Competing or Interactive Effect Between Perceived Response Efficacy of Governmental Social Distancing Behaviors and Personal Freedom on Social Distancing Behaviors in the Chinese Adult General Population in Hong Kong

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Centre for Health Behaviours Research, Jockey Club School of Public Health and Primary Care, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China

Abstract

Background
Uptake of social distancing behaviors may be determined by a combination of individual perceptions and social values. The study investigated (1) the associations between individual perception of perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors, (2) the association between social value of perceived freedom infringement and social distancing behaviors, and (3) whether perceived freedom infringement would moderate the association between perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors.
 
Methods
A cross-sectional telephone survey interviewed 300 adults in the Hong Kong adult general population during April 21-28, 2020. The instruments of social distancing behaviors, perceived response efficacy, and perceived freedom infringement assessed the frequencies of practicing seven types of social distancing behaviors in the past week, perceived response efficacy of four types of governmental social distancing measures/instructions, and a 5-point Likert scale item on perceived infringement on personal freedom regarding a governmental social distancing measure of banning gatherings of >4 people in public areas. Linear regression adjusted for background factors was performed; the interaction term of perceived response efficacy × perceived freedom infringement was tested.
 
Results
About 40.4%-83.0% of the respondents practiced various types of social distancing behaviors; 57.3%-75.0% perceived response efficacies of related governmental measures; about 20% showed perceived freedom infringement. Perceived response efficacy, but not perceived freedom infringement, was independently and positively associated with social distancing behaviors. Perceived freedom infringement significantly moderated the association between perceived response efficacy and social distancing behaviors; such a positive association was significant at higher (those scored “extremely agree”), but not lower (those scored “extremely disagree), levels of perceived freedom infringement.
 
