Individual and COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance with Mask Use and Social Distancing: The Importance of Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and State Response
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. COVID-19-Specific Predictors of Compliance
1.2. Additional Predictors of Compliance
1.3. The Current Study
- Greater perceived norms for compliance and more favorable attitudes (i.e., greater perceived effectiveness) regarding safety behaviors would be indicative of greater personal compliance [12].
- Greater exposure to COVID-19-related news would be related to increased compliance due to potentially heightened awareness of the effectiveness of these behaviors [15].
- Compliance would be greater for individuals in states that enacted stay-at-home orders earlier [18].
- Females would be more compliant with safety behaviors than males [18].
- Greater levels of negative affect and anxiety would be related to increased compliance [20].
- Broadly, each impulsivity facet would be related to decreased compliance, with sensation seeking (i.e., the tendency to seek out new and risky experiences [28]) demonstrating the largest effect sizes.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
2.2. Measures
2.3. Demographics
2.4. Impulsivity
2.5. Affect and Anxiety
2.6. COVID-19 Safety Measure Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and Behaviors
2.7. News Exposure
2.8. State Response Timing
2.9. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Non-COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance
3.2. COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance
4. Discussion
4.1. Demographic Indicators of Compliance
4.2. Affect, Impulsivity, and Compliance
4.3. Descriptive Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and Compliance
4.4. News Exposure and Compliance
4.5. Timing of Responses to Health Crises
4.6. Future Directions and Limitations
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Oster, A.M.; Caruso, E.; DeVies, J.; Hartnett, K.P.; Boehmer, T.K. Transmission dynamics by age group in COVID-19 hotspot counties—United States. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1494–1496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Farber, S.E.; Johnson, J. New Data Shows Young People Need to Take Social Distancing Seriously: Younger People may be Spreading the Virus Among Themselves. ABC News 2020. Available online: https://abcnews.go.com/Health/data-shows-young-peo (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Brouard, S.; Vasilopoulos, P.; Becher, M. Sociodemographic and psychological correlates of compliance with the COVID-19 public health measures in France. Can. J. Political Sci. 2020, 53, 253–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CDC. Science Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/masking-science-sars-cov2.html (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- CDC. Social Distancing: Keep a Safe Distance to Slow the Spread. 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/social-distancing.html (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Betsch, C.; Korn, L.; Sprengholz, P.; Felgendreff, L.; Eitze, S.; Schmid, P.; Böhm, R. Social and behavioral consequences of mask policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 21851–21853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Quinn, S.C.; Hilyard, K.M.; Jamison, A.M.; An, J.; Hancock, G.R.; Musa, D.; Freimuth, V.S. The influence of social norms on flu vaccination among African American and White adults. Health Educ. Res. 2017, 32, 473–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Stout, M.E.; Christy, S.M.; Winger, J.G.; Vadaparampil, S.T.; Mosher, C.E. Self-efficacy and HPV vaccine attitudes mediate the relationship between social norms and intentions to receive the HPV vaccine among college students. J. Commun. Health 2020, 45, 1187–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Patrick, M.E.; Kloska, D.D.; Vasilenko, S.A.; Lanza, S.T. Perceived friends’ use as a risk factor for marijuana use across young adulthood. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2016, 30, 904–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roditis, M.L.; Delucchi, K.; Chang, A.; Halpern-Felsher, B. Perceptions of social norms and exposure to pro-marijuana messages are associated with adolescent marijuana use. Prev. Med. 2016, 93, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Abdallah, D.A.; Lee, C.M. Social norms and vaccine uptake: College students’ COVID vaccination intentions, attitudes, and estimated peer norms and comparisons with influenza vaccine. Vaccine 2021, 39, 2060–2067. [Google Scholar]
- Neighbors, C.; O’Connor, R.M.; Lewis, M.A.; Chawla, N.; Lee, C.M.; Fossos, N. The relative impact of injunctive norms on college student drinking: The role of reference group. Psychol. Addict. Behav. 2008, 22, 576–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fisher, R.J. The Injunctive and Descriptive Norms Governing Eating. In Obesity Prevention; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 593–603. [Google Scholar]
