4.4 Article

Protection motivation theory and social distancing behaviour in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic

Journal

PSYCHOLOGY HEALTH & MEDICINE
Volume 20, Issue 7, Pages 832-837

Publisher

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/13548506.2015.1028946

Keywords

infectious disease; social distancing; protection motivation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Epidemics of respiratory infectious disease remain one of the most serious health risks facing the population. Non-pharmaceutical interventions (e.g. hand-washing or wearing face masks) can have a significant impact on the course of an infectious disease epidemic. The current study investigated whether protection motivation theory (PMT) is a useful framework for understanding social distancing behaviour (i.e. the tendency to reduce social contacts) in response to a simulated infectious disease epidemic. There were 230 participants (109 males, 121 females, mean age 32.4years) from the general population who completed self-report measures assessing the components of PMT. In addition, participants completed a computer game which simulated an infectious disease epidemic in order to provide a measure of social distancing behaviour. The regression analyses revealed that none of the PMT variables were significant predictors of social distancing behaviour during the simulation task. However, fear (beta=.218, p<.001), response efficacy (beta=.175, p<.01) and self-efficacy (beta=.251, p<.001) were all significant predictors of intention to engage in social distancing behaviour. Overall, the PMT variables (and demographic factors) explain 21.2% of the variance in intention. The findings demonstrated that PMT was a useful framework for understanding intention to engage in social distancing behaviour, but not actual behaviour during the simulated epidemic. These findings may reflect an intention-behaviour gap in relation to social distancing behaviour.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available