4.4 Article

Social influence matters: We follow pandemic guidelines most when our close circle does

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY
卷 112, 期 3, 页码 763-780

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12491

关键词

COVID-19 pandemic; norm change; public health behaviour; social closeness; social distancing

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust [204702]
  2. NOMIS Foundation (Grant DISE)
  3. CAP2025 (I-SITE Clermont, Clermont Auvergne Project)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Research shows that people's adherence to social distancing rules during the pandemic is influenced by their perception of how much their close social circle is distancing, rather than just believing that social distancing is the right thing to do. Additionally, individuals who feel deeply bonded with their country tend to align their behavior with their fellow citizens. Policymakers should emphasize shared values and utilize the social influence of close friends and family to achieve behavioral change during crises.
Why do we adopt new rules, such as social distancing? Although human sciences research stresses the key role of social influence in behaviour change, most COVID-19 campaigns emphasize the disease's medical threat. In a global data set (n = 6,674), we investigated how social influences predict people's adherence to distancing rules during the pandemic. Bayesian regression analyses controlling for stringency of local measures showed that people distanced most when they thought their close social circle did. Such social influence mattered more than people thinking distancing was the right thing to do. People's adherence also aligned with their fellow citizens, but only if they felt deeply bonded with their country. Self-vulnerability to the disease predicted distancing more for people with larger social circles. Collective efficacy and collectivism also significantly predicted distancing. To achieve behavioural change during crises, policymakers must emphasize shared values and harness the social influence of close friends and family.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据