Search Advanced

AIMS Public Health

2022, Volume 9, Issue 3: 506-520. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022035
Previous Article Next Article
Research article Topical Sections

Protection motivation unmasked: Applying protection motivation theory to skepticism toward COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates

  • Department of Psychology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634
  • Received: 13 March 2022 Revised: 26 May 2022 Accepted: 30 May 2022 Published: 10 June 2022

  • Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.

    Citation: Robin M. Kowalski, Kenzie Hurley, Nicholas Deas, Sophie Finnell, Kelly Evans, Chelsea Robbins, Andrew Cook, Emily Radovic, Hailey Carroll, Lyndsey Brewer, Gabriela Mochizuki. Protection motivation unmasked: Applying protection motivation theory to skepticism toward COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(3): 506-520. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022035

    Related Papers:

  • Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.


    加载中


    1 It is important to note that mandate skepticism is not subsumed within the outcome expectancy component of the PMT. The extent to which we perceive that a behavior may be efficacious in warding off a health threat is not the same thing as thinking that a preventive health behavior infringes upon one's rights.

    Conflict of interest


    All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.

    [1] Center for Disease ControlGuidance for COVID-19 (2021). Available from: https://cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/communication/guidance.html
    [2] Centers for Disease ControlCovid-19 data tracker (2021). Available from: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#datatracker-home
    [3] Liu Y, Rocklöv J (2021) The reproductive number of the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2 is far higher compared to the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus. J Travel Med 28: taab124. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taab124
    [4] Boarman A Omicron in the US' dominant COVID variant for two reasons, 2021 December 28 (2021). Available from: https://vitals.sutterhealth.omg/omicron-is-the-us-dominant-covid-variant-for-two-reasons/
    [5] Ramos E Map: See how many adults in the U.S. have not been vaccinated, by state (2021). Available from: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/map-see-how-many-unvaccinated-adults-united
    [6] The White HouseNational COVID-19 Preparedness Plan (2022). Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/covidplan/#testing-masking
    [7] Associated PressThe August 2021 AP-NORC center poll (2021). Available from: https://apnorc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Afghanistan-topline.pdf
    [8] Binkley C, Fingerhut H School mask, vaccine mandates supported in US: AP-NORC poll (2021). Available from: https://apnews.com/article/lifestyle-health-education-coronavirus-pandemic-only-on-ap-0440d83602da918c571d506a3de9f44b
    [9] Floyd DL, Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (2000) A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. J Appl Soc Psychol 30: 407-429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02323.x
    [10] Rogers RW (1975) A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91: 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
    [11] Rogers RW, Prentice-Dunn S (1997) Protection motivation theory. Handbook of health and behavior research: Personal and social determinants.Plenum Press 113-132.
    [12] Shillair R (2020) Protection motivation theory. International encyclopedia of media psychology.John Wiley & Sons Limited. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119011071.iemp0188
    [13] Vance A, Siponen M, Pahnila S (2012) Motivating IS security compliance: insights from habit and protection motivation theory. Inform Manag 49: 190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2012.04.002
    [14] Ling M, Kothe EJ, Mullan BA (2019) Predicting intention to receive a seasonal influenza vaccination using Protection Motivation Theory. Soc Sci Med 233: 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.06.002
    [15] Williams NL, Nguyen THH, Del Chiappa G, et al. (2022) COVID-19 vaccine confidence and tourism at the early stage of a voluntary mass vaccination campaign: A PMT segmentation analysis. Curr Issues Tour 25: 475-489. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1963216
    [16] Hovland CI, Janis IL, Kelley HH (1953) Communication and persuasion.Yale University Press.
    [17] Prentice-Dunn S, Rogers RW (1986) Protection motivation theory and preventive health: Beyond the health belief model. Health Educ Res 1: 153-161. https://doi.org/10.1093/her/1.3.153
    [18] Maddux JE, Rogers RW (1983) Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 19: 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(83)90023-9
    [19] Kowalski RM, Black KJ (2021) Protection motivation and the COVID-19 virus. Health Commun 36: 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1847448
    [20] Rad RE, Mohseni S, Takhti HK, et al. (2021) Application of the protection motivation theory for predicting COVID-19 preventive behaviors in Hormozgan, Iran: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 21: 466. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10500-w
    [21] Jennings W, Stoker G, Bunting H, et al. (2021) Lack of trust, conspiracy beliefs, and social media use predict COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Vaccines 9: 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines9060593
    [22] Newport F The partisan gap in views of the coronavirus (2020). Available from: https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/311087/partisan-gap-views-coronavirus.aspx
    [23] Newman DA (2014) Missing data: Five practical guidelines. Organ Res Methods 17: 372-411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114548590
    [24] Becker TE (2005) Potential problems in the statistical control of variables in organizational research: A qualitative analysis with recommendations. Organ Res Methods 8: 274-289. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428105278021
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索
AIMS Public Health
3.1 4.8

Metrics

Article views(2339) PDF downloads(161) Cited by(3)

Preview PDF
Download XML
Export Citation
Article outline

Figures and Tables

Tables(9)

Other Articles By Authors

Related pages

Tools

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog