The Role of Collective Group Orientation and Social Norms on Physical Distancing Behaviors for Disease Prevention

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic information of the study sample including number (N) and percentage (%) of participants representing each category.

		N	%
Age
	18–34	2857	32.5
	34–55	2910	33.2
	55+	3011	34.3
Biological sex
	Male	4250	48.7
	Female	4469	51.3
Race
	Non-Hispanic White	5663	64.5
	Non-Hispanic Black	1341	15.3
	Hispanic/Latino/Spanish	943	10.7
	Asian	577	6.6
	American Indian or Alaska Native	121	1.4
	Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander	20	0.2
	Others	113	1.3
Education
	Less than high school	309	3.5
	High school graduate	2345	26.7
	Some college but no degree	1734	19.8
	Associate degree in college	949	10.8
	Bachelor’s degree in college	2040	23.2
	Master’s degree	1084	12.3
	Doctoral degree	135	1.5
	Professional degree	182	2.1
Income
	<30k	2531	28.8
	30k ≦ and < 60k	2436	27.8
	60k ≦ and < 90k	1605	18.3
	90k ≦	2206	25.1

Note. N = 8778.

Table 2. Correlations between variables with their means and standard deviations.

		1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1	Physical distancing	–
2	Descriptive norms	.38**	–
3	Injunctive norms	.42**	.76**	–
4	Group orientation	.31**	.15**	.18**	–
5	Outcome Expectation	.67**	.36**	.44**	.31**	–
6	Political ideology	−.12**	.01	−.04**	−.03*	−.15**	–
7	Self-efficacy	.59**	.36**	.38**	.21**	.64**	−.08**	–
8	Risk perception	.31**	.09**	.15**	.21**	.31**	−.05**	.20**	–
9	Male	−.11**	.06**	.03**	−.06**	−.04**	.12**	−.01	.00	–
10	Age	.12**	.23**	.16**	.01	.10**	.18**	.14**	.04**	.09**	–
11	Income	.01	.14**	.13**	.08**	.07**	.13**	.01	.08**	.23**	.13**	–
12	Education	.05**	.13**	.13**	.06**	.09**	.08**	.04**	.10**	.21**	.14**	.49**	–
	Min.	0	0	0	1	0	1	0	0	0	18	1	1
	Max.	100	100	100	7	100	8	100	10000	1	93	12	8
	Mean	78.83	65.46	69.18	5.44	80.62	4.69	79.75	3809. 36	–	45.52	6.20	–^a
	Standard deviation	22.02	24.98	26.85	1.04	24.73	1.97	23.60	2620. 49	-^a	17.72	3.54	–^a

Note. *p < .05, **p < .001; Sex was dichotomized (Male = 1, Female = 0); Risk perception indicates a product of perceived severity and susceptibility.

^aMeans and standard deviations were not calculated for nominal and ordinal variables.

Table 3. Regression analysis for predictors of physical distancing behavior, standardized beta coefficients, and T-statistics.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4	Model 5
Sex	−.08**(−9.97)	−.08**(−10.02)	−.08**(−9.88)	−.08**(−10.29)	−.08**(−9.87)
Age	.05**(6.62)	.06**(7.38)	.06**(6.74)	.06**(7.86)	.06**(6.77)
Income	−.03*(−2.98)	−.03*(−3.08)	−.03*(−2.91)	−.03*(−2.92)	−.03*(−2.89)
Education	−.01 (−.63)	−.00(−.46)	−.01 (−.67)	−.01 (−.67)	−.01 (−.65)
Political ideology^a	−.02*(−2.66)	−.02*(−2.78)	−.02*(−2.69)	−.02*(−2.69)	−.02*(−2.69)
Risk perception	.11**(13.82)	.10**(13.39)	.11**(13.86)	.10**(13.09)	.11**(13.84)
Self-efficacy	.24**(24.48)	.23**(23.87)	.24**(24.48)	.23**(23.96)	.24**(24.40)
Race
Non-Hispanic White	−.05 (−1.66)	−.05 (−1.67)	−.04 (−1.57)	−.05 (−1.68)	−.05 (−1.61)
Non-Hispanic Black	.02 (.99)	.02 (.99)	.02 (1.08)	.02 (1.01)	.02 (1.05)
Asian	.02 (1.44)	.02 (1.45)	.02 (1.50)	.02 (1.51)	.02 (1.49)
Hispanic	.01 (.48)	.01 (.51)	.01 (.56)	.01 (.47)	.01 (.51)
Others	−.01 (−.91)	−.01 (−.90)	−.01 (−.97)	−.01 (−.73)	−.01 (−.94)
Descriptive norms	.10**(8.81)	.09**(8.22)	.10**(8.65)	.10**(9.16)	.10**(8.96)
Injunctive norms	.04**(2.99)	.05**(3.64)	.04*(2.09)	.02 (1.86)	.03*(2.77)
Group orientation	.09**(11.31)	.09**(11.34)	.08**(10.74)	.09**(11.41)	.08**(10.58)
Outcome expectation	.39**(38.01)	.36**(32.95)	.39**(37.45)	.34**(30.91)	.39**(37.33)
Descriptive norms x Injunctive norms		.02(2.07)
Descriptive norms x Outcome expectation		−.09**(−10.00)
Descriptive norms x Group orientation			−.03**(−4.35)
Injunctive norms x Outcome expectation				−.12**(−13.28)
Injunctive norms x Group orientation					−.04**(−4.81)
R^2	.544	.550	.545	.553	.545
F	649.56**	590.54**	613.72**	.634.04**	614.27**