- Vally, Z. Public perceptions, anxiety and the perceived efficacy of health-protective behaviours to mitigate the spread of the SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health 2020, 187, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moreland, A.; Herlihy, C.; Tynan, M.A.; Sunshine, G.; McCord, R.F.; Hilton, C.; Poovey, J.; Werner, A.K.; Jones, C.D.; Fulmer, E.B.; et al. CDC COVID-19 Response Team Mitigation Policy Analysis Unit. Timing of state and territorial COVID-19 stay-at-home order and changes in population movement–United States, 1 March–31 May 2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 1198–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Medline, A.; Hayes, L.; Valdez, K.; Hayashi, A.; Vahedi, F.; Capell, W.; Klausner, J.D. Evaluating the impact of stay-at-home orders on the time to reach the peak burden of COVID-19 cases and deaths: Does timing matter? Br. Med. J. Public Health 2020, 20, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
- Gao, S.; Rao, J.; Kang, Y.; Liang, Y.; Kruse, J.; Dopfer, D.; Patz, J.A. Association of mobile phone location data indications of travel and stay-at-home mandates with COVID-19 infection rates in the us. JAMA 2020, 3, e2020485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Czeisler, M.É.; Tynan, M.A.; Howard, M.E.; Honeycutt, S.; Fulmer, E.B.; Kidder, D.P.; Czeisler, C.A. Public attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs related to COVID-19, stay-at-home orders, nonessential business closures, and public health guidance—United States, New York City and Los Angeles, 5–12 May 2020. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hackel, J. A Future Pandemic Is ‘Almost Guaranteed,’ Fauci Says. The World from PRX. 2021. Available online: https://www.pri.org/stories/2021-05-21/future-pandemic-almost-guaranteed-fauci-says (accessed on 1 July 2021).
- Solomou, I.; Constantinidou, F. Prevalence and predictors of anxiety and depression symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic and compliance with precautionary measures: Age and sex matter. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 4924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Harper, C.A.; Satchell, L.P.; Fido, D.; Latzman, R.D. Functional fear predicts public health compliance in the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Ment. Health Addict. 2020, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pollak, Y.; Dayan, H.; Shoham, R.; Berger, I. Predictors of adherence to public health instructions during the COVID-19 pandemic. MedRxiv 2020, in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Jessor, R. Problem-behavior theory, psychosocial development, and adolescent problem drinking. Br. J. Addict. 1987, 82, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jessor, R.; Jessor, S.L. Problem Behavior and Psychosocial Development: A Longitudinal Study of Youth; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Nivette, A.; Ribeaud, D.; Murray, A.; Steinhoff, A.; Bechtiger, L.; Hepp, U.; Eisner, M. Non-compliance with COVID-19-related public health measures among young adults in Switzerland: Insights from a longitudinal cohort study. Soc. Sci. Med. 2021, 268, 113370–113378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5); American Psychiatric Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Cyders, M.A. The misnomer of impulsivity: Commentary on “choice impulsivity” and “rapid-response impulsivity” articles by Hamilton and colleagues. Personal. Disord. 2015, 6, 204–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Whiteside, S.P.; Lynam, D.R. The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2001, 30, 669–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jonah, B.A. Sensation seeking and risky driving: A review and synthesis of the literature. Accid. Anal. Prev. 1997, 29, 651–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CDC. Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups. 2021. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/community/health-equity/race-ethnicity.html (accessed on 1 June 2021).
- Fisher, K.A.; Barile, J.P.; Guerin, R.J.; Esschert, K.L.V.; Jeffers, A.; Tian, L.H.; Prue, C.E. Factors Associated with Cloth Face Covering Use among Adults during the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, April and May 2020. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e3.htm (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Block, R.; Berg, A.; Lennon, R.P.; Miller, E.L.; Nunez-Smith, M. African American adherence to COVID-19 public health recommendations. Health Lit. Res. Pract. 2020, 4, e166–e170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rader, B.; White, L.F.; Burns, M.R.; Chen, J.; Brilliant, J.; Cohen, J.; Brownstein, J.S. Mask-wearing and control of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in the USA: A cross-sectional study. Lancet Digit. Health 2021, 3, e148–e157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Okten, I.O.; Gollwitzer, A.; Oettingen, G. Gender differences in preventing the spread of coronavirus. Behav. Sci. Policy 2020. Available online: https://behavioralpolicy.org/journal_issue/covid-19/ (accessed on 15 January 2021).
