Determinants of hand-washing behavior during the infectious phase of COVID-19

Hand washing is one of the most effective measures to reduce the risk of transmitting infectious diseases. However, motivation for regular hand washing during the infectious phase of the SARS-CoV-2 infection remains unclear. We examined four possible reasons for practicing regular hand washing-two involved the perceived effectiveness of this practice in reducing the risk of infection, and the other two involved other motivations. The results of our nationwide survey revealed that people conformed to other people's practice of washing hands and felt relief from their anxiety when washing their hands. The perceived effectiveness of personal risk reduction, however, showed little effect on the behavior, while motivations such as conformity and relief from anxiety successfully explained a large proportion of hand-washing behavior. Our findings suggest that policymakers responsible for public health should consider social motivations when implementing public strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Are more behavioral measures perceived as less effective against COVID-19?

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to rage worldwide, the implementation of multiple behavioral measures has become increasingly relevant (e.g., mask wearing, social distancing, and adequate room ventilation). Several studies have indicated that perceived effectiveness is a critical determinant of individuals' compliance with these protective measures. This study defines perceived effectiveness as a subjective evaluation of one's probable reduction of chances of being infected with COVID-19. Implementing a combination of behavioral measures, rather than only 1, is more effective;therefore, individuals should evaluate the effectiveness of the combination as higher than that of a single behavior. However, the "less-is-better" effect predicts that people evaluate a set of measures as less effective than the most effective one, even though the latter is included in the set. Our 4 studies (total N = 1,401) examined whether the "less-is-better" effect occurred in participants' evaluation of the effectiveness of behavioral measures against COVID-19 infection. Participants scored the effectiveness of 8 preventive measures, followed by the combination of these measures. The results consistently showed that the effectiveness of multilayered behaviors was rated lower than that of the highest-evaluated individual behavior, showing the robustness of the "less-is-better" effect in evaluating the effectiveness of behaviors for infection prevention. However, in Study 4, a brief message about the effectiveness of multiple measures slightly reduced this effect. These findings have meaningful implications for public health risk communication about perception bias as well as ways to reduce bias against protection measures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved) Impact Statement Study findings consistently showed that individuals evaluated the effectiveness of a combination of multiple behavioral measures as lower than that of a single measure perceived as the most effective, even though that measure was included in the combined behaviors. This outcome suggests that people misunderstand the implementation of multilayered preventive behaviors as less effective, despite them reducing infection risk more than a single best behavior. This misunderstanding is a barrier to controlling the spread of infection. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)

A comparison of perceived effectiveness of preventive behaviors against COVID-19 between the public and medical experts: Not so different in means, but in distributions.

This brief report documents the results of a survey that measured the public's and doctors' perceived effectiveness of preventive behaviors against COVID-19, in Japan. Medical doctors (n = 117) and the general public (n = 1086) participated in our online survey. The results of the analysis of mean scores indicate that there were only slight differences in perceived effectiveness between the two groups, while the differences in distributions were remarkable. The results of Silverman's test suggest the unimodality of doctors' responses and multimodality of the public's responses. Implications of the findings to combat the risk of infection are discussed.

Why Do Japanese People Use Masks Against COVID-19, Even Though Masks Are Unlikely to Offer Protection From Infection?

Wearing masks against 2019 coronavirus (COVID-19) is beneficial in suppressing pandemic spread, not through preventing the wearer from being infected but by preventing the wearer from infecting others. Despite not providing much protection, the custom of wearing masks has prevailed in East Asia from the early stages of the pandemic, especially in Japan, to such an extent that it caused a shortfall in supply. Why do many Japanese people wear masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, even though masks are unlikely to prevent them from getting infected? We examined six possible psychological reasons for wearing masks: three involved expectations about the risk of infection and three involved other driving psychological forces. The results of our nationwide survey revealed that people conformed to societal norms in wearing masks and felt relief from anxiety when wearing masks. However, risk reduction expectations did not affect mask usage. The social psychological motivations successfully explained much about mask usage. Our findings suggest that policymakers responsible for public health should consider social motivations when implementing public strategies to combat the COVID-19 pandemic.