Abstract
The emergence of a pandemic is usually accompanied by different measures–economic, social, preventive, and (self)protective. In the case of the COVID-19, several preventive measures were formally enforced by state authorities in the majority of countries worldwide. Thus, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the intertwining of formal and informal social control could be observed. Hence, in this study a cross-sectional design was chosen to explore the issue in Slovenia. To the best of our knowledge, this research is the first in the current literature to empirically test the general deterrence theory in pandemic circumstances (as external factors predicting individuals’ compliance with the COVID-19 preventive measures). The results suggest an important role of informal punishment, with perceived informal severity being the only statistically significant factor from the general deterrence theory. In contrast to external factors, internal factors play a significantly greater role in promoting people’s self-protective behavior in pandemic circumstances. During the unknown, the uncertain and delicate situations with which people have no previous experience, both personal beliefs about the effectiveness of measures and perceived self-efficacy are more important than fear of formal sanctions.
Highlights
Enforcing mandatory measures that restrict fundamental rights and freedoms and punishing the violators of these measures are common for countries declaring a state of emergency
At the time of our study, a high level of fear from a new and unknown disease was observed [63] along with spreading misinformation and lack of knowledge [64], which can affect the general support of COVID-19 preventive behavior [65]
Respondents evaluated recommendations on self-protection from government and healthcare experts as beneficial, good and necessary, suggesting that respondents believe that the recommended preventive behavior effectively protects against COVID-19
Summary
Enforcing mandatory measures that restrict fundamental rights and freedoms and punishing the violators of these measures are common for countries declaring a state of emergency. Such measures are especially prevalent in states enforcing a "war on crime" [1] or are faced with emergencies related to terrorist attacks [2]. States restrict certain fundamental human rights and freedoms to protect public health. An example of such restrictions can be found in British prisons, where authorities restricted certain rights to stop spreading HIV [3]. Preventive protective measures (e.g., isolation zones, mandatory use of personal protection equipment, controlling travel) accompanied the Ebola epidemic in 2014 [5]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
