Search

During the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, mitigation measures compelling people to keep a safe social distance led to a massive, unprecedented behavioural change across the globe. The present study seeks to understand what variables made people comply with such mitigation measures. It systematically reviewed 45 studies with data about compliance behaviour during the first wave (found in searches from March 1st till June 30th 2020). The review shows that a combination of variables shaped compliance behaviour, including people’s fear of the virus, psychosocial factors (including impulsivity, negative emotions, self-efficacy, and social norms), institutional variables (including attitudes towards the mitigation measures, belief in conspiracy theories and knowledge of the virus), and situational variables (capacity to obey and opportunity to violate the rules). Notably, the reviewed studies did not find a significant association between law enforcement (perceived deterrence) and compliance here. The review assesses what these findings mean for behavioural theory and for policy makers seeking to mitigate pandemics like COVID-19. Also, it reflects on the limitations of the reviewed body of work and future directions for pandemic compliance research.

In the month of June, the Netherlands had continued its singular trajectory in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. After the transition from the “intelligent lockdown” into the “1.5 meter society,” the month of June heralded further relaxations of the prior mitigation measures. Building on our previous surveys during the month of May, this paper reports the findings of two additional survey waves collected in June (between 8-11 and between 22-26) among nationally representative samples (N = 1041 and N = 1033). The results show that the processes that sustained compliance during the month of May continued to be influential, especially citizens’ intrinsic motivation to comply, their capacity to do so, their impulse control, and social norms that sustained compliance. Furthermore, there were some indications that extrinsic reasons, such as the likelihood of punishment and the fairness of enforcement, may have become more influential in shaping compliance. A comparison to the findings from May revealed, however, that compliance was gradually declining in the Netherlands, as were the resources that sustain it.

After its relative lenient, “intelligent lockdown” approach to the COVID-19 coronavirus, the Netherlands has continued its singular trajectory in combating the pandemic. The month of July introduced further relaxations to prior mitigation measures, but also saw a resurgence of infections. This working paper examines how these developments are reflected in Dutch citizens’ compliance with safe-distance measures during this period. Building on our previous surveys during the months of May and June, we report the findings of two additional survey waves collected in early (7-10) and late (21-23) July among nationally representative samples (N = 1064 and N = 1023, respectively). The results show that the decline in compliance that was observed from May to June seems to have halted. At the same time, important predictors of compliance – such as citizens’ capacity to comply, perceptions of the threat of the virus, and support for mitigation measures – have ceased to decrease, or are increasing. Taken together, these findings suggest that Dutch citizens’ compliance with mitigation measures may be on the rise again. However, our findings also suggest that social norms for compliance continue to be eroding, which may continue to dampen citizens’ tendency to comply.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Dutch government has introduced an “intelligent lockdown” with stay at home and social distancing measures. The Dutch approach to mitigate the virus focuses less on repression and more on moral appeals and self-discipline. This study assessed how compliance with the measures have worked out in practice and what factors might affect whether Dutch people comply with the measures. We analyzed data from an online survey, conducted between April 7-14, among 568 participants. The overall results showed reported compliance was high. This suggests that the Dutch approach has to some extent worked as hoped in practice. Repression did not play a significant role in compliance, while intrinsic (moral and social) motivations did produce better compliance. Yet appeals on self-discipline did not work for everyone, and people with lower impulse control were more likely to violate the rules. In addition, compliance was lower for people who lacked the practical capacity to follow the measures and for those who have the opportunity to break the measures. Sustained compliance, therefore, relies on support to aid people to maintain social distancing and restrictions to reduce opportunities for unsafe gatherings. These findings suggest several important practical recommendations for combating the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has greatly influenced daily life all over the world. The present study assesses what factors influenced inhabitants of the United Kingdom to comply with lockdown and social distancing measures. It analyses data from an online survey, conducted on April 6-8, 2020, amongst a nationally representative sample of 555 participants who currently reside in the UK. The results show that compliance depended mostly on people’s capacity to comply with the rules, and the normative obligation they feel to obey the law. As such, compliance was not associated with deterrence or obedience out of fear, but rather with people’s practical abilities and intrinsic motivation to comply. The paper discusses policy implications for effective mitigation of the virus.

In the month of May, the Netherlands moved out of the “intelligent lockdown”, and into the “1.5 meter society”, which aims to mitigate the COVID-19 pandemic by means of safe-distance measures. This paper assesses how Dutch citizens have complied with these social distancing measures. It analyses data from two surveys conducted in May (between 8-14 and between 22-26) among nationally representative samples (N = 984 and N = 1021). We find that a combination of factors explains social distancing compliance. On the one hand we see that people are more likely to comply if they have an intrinsic motivation to do so, when they have the capacity to comply, when they have good impulse control, when they think compliance is normal, and when they see a general duty to obey rules generally. The paper also assesses how compliance has changed over time, assessing changes in May as well as how these are different from compliance with lockdown measures in April. During this period, there has been a gradual decline in compliance that coincides with a decline in intrinsic motivations and capacity for compliance, and there has been an increase in opportunities to violate the measures. The paper assesses what these changes may mean for current and future success of COVID-19 mitigation measures.

A crucial question in the governance of infectious disease outbreaks is how to ensure that people continue to adhere to mitigation measures for the longer duration. The present paper examines this question by means of a set of cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic, in May, June, and July of 2020. Using stratified samples that mimic the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population, it seeks to understand to what extent Americans continued to adhere to social distancing measures in the period after the first lockdown ended. Moreover, it seeks to uncover which variables sustained (or undermined) adherence across this period. For this purpose, we examined a broad range of factors, relating to people’s (1) knowledge and understanding of the mitigation measures, (2) perceptions of their costs and benefits, (3) perceptions of legitimacy and procedural justice, (4) personal factors, (5) social environment, and (6) practical circumstances. Our findings reveal that adherence was chiefly shaped by three major factors: respondents adhered more when they (a) had greater practical capacity to adhere, (b) morally agreed more with the measures, and (c) perceived the virus as a more severe health threat. Adherence was shaped to a lesser extent by impulsivity, knowledge of social distancing measures, opportunities for violating, personal costs, and descriptive social norms. The results also reveal, however, that adherence declined across this period, which was partly explained by changes in people’s moral alignment, threat perceptions, knowledge, and perceived social norms. These findings show that adherence originates from a broad range of factors that develop dynamically across time. Practically these insights help to improve pandemic governance, as well as contributing theoretically to the study of compliance and the way that rules come to shape behavior.