- Papageorge, N.W.; Zahn, M.V.; Belot, M.; Van den Broek-Altenburg, E.; Choi, S.; Jamison, J.C.; Tripodi, E. Socio-demographic factors associated with self-protecting behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Popul. Econ. 2021, 34, 691–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, H.R.; Kilmer, J.R.; Fossos-Wong, N.; Hayes, K.; Sokolovsky, A.W.; Jackson, K.M. Simultaneous alcohol and marijuana use among college students: Patterns, correlates, norms, and consequences. Alcohol.: Clin. Exp. Res. 2019, 43, 1545–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Merikangas, K.; Stringaris, A. The CoRonavIruS Health Impact Survey (CRISIS) V0.3. Adult Self-Report Follow Up Form; National Institute of Mental Health (NMIH): Bethesda, MD, USA, 2020. Available online: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/dr2/CRISIS_Adult_Self-Report_Follow_Up_Current_Form_V0.3.pdf (accessed on 1 December 2020).
- Zhang, R.; Li, Y.; Zhang, A.L.; Wang, Y.; Molina, M.J. Identifying airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 14857–14863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lynam, D.R.; Smith, G.T.; Whiteside, S.P.; Cyders, M.A. The UPPS-P: Assessing Five Personality Pathways to Impulsive Behavior; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2006; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Cyders, M.A.; Littlefield, A.K.; Coffey, S.; Karyadi, K.A. Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Addict. Behav. 2014, 39, 1372–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Spitzer, R.L.; Kroenke, K.; Williams, J.B.; Löwe, B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Arch. Intern. Med. 2006, 166, 1092–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Ebesutani, C.; Regan, J.; Smith, A.; Reise, S.; Higa-McMillan, C.; Chorpita, B.F. The 10-Item Positive and Negative Affect Schedule for Children, Child and Parent Shortened Versions: Application of Item Response Theory for More Efficient Assessment. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2012, 34, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SAS Institute, Inc. SAS 9.4 [Computer Program]; SAS Institute: Cary, NC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide, 7th ed.; Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Benjamini, Y.; Hochberg, Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Methodol.) 1995, 57, 289–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glickman, M.E.; Rao, S.R.; Schultz, M.R. False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2014, 67, 850–857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cohen, J. A power primer. Psychol. Bull. 1992, 112, 155–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howard, M.C. Gender, face mask perceptions, and face mask wearing: Are men being dangerous during the COVID-19 pandemic? Personal. Individ. Differ. 2020, 170, 110417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Latkin, C.A.; Dayton, L.; Yi, G.; Colon, B.; Kong, X. Mask usage, social distancing, racial, and gender correlates of COVID-19 vaccine intentions among adults in the US. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0246970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lally, P.; Bartle, N.; Wardle, J. Social norms and diet in adolescents. Appetite 2011, 57, 623–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Public Opinion Strategies. Who’s Watching? A Look at the Demographics of Cable News Channel Watchers. Available online: https://pos.org/whos-watching-a-look-at-the-demographics-of-cable-news-channel-watchers/ (accessed on 15 July 2021).
