Abstract
Background Governments have implemented a range of measure to tackle COVID-19, primarily focusing on changing citizens’ behaviours in order to lower transmission of the virus. Some policymakers have expressed concern that citizens would not maintain high levels of compliance with these behaviours over the pandemic and would instead exhibit so-called “behavioural fatigue”. While the concept has been criticized, there have been few tests of behavioural fatigue using data from the COVID-19 pandemic, and none that have tracked individuals’ compliance trajectories.
Methods We used longitudinal data on self-reported compliance from 50,851 adults in the COVID-19 Social Study collected across two waves of the pandemic in the UK (01 April 2020 – 22 February 2021). We modelled typical compliance trajectories using latent growth curve analysis (LGCA) and tested for behavioural fatigue by attempting to identify a set of participants whose compliance decreased substantially over the study period.
Results We selected a four-class LGCA solution. Most individuals maintained high levels of compliance over the pandemic and reported similar levels of compliance across the first and second waves. Approximately one in seven participants had decreasing levels of compliance across the pandemic, reporting noticeably lower levels of compliance in the second wave, a pattern compatible with behavioural fatigue. Individuals with declining compliance levels differed from those with consistently high compliance on multiple characteristics, including (young) age, better physical health, lower empathy and conscientiousness and greater general willingness to take risks.
Conclusion While a minority, not all individuals have maintained high compliance across the pandemic. Decreasing compliance is related to several psychological traits. The results suggest that targeting of behaviour change messages later in the pandemic may be needed to increase compliance.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This Covid-19 Social Study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation [WEL/FR-000022583], but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily the Foundation. The study was also supported by the MARCH Mental Health Network funded by the Cross-Disciplinary Mental Health Network Plus initiative supported by UK Research and Innovation [ES/S002588/1], and by the Wellcome Trust [221400/Z/20/Z]. DF was funded by the Wellcome Trust [205407/Z/16/Z]. The study was also supported by HealthWise Wales, the Health and Car Research Wales initiative, which is led by Cardiff University in collaboration with SAIL, Swansea University. The funders had no final role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the paper for publication. All researchers listed as authors are independent from the funders and all final decisions about the research were taken by the investigators and were unrestricted.
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 study was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee [12467/005] and all participants gave informed consent.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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
Correction: Due to an inconsistency between the data and the codebook, in an earlier version of this manuscript (posted April 15, 2021), the locus of control variable was incorrectly reverse coded. Results now correctly refer to the locus of control variable as increasing in external locus of control.
Due to an inconsistency between the data and the codebook, in an earlier version of this manuscript (posted April 15, 2021), the locus of control variable was incorrectly reverse coded. Results now correctly refer to the locus of control variable as increasing in external locus of control.
Data Availability
Data used in this study will be made publicly available once the pandemic is over. The code used to run the analysis is available at https://osf.io/hmn9s/.
