID-19 rapid survey of Adherence to Interventions and responses [CORSAIR] study)

“…( Rubin et al, 2009 , Jørgensen et al, 2021 , Dryhurst et al, 2020 ) Greater perceived effectiveness of, and self-efficacy for, the behaviour were also associated with uptake in our study. ( Gibson Miller et al, 2020 , Jørgensen et al, 2021 , Rogers, 1975 , Scholz and Freund, 2021 , Seale et al, 2020 ) Having heard more about COVID-19 was associated with adopting a protective behaviour, similar to other research finding that media exposure was positively correlated with uptake of protective behaviours. ( Rubaltelli et al, 2020 ) This may be mediated by risk perception.…”

“…Other studies have also found an association between uptake of preventive behaviours and being a parent. ( Lauri Korajlija and Jokic‐Begic, 2020 ) One study conducted in Switzerland found an association between uptake of preventive behaviours and older age ( Scholz and Freund, 2021 ); this has been a common pattern throughout the pandemic. ( Smith et al, 2021 , , xxxx ) Other studies conducted at the start of the pandemic found no association between age and uptake.…”

Determinants of Preventive Behaviors for COVID-19 in Japan

“…However, as mentioned in Section 1 , some studies support the view that risk perception does not always promote risk management behavior. Scholz and Freund [ 28 ] show that not risk perception but rather self-efficacy and response efficacy promote preventive behaviors. A study by Lin et al [ 29 ] also shows that self-efficacy contributes to preventive behavior.…”

To comply or not comply? A latent profile analysis of behaviours and attitudes during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…Additionally, males and those with less moral values showed lower compliance in Swiss adults [55], as did those with no worry about COVID-19 in Italian and French samples [57]. Further, perceived benefits and efficacy of protective measures have emerged as strong predictors of compliance across samples from a range of countries including Switzerland [58], Ethiopia [59], and China [60]. Nevertheless, we managed to capture a relatively heterogeneous sample, varying in age, gender, levels of education, pre-existing health conditions, and economic situation.…”