Individual Attitude towards Protective Behavior during COVID-2019 Pandemic in Adult Population

Objective. Analysis of the link between intention to follow recommendations for protective behavior in the case of Covid-19 pandemic and individual attitudes toward the situation, normative beliefs and behavior of referent group, anticipated affect and perceived behavioral control. Background. In the situation of the coronavirus pandemic, which is widespread ubiquitously, people have to inevitably and quickly change their lifestyle. These changes are closely linked to economic, social and existential uncertainty. In this regard, it becomes necessary to identify the facilitating and inhibiting factors for adaptation to required forms of behavior in society (rules of social distancing and seeking medical care). Methodology. The methodological rationale for the research was a positive constructivist view of individual behavior. On the basis of the Theory of Planned Behavior the questionnaire “Protective behavior in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic” was developed. Study design. The survey method was applied through online-forms of questionnaires in Azerbaijani and Russian languages. The regression model of following the protective behavior was tested separately for each language group. Participants. The study involved 56 Russian-speaking and 68 Azerbaijani-speaking residents of Azerbaijan (social networks users). Results. The reliability of the questionnaire was tested and a regression model was created to explain protective behavior. Differences in individual attitudes and subjective norms that determine protective behavior for Russian-speaking and Azerbaijani-speaking citizens are shown. The general role of past experience (duration of adherence to the quarantine regime) in consolidating protective behavior for both groups was determined. Conclusions. Individual attitudes and normative beliefs define protective behavior in different ways among Russian-speaking and Azerbaijani-speaking citizens. An assumption has been made about the defensive nature of following the protective behavior as a decrease in anxiety in connection with future uncertainty. The results of the study reveal the peculiarity of following the protective behavior of a specific sample of respondents — people of the middle class of early adulthood, which limits the possibility of generalizing the conclusions to other age and socio-economic groups.

1. Beitson G. Ekologiya razuma. Izbrannye stat’i po antropologii, psikhiatrii i epistemologii [Steps to an Ecology of Mind: Collected Essays in Anthropology, Psychiatry, Evolution, and Epistemology]. Moscow: «Smysl», 2000. P. 480. (In Russ.).
2. Klinicheskaya psikhologiya [Clinical Psychology]. In M. Perre, U. Baumann (ed.). Saint Petersburg: Piter, 2002. 944 p. (In Russ.).
3. Tkhostov A.Sh., Rasskazova E.I. Psikhologicheskoe soderzhanie trevogi i ee profilaktika v situatsii infodemii: zashchita ot koronavirusa ili «porochnyi krug» trevogi? [Psychological Contents of Anxiety and the Prevention in an Infodemic Situation: Protection against Coronavirus or the “Vicious Circle” of Anxiety?]. Konsul’tativnaya psikhologiya i psikhoterapiya = Counseling Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2020. Vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 70—89. DOI:10.17759/cpp.2020280204 (In Russ.).
4. Erikson E. Identichnost’: yunost’ i krizis [Identity: Youth and Crisis]. Moscow: Flinta, 2006. P. 342. (In Russ.).
5. Ajzen I. Residual effects of past on future behaviour: habituation and reasoned action perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2002(b), no. 6, pp. 107—122.
6. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 1991, no. 50, pp. 179—211.
7. Albery I., Munafò M. Key concepts in health psychology. London: Sage Publication, 2008. P. 282.
8. Armitage C.J., Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: a meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001, no. 40, pp. 471—499.
9. Broadbent A. Philosophy of Epidemiology. London: Macmillan, 2013. P. 228.
10. Conner M., Armitage C. Extending the theory of planned behaviour: a review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998, no. 28, pp. 1430—1464.
11. Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior. An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 2010. P. 578.
12. Francis J.J., Eccles M.P., Johnston M., Walker A., Grimshaw J., Foy R., Kaner E.F.S., Smith L. & Bonetti D. Constructing Questionnaires Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A Manual for Health Services Researchers. University of Newcastle, 2004.
13. Hardey M. Health in Social Context. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1998. P. 180.
14. Kaiser F.G. A moral extension of the theory of planned behaviour: Norms and anticipated feelings of regret in conservationism. Personality and Individual Differences, 2006, no. 41, pp. 71—81.
15. McGuckin C., Prentice G.P., McLaughlin C.G., Harkin E. Prediction of self-monitoring compliance: Application of the theory of planned behaviour to chronic illness sufferers. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 2012. Vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 478—487. DOI:10.1080/13548506.2011.630399
16. Miller S., Yardley L. & Little P. Development of an intervention to reduce transmission of respiratory infections and pandemic flu: Measuring and predicting hand-washing intentions. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 2012. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 59—81.
17. Liao Q., Wu P., Lam W.W.T., Cowling B.J., Fielding R. Trajectories of public psycho-behavioural responses relating to influenza A(H7N9) over the winter of 2014-15 in Hong Kong. Psychology & Health, 2019. Vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 162—180. DOI:10.1080/08870446.2018.1515436
18. Pennycook G., McPhetres J., Zhang Y., Lu J.G. & Rand D.G. Fighting COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media: Experimental Evidence for a Scalable Accuracy-Nudge Intervention. Psychological Science, 2020. Vol. 31, no. 7, pp. 770—780.
19. Prati G., Pietrantoni L. & Zani B. A social‐cognitive model of pandemic influenza H1N1 risk perception and recommended behaviors in Italy. Risk Analysis: An International Journal, 2011. Vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 645—656.
20. Reid M., Sparks P., Jessop D.C. The effect of self-identity alongside perceived importance within the theory of planned behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 2018, no. 48, pp. 883—889.
21. Singer L., Erotic welfare: Sexual theory and politics in the age of epidemic. Psychology Press, 1993. P. 210.
22. Wise T., Zbozinek T.D., Michelini G. and Hagan C.C. Changes in risk perception and protective behavior during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Royal Society open science, 2020. Vol. 7, no. 9. DOI:10.1098/rsos.200742
23. World Health Organisation. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) advice for the public [Elektronnyi resurs]. URL: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/ advice-for-public (Accessed 07.04.2020).
24. Wolf E.J., Harrington K.M., Clark S.L., Miller M.W. Sample size requirements for structural equation models an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 2013. Vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 913—934. DOI:10.1177/0013164413495237
25. Zola I.K. Socio-medical inquiries: Recollections, reflections, and reconsiderations. Philadelphia. PA: Temple University Press, 1983. 349 p.