An experimental COVID‐19 messaging study in a representative sample of the Scottish population: Increasing physical distancing intentions through self‐efficacy
Objectives Self‐efficacy is important for adherence to transmission‐reducing behaviours (e.g., physical distancing) as also shown in the CHARIS project. We aimed to show that a theory‐based short message can increase physical distancing self‐efficacy and intentions to keep physical distance. Design...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | British journal of health psychology 2023-05, Vol.28 (2), p.439-450 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objectives
Self‐efficacy is important for adherence to transmission‐reducing behaviours (e.g., physical distancing) as also shown in the CHARIS project. We aimed to show that a theory‐based short message can increase physical distancing self‐efficacy and intentions to keep physical distance.
Design
Structured telephone surveys with a randomly selected nationally representative sample of adults in Scotland (N = 497).
Methods
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: message condition (short message to increase self‐efficacy via vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and emotional arousal) or control condition (no message). Followed by measures for self‐efficacy and intention for physical distancing on 4‐point scales. Adherence to physical distancing was assessed on a 5‐point frequency scale (never – always).
Results
Using mediation analyses with bootstrapping procedures, we first confirmed that self‐efficacy was associated indirectly with adherence, via higher intentions in a partial mediation (unstandardized indirect effect .21, 95% CI .18–.25). The message increased self‐efficacy; participants receiving the message reported higher self‐efficacy (M = 4.23, SD = .80) compared to participants in the control condition (M = 4.08, SD = .77; standardized regression coefficient = .19, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1359-107X 2044-8287 2044-8287 |
DOI: | 10.1111/bjhp.12632 |