- Van Bavel, J.J.; Baicker, K.; Boggio, P.S.; Capraro, V.; Cichocka, A.; Cikara, M.; Willer, R. Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2020, 4, 460–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Simonov, A.; Sacher, S.K.; Dubé, J.P.H.; Biswas, S. The persuasive effect of fox news: Non-compliance with social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Natl. Bur. Econ. Res. 2020, w27237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heffner, J.; Vives, M.L.; FeldmanHall, O. Emotional responses to prosocial messages increase willingness to self-isolate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2021, 170, 110420–110427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adjodah, D.; Dinakar, K.; Chinazzi, M.; Fraiberger, S.P.; Pentland, A.; Bates, S.; Bhatt, D.L. Association between COVID-19 Outcomes and Mask Mandates, Adherence, and Attitudes. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0252315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jefferies, S.; French, N.; Gilkison, C.; Graham, G.; Hope, V.; Marshall, J.; Priest, P. COVID-19 in New Zealand and the impact of the national response: A descriptive epidemiological study. Lancet Public Health 2020, 5, e612–e623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hsiehchen, D.; Espinoza, M.; Slovic, P. Political partisanship and mobility restriction during the COVID-19 pandemic. Public Health 2020, 187, 111–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Makridis, C.; Rothwell, J.T. The Real Cost of Political Polarization: Evidence from the COVID-19 Pandemic. 2020. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3638373 (accessed on 1 June 2021). [CrossRef]
- Khubchandani, J.; Sharma, S.; Price, J.H.; Wiblishauser, M.J.; Sharma, M.; Webb, F.J. COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the United States: A rapid national assessment. J. Commun. Health 2021, 46, 270–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grossman, G.; Kim, S.; Rexer, J.M.; Thirumurthy, H. Political partisanship influences behavioral responses to governors’ recommendations for COVID-19 prevention in the United States. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 24144–24153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Althubaiti, A. Information bias in health research: Definition, pitfalls and adjustment methods. J. Multidiscip. Healthc. 2016, 9, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Littlefield, A.K.; Sher, K.J.; Steinley, D. Developmental trajectories of impulsivity and their association with alcohol use and related outcomes during emerging and young adulthood. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2010, 34, 1409–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Thompson, E.R. Development and validation of an internationally reliable short-form of the positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS). J. Cross-Cult. Psychol. 2007, 38, 227–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allan, N.P.; Lonigan, C.J.; Phillips, B.M. Examining the factor structure and structural invariance of the PANAS across children, adolescents, and young adults. J. Personal. Assess. 2015, 97, 616–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
M | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Age | 21.95 | - | ||||||||||||||||||
2. Race/Ethnicity | 0.70 | −0.07 | - | |||||||||||||||||
3. Sex | 0.73 | 0.10 | 0.00 | - | ||||||||||||||||
4. State Response Timing | 0.43 | 0.08 | 0.08 | 0.12 | - | |||||||||||||||
5. GAD-7 | 8.35 | 0.04 | −0.06 | 0.18 | 0.11 | - | ||||||||||||||
6. PANAS-C Negative | 11.06 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.07 | 0.58 | - | |||||||||||||
7. PANAS-C Positive | 13.74 | −0.02 | 0.18 | 0.00 | 0.28 | −0.31 | −0.33 | - | ||||||||||||
8. Negative Urgency | 8.68 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.26 | 0.22 | −0.04 | - | |||||||||||
9. Positive Urgency | 7.24 | 0.02 | −0.09 | −0.15 | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.11 | −0.02 | 0.62 | - | ||||||||||
10. Sensation Seeking | 10.31 | 0.01 | 0.01 | −0.19 | 0.00 | -0.01 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.19 | 0.40 | - | |||||||||
11. COVID-19 News Watch | 3.36 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.10 | -0.01 | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.05 | - | ||||||||
12. COVID-19 News Search | 2.47 | 0.02 | −0.01 | 0.09 | −0.05 | 0.18 | 0.14 | −0.06 | 0.08 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 0.73 | - | |||||||
13. Indoor Mask Norms | 40.02 | −0.01 | −0.03 | 0.02 | −0.31 | −0.03 | 0.00 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.05 | 0.02 | −0.02 | −0.03 | - | ||||||
