**4. Discussion**

In a large sample of adults surveyed during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Italy, we found that only the fear of infection was inversely related to actions (or intentions) which violated government restrictions. Contrary to Hypotheses 1–3, self-control, SES, and the presence of health conditions were not related to infractions. Our results suggest that the fear of infection had a positive aspect: it dissuaded people from violating lockdown rules. Despite this, fear of infection only accounted for a minuscule amount of the outcome, so there are probably more important reasons and causes.

From the perspective of evolutionary theory, fear is an adaptive response by an organism to an external threat [30]. Avoidance is an aspect of fear that confers protection from pathogens, and can be triggered by cues such as sneezing and coughing [30]. However, it is argued that epidemics arose only when people started living in settlements [31], so there may not be an innate fear of pathogens in contrast to an innate fear of snakes [32]. This may explain why mass gatherings continued even though COVID-19 deaths and infections were constantly in the news [33]. The finding that the fear of infection promoted lockdown compliance may not have direct practical importance. Worldwide, levels of anxiety are already elevated [34], so inducing fear may simply increase psychological distress and mental health problems. Instilling a fear of infection is also ethically dubious and lacking in a theoretical basis. Clear communication of "hard truths" by the government without fear-mongering may win public trust in the long run [35]. From a policy perspective, it may be more realistic to legislate penalties appropriate to particular violations. For example, a comparison of German counties that both imposed and did not impose fines showed that fines were inversely associated with COVID-19 infection rates [36]. In effect, fines

may deter rule violations. As people become accustomed to living with COVID-19, fear of infection diminishes, so financial penalties may become more relevant for health behaviors.

That greater self-control was not inversely associated with infractions is surprising. Self-control is a central concept in explaining deviant behavior. Gottfredson and Hirch postulated that criminal acts are simple, easy, and provide immediate gratification [37]. This definition of criminal acts is particularly apt for the indicators *going for a walk* and *unnecessary trip to the grocery*. According to Gottfredson and Hirch, criminals (rule violators) seek pleasure and avoid pain. People with lower levels of self-control will violate a rule when the perceived benefit exceeds the perceived cost. There is substantial (but not unequivocal) evidence that greater self-control is associated with the observance of rules, superior health, and better social adjustment [16,38]. Hence, the non-significant effect of self-control on infractions demands an explanation.

We offer three possibilities. Firstly, it is possible that the risks of COVID-19 infection may have been judged too high relative to the infractions' rewards. This cognitive appraisal may have been influenced by the fear of infection. Although there have been previous virus outbreaks (i.e., H1N1), no previous outbreak in modern times has come close to the impact that COVID-19 has had. Secondly, a sense of solidarity (i.e., "we are all in this together ") may have also dampened self-seeking behaviors. When survival is threatened by a disaster, there can be a feeling of a shared humanity that transcends class distinctions [39]. In spite of the lockdown, people in Italy used digital resources to stay connected, and this promoted a greater sense of belonging [40]. Third, self-control during a pandemic may manifest itself more prominently in thoughts instead of actions. A Slovakian study reported that feelings of a lack of control significantly predicted the endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories [41].

The nonsignificant effect of SES on infractions was also surprising. Health behaviors are influenced by personal knowledge and beliefs. A US study reported that people with a high school education (vs. a higher attainment) were less likely to intend to get vaccinated, to engage in hand-washing and masking, and to support social distancing requirements [42]. It is possible that different components of SES diverge in their relation to COVID-19 beliefs and actions. For example, among university students in Jordan, those who scored lower in a knowledge test about COVID-19 were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories [42]. Surprisingly, postgraduate students, who scored higher in the knowledge test compared to undergraduates, were more likely to violate quarantine rules [43].

The present study had several limitations. As a secondary analysis, the present study inherits the online design of the original work and its limitations [3]. Notably, older people, those with less education and with a lower SES, and men were underrepresented. With a cross-sectional design, our study cannot conclude that fear of infection causes fewer infractions. Although this is our preferred interpretation, we cannot rule out the possibility that those who had higher infractions became less afraid of infection. Among our reflective variables, *self-control* did not achieve a satisfactory AVE (Table 2). For self-control to have an AVE greater than or equal to 0.5, its indicators should have a loading of at least 0.70 [25]. Model 1 shows that only two items had at least that magnitude. One possibility is that the Brief Self-Control Scale should be divided into two factors [17]. We did not do so because these factors may represent wording effects (negative vs. positively worded items) [13]. Similarly to *self-control*, *infractions* also had unsatisfactory AVE. Importantly, *health conditions* and *infractions* were self-reported. The sensitive nature of this information may have influenced the responses obtained. Bearing these limitations in mind, our results indicate that the fear of infection served a useful purpose.

#### **5. Conclusions**

A higher fear of infection, but not self-control, presence of health conditions, and SES, was inversely related to self-reported violations of lockdown rules. Health conditions were not associated with fear of infection. With the increasing availability of vaccines and lockdown fatigue, the enactment of laws and their fair and firm enforcement may be needed to contain future outbreaks.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, L.B. and M.M.; methodology, L.B.; formal analysis, L.B.; resources, M.M.; data curation, M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, L.B.; writing—review and editing, M.M.; visualization, L.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** Not applicable. This was a secondary analysis of publicly available data.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Not applicable.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data are available from Zenodo (10.5281/zenodo.5523260).

**Acknowledgments:** We are grateful to Merylin Monaro and colleagues for making the data in their paper publicly available (Reference #3). For this study, we used a subset of the variables collected in their work. We thank Sergio Venturini for guidance in using the Stata plssem package.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