Conclusion
Perceived response efficacy is a potential determinant of social distancing. However, the strength of such an association may be modified by opposing social values about personal freedom. Future studies are warranted to verify above findings and explore other potential determinants.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Wilder-Smith A, Freedman DO. Isolation, quarantine, social distancing and community containment: pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) outbreak. J Travel Med. 2020;27(2). doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa020
  2. Lewnard JA, Lo NC. Scientific and ethical basis for social-distancing interventions against COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(6):631-633. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(20)30190-0
  3. Flaxman S, Mishra S, Gandy A, et al. Estimating the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on COVID-19 in Europe. Nature. 2020;584(7820):257-261. doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2405-7
  4. Lau H, Khosrawipour V, Kocbach P, et al. The positive impact of lockdown in Wuhan on containing the COVID-19 outbreak in China. J Travel Med. 2020;27(3). doi:10.1093/jtm/taaa037
  5. Leung K, Wu JT, Liu D, Leung GM. First-wave COVID-19 transmissibility and severity in China outside Hubei after control measures, and second-wave scenario planning: a modelling impact assessment. Lancet. 2020;395(10233):1382-1393. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30746-7
  6. Stawicki SP, Jeanmonod R, Miller AC, et al. The 2019-2020 Novel Coronavirus (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2) Pandemic: A Joint American College of Academic International Medicine-World Academic Council of Emergency Medicine Multidisciplinary COVID-19 Working Group Consensus Paper. J Glob Infect Dis. 2020;12(2):47-93. doi:10.4103/jgid.jgid_86_20
  7. Fong MW, Gao H, Wong JY, et al. Nonpharmaceutical measures for pandemic influenza in nonhealthcare settings-social distancing measures. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(5):976-984. doi:10.3201/eid2605.190995
  8. Rothstein MA. From SARS to Ebola: legal and ethical considerations for modern quarantine. Indiana Health Law Rev. 2015;12(1):227-280. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2499701
  9. Hu Z, Song C, Xu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 24 asymptomatic infections with COVID-19 screened among close contacts in Nanjing, China. Sci China Life Sci. 2020;63(5):706-711. doi:10.1007/s11427-020-1661-4
  10. Al-Tawfiq JA. Asymptomatic coronavirus infection: MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19). Travel Med Infect Dis. 2020;35:101608. doi:10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101608
  11. Moore RC, Lee A, Hancock JT, Halley M, Linos E. Experience with social distancing early in the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States: implications for public health messaging. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.04.08.20057067
  12. Farias JEM, Pilati R. Violating social distancing amid COVID-19 pandemic: psychological factors to improve compliance. PsyArXiv. 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/apg9e
  13. Kavanagh NM, Goel RR, Venkataramani AS. Association of county-level socioeconomic and political characteristics with engagement in social distancing for COVID-19. medRxiv. 2020. doi:10.1101/2020.04.06.20055632
  14. Pfattheicher S, Nockur L, Böhm R, Sassenrath C, Petersen MB. The emotional path to action: empathy promotes physical distancing and wearing of face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Sci. 2020. doi:10.1177/0956797620964422.
  15. Wolff W, Martarelli CS, Schüler J, Bieleke M. High boredom proneness and low trait self-control impair adherence to social distancing guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(15). doi:10.3390/ijerph17155420
  16. Rogers RW. A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol. 1975;91(1):93-114. doi:10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
  17. Janz NK, Becker MH. The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q. 1984;11(1):1-47. doi:10.1177/109019818401100101
  18. Lau JT, Kim JH, Tsui H, Griffiths S. Perceptions related to human avian influenza and their associations with anticipated psychological and behavioral responses at the onset of outbreak in the Hong Kong Chinese general population. Am J Infect Control. 2007;35(1):38-49. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2006.07.010
  19. Lau JT, Griffiths S, Choi KC, Lin C. Prevalence of preventive behaviors and associated factors during early phase of the H1N1 influenza epidemic. Am J Infect Control. 2010;38(5):374-380. doi:10.1016/j.ajic.2010.03.002
  20. de Zwart O, Veldhuijzen IK, Richardus JH, Brug J. Monitoring of risk perceptions and correlates of precautionary behaviour related to human avian influenza during 2006-2007 in the Netherlands: results of seven consecutive surveys. BMC Infect Dis. 2010;10:114. doi:10.1186/1471-2334-10-114
  21. Bults M, Beaujean DJ, de Zwart O, et al. Perceived risk, anxiety, and behavioural responses of the general public during the early phase of the Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic in the Netherlands: results of three consecutive online surveys. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:2. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-2
  22. Lee M, You M. Psychological and behavioral responses in South Korea during the early stages of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(9). doi:10.3390/ijerph17092977
  23. Bashirian S, Jenabi E, Khazaei S, et al. Factors associated with preventive behaviours of COVID-19 among hospital staff in Iran in 2020: an application of the Protection Motivation Theory. J Hosp Infect. 2020;105(3):430-433. doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2020.04.035
  24. Mækelæ MJ, Reggev N, Dutra N, et al. Perceived efficacy of COVID-19 restrictions, reactions and their impact on mental health during the early phase of the outbreak in six countries. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(8):200644. doi:10.1098/rsos.200644
  25. Bronfenbrenner U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development. Am Psychol. 1977;32(7):513-531. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.32.7.513
  26. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecology of the family as a context for human development: research perspectives. Dev Psychol. 1986;22(6):723-742. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