14. Outdoor Mask Norms | 30.02 | 0.04 | −0.16 | −0.05 | −0.37 | −0.10 | −0.06 | −0.15 | −0.08 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.09 | 0.48 | - | |||||
15. Indoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 4.67 | 0.02 | −0.12 | 0.10 | −0.25 | 0.03 | 0.02 | −0.10 | −0.08 | −0.09 | −0.07 | 0.14 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.21 | - | ||||
16. Outdoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 4.36 | 0.05 | −0.20 | 0.03 | −0.28 | 0.06 | 0.05 | −0.12 | −0.04 | −0.03 | −0.05 | 0.17 | 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.31 | 0.66 | - | |||
17. Social Distancing Behavior | 6.68 | 0.00 | −0.11 | 0.07 | −0.15 | 0.10 | 0.11 | −0.21 | −0.07 | −0.05 | −0.11 | 0.19 | 0.17 | 0.05 | 0.15 | 0.33 | 0.34 | - | ||
18. Indoor Mask Behavior | 4.74 | −0.05 | −0.03 | 0.28 | −0.23 | 0.18 | 0.07 | −0.12 | −0.09 | −0.23 | −0.18 | 0.11 | 0.11 | 0.47 | 0.27 | 0.50 | 0.40 | 0.42 | - | |
19. Outdoor Mask Behavior | 3.71 | 0.01 | −0.19 | 0.03 | −0.31 | 0.09 | 0.11 | −0.20 | −0.12 | −0.08 | −0.05 | 0.24 | 0.28 | 0.16 | 0.55 | 0.45 | 0.65 | 0.48 | 0.56 | - |
Indicator. | Social Distancing | Indoor Mask Use | Outdoor Mask Use | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
β | R2 | β | R2 | β | R2 | |
Covariate Indicators | ||||||
Age | −0.01 | 0.00 | −0.05 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
Race/ethnicity | −0.10 | 0.01 | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.16 ** | 0.03 |
Sex | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.33 *** | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
State Response Timing | −0.15 ** | 0.02 | −0.26 *** | 0.07 | −0.31 *** | 0.10 |
Covariate Model | 0.04 | 0.16 | 0.13 | |||
Affect and Impulsivity Indicators | ||||||
GAD-7 | 0.11 * | 0.01 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 0.11* | 0.01 |
PANAS-C Negative | 0.12 ** | 0.01 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.13 ** | 0.02 |
PANAS-C Positive | −0.17 *** | 0.03 | −0.05 | 0.00 | −0.08 | 0.01 |
Negative Urgency | −0.06 | 0.00 | −0.04 | 0.00 | −0.09 | 0.01 |
Positive Urgency | −0.04 | 0.00 | −0.16 * | 0.03 | −0.07 | 0.00 |
Sensation Seeking | −0.10 | 0.01 | −0.09 | 0.01 | −0.03 | 0.00 |
COVID-19 Indicators | ||||||
COVID News Watch | 0.19 *** | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 0.23 *** | 0.05 |
COVID News Search | 0.16 *** | 0.03 | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.25 *** | 0.06 |
Indoor Mask Norms | −0.01 | 0.00 | 0.41 *** | 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.00 |
Outdoor Mask Norms | 0.12 ** | 0.01 | 0.23 ** | 0.05 | 0.49 *** | 0.24 |
Indoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 0.29 *** | 0.08 | 0.45 *** | 0.20 | 0.38 *** | 0.14 |
Outdoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 0.31 *** | 0.10 | 0.38 *** | 0.14 | 0.61 *** | 0.37 |
Early Response M (SD) | Late Response M (SD) | |
---|---|---|
Social Distancing Behavior | 70.01 (2.34) | 6.24 (2.84) |
Indoor Mask Behavior | 4.83 (0.53) | 4.61 (0.87) |
Outdoor Mask Behavior | 40.07 (1.13) | 3.23 (1.48) |
Indoor Mask Norms | 4.25 (0.53) | 3.71 (0.87) |
Outdoor Mask Norms | 3.33 (0.91) | 2.59 (0.94) |
Indoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 4.79 (0.44) | 4.50 (0.70) |
Outdoor Mask Perceived Effectiveness | 4.54 (0.63) | 4.13 (0.78) |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gette, J.A.; Stevens, A.K.; Littlefield, A.K.; Hayes, K.L.; White, H.R.; Jackson, K.M. Individual and COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance with Mask Use and Social Distancing: The Importance of Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and State Response. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168715
Gette JA, Stevens AK, Littlefield AK, Hayes KL, White HR, Jackson KM. Individual and COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance with Mask Use and Social Distancing: The Importance of Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and State Response. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(16):8715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168715
Chicago/Turabian StyleGette, Jordan A., Angela K. Stevens, Andrew K. Littlefield, Kerri L. Hayes, Helene R. White, and Kristina M. Jackson. 2021. "Individual and COVID-19-Specific Indicators of Compliance with Mask Use and Social Distancing: The Importance of Norms, Perceived Effectiveness, and State Response" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 16: 8715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18168715