Exploring the relationships between rule-governed behavior and adherence to guidelines aiming to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
COVID-19
Generalized pliance
Model-experiment interplay
Pliance
Rule-following
Tracking
Journal
Journal of contextual behavioral science
ISSN: 2212-1447
Titre abrégé: J Contextual Behav Sci
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 101616494
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
08
06
2021
revised:
14
04
2022
accepted:
12
06
2022
pubmed:
28
6
2022
medline:
28
6
2022
entrez:
27
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Research demonstrates that socially mediated consequences impact adherence to health mandates during pandemics. However, no published research has examined whether adherence varies based on the extent to which an individual relies on arbitrary social approval (i.e., displays generalized pliance). The present study explored the relationships between adherence to COVID-19 public health measures, two types of rule-following (pliance and tracking), and perceived peer behavior in a sample of adults (n = 288). Findings revealed that adherence was negatively correlated with generalized pliance and tracking was unrelated to adherence. Pliance did not moderate the relationship between peer adherence and individual adherence. Findings are discussed with reference to the need to develop easily adaptable and context sensitive measures of types of rule-following, in addition to a measure of social tracking.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35756099
doi: 10.1016/j.jcbs.2022.06.005
pii: S2212-1447(22)00057-6
pmc: PMC9212991
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
73-77Informations de copyright
© 2022 Association for Contextual Behavioral Science. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Given her role as an Associate Editor, Professor Louise McHugh and their role as an Editorial Board member, Stapleton A. had no involvement in the peer-review of this article and had no access to information regarding its peer-review. The other author has declared no conflicts of interest.
Références
PLoS One. 2015 Jun 01;10(6):e0128047
pubmed: 26030134
PLoS One. 2020 Jun 11;15(6):e0234393
pubmed: 32525904
Soc Sci Med. 2021 Jan;268:113370
pubmed: 32980677
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Apr;178:38-45
pubmed: 28192745
J Contextual Behav Sci. 2020 Jul;17:73-78
pubmed: 32834967
Public Health. 2020 May;182:163-169
pubmed: 32334182
JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4
pubmed: 24141714
J Exp Anal Behav. 1986 May;45(3):237-56
pubmed: 16812448
BMC Public Health. 2013 Apr 15;13:344
pubmed: 23587175
PLoS One. 2021 Mar 2;16(3):e0247454
pubmed: 33651809
Public Health. 2020 Sep;186:31-34
pubmed: 32768621
J Prim Prev. 2021 Jun;42(3):309-318
pubmed: 33932222
Behav Anal. 1998 Fall;21(2):253-79
pubmed: 22478311
Nat Hum Behav. 2020 May;4(5):451-459
pubmed: 32377018
Behav Res Methods. 2007 May;39(2):175-91
pubmed: 17695343
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Aug 11;22(8):e20634
pubmed: 32716896
J Nurs Scholarsh. 2005;37(4):343-7
pubmed: 16396407
Prev Med. 2021 Apr;145:106424
pubmed: 33440191