Journalists often ask me how the public will behave when the next set of Covid-19 restrictions begins. Will they accept the rules or ignore them? This matters crucially right now. With rising infections in many areas of the country, and with the new variant of the virus rampant, physical distancing and other behavioural interventions are more important than ever.
The first thing I point out in response is that adherence to most of the behavioural regulations
has been very high (often
over 90%) throughout the pandemic.
The second thing I say is that adherence to physical
distancing and avoiding contacts with others goes
up in lockdown periods This probably reflects the recognition in the public
that the greater restrictions signal greater need to adopt the mitigating measures.
Yet both anecdotes and the survey data suggest that
adherence to 2m physical distancing declined in early December following the
end of the second ‘lockdown’. It’s worth looking more closely at these dynamics
of physical distancing, because this behaviour is perhaps the most visible form
of adherence, and it is the one where breaches are often the subject of critical
comments.
The UCL
Covid-19 Social Study (data collected up to 13th December) shows
that ‘complete’ and ‘majority’ compliance went up during the November
‘lockdown’, but that ‘as these [restrictions] have been eased in the past
month, compliance has started to decrease again’.
The Office
for National Statistics weekly survey for data collected in the period 2 to 6 December noted a drop
(albeit small) in distancing behaviour (whereas for other protective behaviours
the compliance rate remained high).
Journalists and others are ready to frame any such decline in adherence to physical distancing as public ‘fatigue’ - an ‘explanation’ we have heard from the beginning of the pandemic.
It is true, of course, that the behavioural
interventions are hard to endure – and some (such as self-isolation) are a lot
harder than others (such as handwashing). But recent
analysis of public responses over the course of the pandemic is not
consistent with the notion of ‘fatigue’. The review showed that (1) Overall
adherence has been high, as already mentioned (2) There is not a linear decline
(3) Intention has also remained high.
What is the real psychology that determines levels of
adherence to physical distancing? There is now plenty of evidence on the psychological
predictors. First, knowledge and perception of risk matter. Second, there is the belief
that physical distancing is effective in providing protection. Third, a number of studies show that social norms, and in
particular whether relevant others are doing the
same, predicts own adherence. Fourth, group identification has been found to be
a predictor, including national identification
and identification with the family. Fifth, linked
to this, we physically distance as a way of caring for others, and so empathy for those most vulnerable to the virus is also a predictor. Finally,
a negatively predictor is low trust in
government. This last point ties in with what we know
about predictors of other behavioural mitigations, confidence in
government action
against the virus, being one of the most important.
Levels of public adherence to physical distancing have
varied over time. There is evidence that key public events have affected the
psychological predictors and hence adherence to distancing.
In May, there was a clear reduction in reported
distancing (identified in both the ONS survey and the UCL Covid-19 Social
Study) which appeared to be linked to two developments. First there was a
change in the messaging (from ‘stay
home’ to ‘stay alert’); this impacted upon people’s understanding of what
they should actually do, as it was an injunction about how to feel rather than a
specific behaviour.
Also in May, there was for some people an alienation
from the government in response to the Cummings
incident, which starkly revealed that while most people would be fined
for breaking the rules, some would not.
There was a further decline in adherence levels in
July. This appeared to be a result of a signalling
effect whereby there was a media fanfare around ‘freedom’ and ‘end of
lockdown’ leading up to the relaxation of restrictions on July 4th.
The decline in public adherence to physical distancing
observed in early December may be due to a signalling effect similar to that in
July. The positive publicity around the vaccine (approved December 2nd), the
announcement of the relaxation for 5 days at Christmas (made on 24th November),
and the ending of the second ‘lockdown’ (December 2nd) all came at the same
time. Together they may well have communicated that risk is now lower and
therefore less stringent adherence to physical distancing is required.
But with rising Covid infections in many areas of the
country, and with the new variant of the virus at large, physical distancing
and other behavioural interventions are more important than ever. For the public,
it’s worth reminding ourselves that:
- Physical
distancing works (efficacy)
- Most
of your neighbours and wider circle are observing physical distancing most of
the time (norms)
- Think
of those most vulnerable to the virus (empathy)
- Do
it for ‘us’ as a way of showing you care (group identification)
For the UK government, it’s
important to avoid those actions that undermine these public beliefs and
perceptions, and to increase those actions that support public understanding of
and engagement with physical distancing and the other mitigating behaviours.
This would mean:
- Respond
early to the threat instead of leaving
it too late
- Avoiding
hyperbolic messaging on future ‘successes’
- Provide
practical
advice on areas of risk and precise behavioural mitigations, in particular
around close contact
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.