Abstract
Face masks have been widely employed as a personal protective measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, concerns remain that masks create a false sense of security that reduces adherence to other public health measures, including social distancing. This paper tested whether mask-wearing was negatively associated with social distancing compliance. In two studies, we combined video-observational records of public mask-wearing in two Dutch cities with a natural-experimental approach to evaluate the effect of an area-based mask mandate. We found no observational evidence of an association between mask-wearing and social distancing but found a positive link between crowding and social distancing violations. Our natural-experimental analysis showed that an area-based mask mandate did not significantly affect social distancing or crowding levels. Our results alleviate the concern that mask use reduces social distancing compliance or increases crowding levels. On the other hand, crowding reduction may be a viable strategy to mitigate social distancing violations.
Highlights
Face masks have been widely employed as a personal protective measure during the COVID-19 pandemic
The World Health Organization expressed concerns along these lines[3], which was a focal point of the arguments for and against face masks in the Dutch national context of the current study[6]. While these concerns may have played a role in delaying the adoption of personal protective measures during the COVID-19 p andemic[7], the evidence supporting the risk compensation hypothesis remains controversial, fragile, and has been met with considerable scholarly criticism during the pandemic[8]
People crowding was positively associated with social distancing violations (β = 0.18, CI 95% [0.10, 0.26], p < 0.001)
Summary
Face masks have been widely employed as a personal protective measure during the COVID-19 pandemic. There remain concerns that mask use may have unintended adverse behavioral effects, including that mask-wearing creates a false sense of security, which reduces compliance with other key mitigation measures[3,4] Often this is attributed to a risk compensation mechanism that leads individuals to behave riskier in situations they perceive as s afer[5]. The World Health Organization expressed concerns along these lines[3], which was a focal point of the arguments for and against face masks in the Dutch national context of the current study[6] While these concerns may have played a role in delaying the adoption of personal protective measures during the COVID-19 p andemic[7], the evidence supporting the risk compensation hypothesis remains controversial, fragile, and has been met with considerable scholarly criticism during the pandemic[8]. Difference-in-differences studies relying on geo-tracked mobility data found that compulsory mask policies did not affect community m obility[22] and, that such mandates lead to less stay-at-home compliance[4]
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.
