Publication

'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change

Prossner, A. M. B., Judge, M., Bolderdijk, J. W., Blackwood, L. & Kurz, T., Jul-2020, In : British Journal of Social Psychology. 59, 3, p. 653-662 10 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Prossner, A. M. B., Judge, M., Bolderdijk, J. W., Blackwood, L., & Kurz, T. (2020). 'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 59(3), 653-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12399

Author

Prossner, Annayah M. B. ; Judge, Madeline ; Bolderdijk, Jan Willem ; Blackwood, Leda ; Kurz, Tim. / 'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change. In: British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020 ; Vol. 59, No. 3. pp. 653-662.

Harvard

Prossner, AMB, Judge, M, Bolderdijk, JW, Blackwood, L & Kurz, T 2020, ''Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change', British Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 653-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12399

Standard

'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change. / Prossner, Annayah M. B.; Judge, Madeline; Bolderdijk, Jan Willem; Blackwood, Leda; Kurz, Tim.

In: British Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 59, No. 3, 07.2020, p. 653-662.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Prossner AMB, Judge M, Bolderdijk JW, Blackwood L, Kurz T. 'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2020 Jul;59(3):653-662. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12399


BibTeX

@article{bee5dfa6fbac41c5a032f95d309345fd,
title = "'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change",
abstract = "COVID‐19 mitigating practices such as {\textquoteleft}hand‐washing{\textquoteright}, {\textquoteleft}social distancing{\textquoteright}, or {\textquoteleft}social isolating{\textquoteright} are constructed as {\textquoteleft}moral imperatives{\textquoteright}, required to avert harm to oneself and others. Adherence to COVID‐19 mitigating practices is presently high among the general public, and stringent lockdown measures supported by legal and policy intervention have facilitated this. In the coming months, however, as rules are being relaxed and individuals become less strict, and thus, the ambiguity in policy increases, the maintenance of recommended social distancing norms will rely on more informal social interactional processes. We argue that the moralization of these practices, twinned with relaxations of policy, may likely cause interactional tension between those individuals who do vs. those who do not uphold social distancing in the coming months: that is, derogation of those who adhere strictly to COVID‐19 mitigating practices and group polarization between {\textquoteleft}distancers{\textquoteright} and {\textquoteleft}non‐distancers{\textquoteright}. In this paper, we explore how and why these processes might come to pass, their impact on an overall societal response to COVID‐19, and the need to factor such processes into decisions regarding how to lift restrictions",
keywords = "COVID-19, social distancing, social identities, shaming, behaviour change, moralization, Covidiots, NORMS, CORE",
author = "Prossner, {Annayah M. B.} and Madeline Judge and Bolderdijk, {Jan Willem} and Leda Blackwood and Tim Kurz",
year = "2020",
month = jul,
doi = "10.1111/bjso.12399",
language = "English",
volume = "59",
pages = "653--662",
journal = "British Journal of Social Psychology",
issn = "0144-6665",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - 'Distancers' and 'non-distancers'? The potential social-psychological impact of moralising Covid-19 mitigating practices on sustained behaviour change

AU - Prossner, Annayah M. B.

AU - Judge, Madeline

AU - Bolderdijk, Jan Willem

AU - Blackwood, Leda

AU - Kurz, Tim

PY - 2020/7

Y1 - 2020/7

N2 - COVID‐19 mitigating practices such as ‘hand‐washing’, ‘social distancing’, or ‘social isolating’ are constructed as ‘moral imperatives’, required to avert harm to oneself and others. Adherence to COVID‐19 mitigating practices is presently high among the general public, and stringent lockdown measures supported by legal and policy intervention have facilitated this. In the coming months, however, as rules are being relaxed and individuals become less strict, and thus, the ambiguity in policy increases, the maintenance of recommended social distancing norms will rely on more informal social interactional processes. We argue that the moralization of these practices, twinned with relaxations of policy, may likely cause interactional tension between those individuals who do vs. those who do not uphold social distancing in the coming months: that is, derogation of those who adhere strictly to COVID‐19 mitigating practices and group polarization between ‘distancers’ and ‘non‐distancers’. In this paper, we explore how and why these processes might come to pass, their impact on an overall societal response to COVID‐19, and the need to factor such processes into decisions regarding how to lift restrictions

AB - COVID‐19 mitigating practices such as ‘hand‐washing’, ‘social distancing’, or ‘social isolating’ are constructed as ‘moral imperatives’, required to avert harm to oneself and others. Adherence to COVID‐19 mitigating practices is presently high among the general public, and stringent lockdown measures supported by legal and policy intervention have facilitated this. In the coming months, however, as rules are being relaxed and individuals become less strict, and thus, the ambiguity in policy increases, the maintenance of recommended social distancing norms will rely on more informal social interactional processes. We argue that the moralization of these practices, twinned with relaxations of policy, may likely cause interactional tension between those individuals who do vs. those who do not uphold social distancing in the coming months: that is, derogation of those who adhere strictly to COVID‐19 mitigating practices and group polarization between ‘distancers’ and ‘non‐distancers’. In this paper, we explore how and why these processes might come to pass, their impact on an overall societal response to COVID‐19, and the need to factor such processes into decisions regarding how to lift restrictions

KW - COVID-19

KW - social distancing

KW - social identities

KW - shaming

KW - behaviour change

KW - moralization

KW - Covidiots

KW - NORMS

KW - CORE

U2 - 10.1111/bjso.12399

DO - 10.1111/bjso.12399

M3 - Article

VL - 59

SP - 653

EP - 662

JO - British Journal of Social Psychology

JF - British Journal of Social Psychology

SN - 0144-6665

IS - 3

ER -

ID: 128811601