Abstract
Social distancing is a central public health measure in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, but individuals’ compliance cannot be taken for granted. We use a survey experiment to examine the prevalence of non-compliance with social distancing in nine countries and test pre-registered hypotheses about individual-level characteristics associated with less social distancing. Leveraging a list experiment to control for social desirability bias, we find large cross-national variation in adherence to social distancing guidelines. Compliance varies systematically with COVID-19 fatalities and the strictness of lockdown measures. We also find substantial heterogeneity in the role of individual-level predictors. While there is an ideological gap in social distancing in the US and New Zealand, this is not the case in European countries. Taken together, our results suggest caution when trying to model pandemic health policies on other countries’ experiences. Behavioral interventions targeted towards specific demographics that work in one context might fail in another.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Becher acknowledges IAST funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d'Avenir) program, grant ANR-17-EURE-0010. Brouard acknowledges the financial support from ANR - REPEAT grant (Special COVID-19), CNRS, Fondation de l'innovation politique, regions Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie. Stegmueller's research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2066657).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Review Board for Ethical Standards in Research at the Toulouse School of Economics and the Institute for Advanced Study approved the study (ref.code 2020-04-001).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
† For comments and suggestions, we are grateful to participants in (virtual) seminars at IAST, Berlin Social Science Center (WZB), and IE University. Stefan Preuß provided excellent research assistance. Becher acknowledges IAST funding from the French National Research Agency (ANR) under the Investments for the Future (Investissements d’Avenir) program, grant ANR-17-EURE-0010. Brouard acknowledges the financial support from ANR – REPEAT grant (Special COVID-19), CNRS, Fondation de l’innovation politique, regions Nouvelle-Aquitaine and Occitanie. Stegmueller’s research was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2017S1A3A2066657). The anonymous pre-analysis plan of the survey experiment is available at http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=hv7yv2
1 The list experimental approach has become very popular recently, and has been employed across disciplines, from studying substance abuse, HIV risk behavior, employee theft, to brand preferences (see Blair and Imai 2012 for a list of applications). In political science it has been used, among others, to study turnout, racial prejudice, or support for abortion (Kuklinski et al. 1997; Holbrook and Krosnick 2010; Rosenfeld et al. 2016). With respect to compliance with social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, country studies have tackled the problem of survey response bias using either “face-saving” strategies that allow respondents to rationalize non-compliant behavior (Daoust et al. 2020) or single-country list experiments (Larsen et al. 2020; Munzert and Selb 2020). Results of existing studies are incongruent (finding varying degrees of non-compliance using different measurement tools) and call for a comparative study using a unified design.
2 While reporting standards vary across countries, these data have been widely reported in the media and thus shaped the public salience of the pandemic and its associated risks.
3 OA Table A.1 shows country values of both the macro variables.
4 The anonymous pre-analysis plan is available at http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=hv7yv2
5 While we cannot address this possibility with our data, one hypothesis for future research is once the social equilibrium is to take social distancing less seriously, gender roles (e.g., taking care of dependents) may entail less social distancing for women than men.
6 The data were collected for the collaborative project “Citizens’ Attitudes Under COVID-19 Pandemic” by the following research team: Sylvain Brouard (Sciences Po, CEVIPOF & LIEPP), Michael Becher (IAST-Université Toulouse Capitole 1), Martial Foucault (Sciences Po-CEVIPOF), Pavlos Vasilopoulos (University of York), Vincenzo Galasso (Bocconi University), Christoph Hönnige (University of Hanover), Eric Kerrouche (Sciences Po-CEVIPOF), Vincent Pons (Harvard Business School), Hanspeter Kriesi (EUI), Richard Nadeau (University of Montreal), Dominique Reynié (Sciences Po-CEVIPOF), Daniel Stegmueller (Duke University).
1 Results have been replicated with these cases included as well.
2 French, German, Italian and Swedish language versions of these item lists are available upon request.
3 Note that the Blair Imai test already Bonferroni-adjusts p values for multiple testing within countries (Blair and Imai 2012: 64).
4 The distance used in this item corresponds to the health guidelines of each country at the time: 6 feet in New Zealand, UK, US; 3 feet in Australia, 1m in Austria, France, Italy; 2m in Germany; 1.5m in Sweden.
5 The sign of the latent variable is not identified (Anderson and Rubin 1956). In our application this is of no concern since its orientation (“less” inclined to follow health guidance) is easily established from the pattern of loadings.
6 The model is estimated using Gibbs sampling using latent data augmentation for the dichotomous variables. We specify normal priors for all λ and τ with mean 0 and prior variance 10. Random effect variance terms are given inverse Gamma priors with shape and scale set to 0.001. The prior for covariance matrix of the two factor variances η and ω is inverse Wishart with V = diag(1) and degrees of freedom set to v = dim(V) + 1 = 3.
Data Availability
Survey data and code files will be deposited on Harvard Dataverse upon publication.