Note. Standardized beta coefficients are reported here; t statistics in parentheses; *p < .05, **p < .001; Sex was dichotomized (Male = 1, Female = 0); Risk perception indicates a product of perceived severity and susceptibility; Race variables were dummy coded; All VIFs were less than 3 except for the dummy coded variables related to race.

^aA greater political ideology score indicates that one is more politically conservative.

Figure 1. Interaction effects of descriptive norms and outcome expectations on physical distancing behaviors.

A line graph illustrating the interaction between descriptive norms and outcome expectations on physical distancing behaviors. The x-axis represents descriptive norms, while the y-axis represents the level of physical distancing behaviors. There are three lines, each corresponding to different percentiles of outcome expectations—16th, 50th, and 84th, with outcome expectation values of 58.67, 90.33, and 100.00 respectively. The lines indicate that as descriptive norms increase, physical distancing behaviors also increase. However, the slope is steeper for lower percentiles of outcome expectation, indicating a stronger combined effect of descriptive norms and outcome expectations on physical distancing behaviors at lower levels of outcome expectations.

Note. Outcome expectations values in the tables are 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

Figure 2. Interaction effects of injunctive norms and outcome expectations on physical distancing behaviors.

A line graph illustrating the interaction between injunctive norms and outcome expectations in influencing physical distancing behaviors. The x-axis represents injunctive norms with a range from 40 to 100, and the y-axis shows the level of physical distancing behaviors from 65 to 90. There are three lines representing different levels of outcome expectations based on the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles, with values of 58.67, 90.33, and 100.00, respectively. The graph shows a positive correlation where higher levels of injunctive norms correspond to increased physical distancing behaviors across all levels of outcome expectations. However, the slope is steeper for lower percentiles of outcome expectation, indicating a stronger combined effect of injunctive norms and outcome expectations on physical distancing behaviors at lower levels of outcome expectations.

Note. Outcome expectations values in the tables are 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

Figure 3. Interaction effects of descriptive norms and group orientation on physical distancing behaviors..

A line graph depicting the impact of descriptive norms and group orientation on the practice of physical distancing behaviors. The x-axis shows the range of descriptive norms, and the y-axis indicates the level of physical distancing behaviors. There are three lines corresponding to the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentile values for group orientation at 4.40, 5.60, and 6.40, respectively. As the descriptive norms increase, the graph shows an upward trend in physical distancing behaviors. In this graph, the slope is steeper for lower percentiles of group orientation, indicating a stronger combined effect of descriptive norms and group orientation on physical distancing behaviors at lower levels of group orientation.

Note. Group orientation values in the tables are 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.

Figure 4. Interaction effects of injunctive norms and group orientation on physical distancing behaviors.

A line graph depicting the interaction between injunctive norms and group orientation on the practice of physical distancing behaviors. The x-axis shows injunctive norms ranging from 40 to 100, while the y-axis measures physical distancing behaviors with a scale from 70 to 84. Three lines represent varying levels of group orientation at the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles, corresponding to values of 4.40, 5.60, and 6.40, respectively. In this graph, the slope is steeper for lower percentiles of group orientation, indicating a stronger combined effect of injunctive norms and group orientation on physical distancing behaviors at lower levels of group orientation.

Note. Group orientation values in the tables are 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles.