ABSTRACT
Individual decision-making about social distancing, self-quarantine and self-isolation is crucial in managing the COVID-19 pandemic. In the rapidly evolving pandemic, little is known about how different government communication strategies may systematically affect people’s attitudes to staying home or going out, nor the extent to which people perceive and process the risk of different scenarios. In this study, we report results from a sample of 581 participants (residing in the United Kingdom), and we examine the degree to which participants’ attitudes regarding the permissibility of leaving one’s home are (1) sensitive to different levels of risk of viral transmission in specific scenarios, (2) sensitive to communication framings that are either imperative or that invite reasoning about scenarios, or (3) creating “loopholes” for themselves when scenarios are framed with reference to the participants themselves rather than in general terms. We find that participants’ attitudes to social distancing are sensitive to the level of risk of transmission, and that when scenarios are framed in imperative terms, rather than when their reasoning is encouraged, participants have more impermissive attitudes to going out in Minimal Risk scenarios, with a trend of decreased permissiveness more generally; for self-loopholes, more research is needed to determine if participants make exceptions for themselves. Thus, subject to the limitations of this study, during phases where it is important to promote self-isolation for all scenarios, including those perceived to be low risk, imperative communication may be best.