  27. Bronfenbrenner U. Ecological systems theory. In: Vasta R, ed. Six Theories of Child Development: Revised Formulations and Current Issues. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 1992.
  28. Briscese G, Lacetera N, Macis M, Tonin M. Compliance with COVID-19 Social-Distancing Measures in Italy: The Role of Expectations and Duration. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2020.
  29. CNN News. A 'Short, Sharp' Global Recession is Starting to Look Inevitable. CNN News. March 10, 2020. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/09/economy/global-recession-coronavirus/index.html.  Accessed May 7, 2020.
  30. Blair RA, Morse BS, Tsai LL. Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc Sci Med. 2017;172:89-97. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.11.016
  31. Morse B, Grépin KA, Blair RA, Tsai L. Patterns of demand for non-Ebola health services during and after the Ebola outbreak: panel survey evidence from Monrovia, Liberia. BMJ Glob Health. 2016;1(1):e000007. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2015-000007
  32. Vinck P, Pham PN, Bindu KK, Bedford J, Nilles EJ. Institutional trust and misinformation in the response to the 2018-19 Ebola outbreak in North Kivu, DR Congo: a population-based survey. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019;19(5):529-536. doi:10.1016/s1473-3099(19)30063-5
  33. Germani A, Buratta L, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C. Emerging adults and COVID-19: the role of individualism-collectivism on perceived risks and psychological maladjustment. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10). doi:10.3390/ijerph17103497
  34. Gollwitzer A, Martel C, Marshall J, Höhs JM, Bargh JA. Connecting self-reported social distancing to real-world behavior at the individual and US state level. PsyArXiv. 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/kvnwp
  35. Protests Over Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic. Wikipedia website. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_over_responses_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic.  Accessed June 4, 2020.
  36. Dyer O. Covid-19: Trump stokes protests against social distancing measures. BMJ. 2020;369:m1596. doi:10.1136/bmj.m1596
  37. Dryhurst S, Schneider CR, Kerr J, et al. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J Risk Res. 2020:1-13. doi:10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193
  38. Hayes AF. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2018.
  39. Cheng VC, Wong SC, Chuang VW, et al. The role of community-wide wearing of face mask for control of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic due to SARS-CoV-2. J Infect. 2020;81(1):107-114. doi:10.1016/j.jinf.2020.04.024
  40. Kwok KO, Li KK, Chan HHH, et al. Community responses during early phase of COVID-19 epidemic, Hong Kong. Emerg Infect Dis. 2020;26(7):1575-1579. doi:10.3201/eid2607.200500
  41. He S, Chen S, Kong L, Liu W. Analysis of risk perceptions and related factors concerning COVID-19 epidemic in Chongqing, China. J Community Health. 2020:1-8. doi:10.1007/s10900-020-00870-4
  42. Wellenius GA, Vispute S, Espinosa V, et al. Impacts of state-level policies on social distancing in the united states using aggregated mobility data during the covid-19 pandemic. arXiv. 2020.
  43. Gross JJ. Emotion regulation: current status and future prospects. Psychol Inq. 2015;26(1):1-26. doi:10.1080/1047840x.2014.940781
  44. Blokland HT. Freedom and Culture in Western Society. Vol 5. Psychology Press; 1997.
  45. Pokhrel P, Bennett BL, Regmi S, et al. Individualism-collectivism, social self-control and adolescent substance use and risky sexual behavior. Subst Use Misuse. 2018;53(7):1057-1067. doi:10.1080/10826084.2017.1392983
  46. Travaglino GA, Moon C. Explaining compliance with social distancing norms during the COVID-19 pandemic: the roles of cultural orientations, trust and self-conscious emotions in the US, Italy, and South Korea. PsyArXiv. 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/8yn5b
  47. Wong YT. The Chinese at work: collectivism or individualism? Asian Profile. 2001;30(4):279-287.
  48. Wu C. How Chinese Citizens View Their Government’s Coronavirus Response. The Conversation. May 27, 2020. https://theconversation.com/how-chinese-citizens-view-their-governments-coronavirus-response-139176.  Accessed August 25, 2020.
  49. Lau JT, Yang X, Tsui H, Kim JH. Monitoring community responses to the SARS epidemic in Hong Kong: from day 10 to day 62. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003;57(11):864-870. doi:10.1136/jech.57.11.864
  50. Lau JT, Tsui HY, Wang QS. Effects of two telephone survey methods on the level of reported risk behaviours. Sex Transm Infect. 2003;79(4):325-331. doi:10.1136/sti.79.4.325
  51. Census and Statistics Department. Women and Men in Hong Kong: Key Statistics. Hong Kong: Census and Statistics Department; 2019.
  52. Rothgerber H, Wilson TL, Whaley D, et al. Politicizing the COVID-19 pandemic: ideological differences in adherence to social distancing. PsyArXiv. 2020. doi:10.31234/osf.io/k23cv
  53. Abbas AH. Politicizing the pandemic: a schemata analysis of COVID-19 news in two selected newspapers. Int J Semiot Law. 2020:1-20. doi:10.1007/s11196-020-09745-2
  54. Ward J, Alleaume C, Peretti-Watel P. The French public’s attitudes to a future COVID-19 vaccine: the politicization of a public health issue. SocArXiv. 2020. doi:10.31235/osf.io/xphe9
  55. Lau JTF, Kim Y, Wu AMS, Wang Z, Huang B, Mo PKH. The Occupy Central (Umbrella) movement and mental health distress in the Hong Kong general public: political movements and concerns as potential structural risk factors of population mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2017;52(5):525-536. doi:10.1007/s00127-017-1340-x
  56. Ni MY, Yao XI, Leung KSM, et al. Depression and post-traumatic stress during major social unrest in Hong Kong: a 10-year prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020;395(10220):273-284. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(19)33160-5
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Volume 11, Issue 4
April 2022
Pages 498-507

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 28 June 2020
  • Revise Date: 02 October 2020
  • Accept Date: 03 October 2020
  • First Publish Date: 19 October 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics