Modeling Individual Defiance of COVID-19 Pandemic Mitigation Strategies: Insights From the Expanded Model of Deterrence and Protection Motivation Theory

• Published date: 01 September 2021
• Date: 01 September 2021
• DOI: 10.1177/00938548211010315
• Subject Matter: Articles

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 2021, Vol. 48, No. 9, September 2021, 1317 –1338.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548211010315

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

© 2021 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology

1317

MODELING INDIVIDUAL DEFIANCE OF

COVID-19 PANDEMIC MITIGATION

STRATEGIES

Insights From the Expanded Model of Deterrence

and Protection Motivation Theory

GEORGE W. BURRUSS

CHAE M. JAYNES

RICHARD K. MOULE JR.

RACHEL E. FAIRCHILD

University of South Florida

The governmental responses to the COVID-19 pandemic include concerns for both public health and formal social control.

Government leaders asked the public to help mitigate the spread of the virus by adopting various protective behaviors. Our

purpose was to evaluate and explain defiance of COVID-19 mitigation strategies, drawing from the expanded model of deter-

rence and protection motivation theory. A national sample of 600 American adults were surveyed about perceptions of, and

behaviors during, the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic, including defiance of COVID-19 mitigation strategies.

Perceived severity of the disease, certainty about dying from it, and how much control one has over getting it each predicted

fear of COVID-19. Defiance of COVID-19 mitigation guidelines appear to be a combination of rational choice considerations

and emotions. Government and health officials should consider how the public evaluates messages about taking protective

actions to maximize compliance.

Keywords: COVID-19; deterrence theory; protection motivation theory; expanded model of deterrence

There is growing recognition of the nexus between public health and criminology. This

nexus includes not only intervention strategies, programming, and evaluation efforts,

but also the theories used to explain and elaborate upon risk factors and individual behav-

iors (Akers et al., 2012; D. B. Jackson & Vaughn, 2018; Welsh et al., 2014). The onset and

spread of COVID-19 across the globe highlight this nexus, spurring governments to issue a

AUTHORS’ NOTE: We thank the editor, Robert Morgan, as well as the anonymous reviewers for their feed-

back on earlier versions of the manuscript. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agen-

cies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Correspondence concerning this article should be

addressed to George W. Burruss, Department of Criminology, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler

Avenue, SOC 107, Tampa, FL 33620; e-mail: gburruss@usf.edu.

1010315CJBXXX10.1177/00938548211010315Criminal Justice and BehaviorBurruss et al. / Short Title

research-article2021

1318 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR

number of health and legal directives meant to slow the spread of the virus and reduce casu-

alties associated with it. In the United States, political leaders and health officials at all

levels of government formulated strategies to mitigate the spread of the virus, including

encouraging social distancing, mandating sheltering-in-place, and closing non-essential

businesses. As the number of confirmed cases and deaths from COVID-19 mounted in

March of 2020, countries began endorsing stronger mitigation strategies to “flatten the

curve” so hospitals and medical staff would not be overwhelmed with virus-stricken

patients.

Despite the push for mitigation strategies, the American public has exhibited varied will-

ingness to follow proposed guidelines. Protests in American cities shortly after the enact-

ment of mitigation strategies called for ending social distancing guidelines, reopening

businesses, and went so far as to call the requirement for facial coverings “tyrannical”

(Betz, 2020; Campa & Sclafani, 2020; Fisher & Browder, 2020). What influences people to

defy these directives? Consistent with the public health-criminology nexus, we draw from

two complementary bodies of theory to examine this question: a recent expansion of deter-

rence theory (Roche et al., 2020) and protection motivation theory (PMT; Rogers, 1975).

Deterrence theory holds that individuals are more likely to comply with the law and other

directives when the negative consequences of doing so are perceived as swift, certain, and

severe (Beccaria, 1764/1986). Roche et al. (2020) recently presented an expanded deter-

rence model, incorporating perceptions of control and emotionality to explain defiance of

laws (see also Bouffard, 2015; Bouffard et al., 2000). Similar to deterrence theory, PMT

holds that people evaluate their vulnerability and susceptibility to a threat—and the poten-

tial success of taking protective actions against that threat—before undertaking protective

measures (Rogers, 1975, 1983). PMT has been used to explain health-related behaviors

such as condom use (Abraham et al., 1994), smoking cessation (Maddux & Rogers, 1983),

and receiving cancer screenings (Boer & Seydel, 1996). Given the nexus between public

health and criminology, and that compliance with public health and legal directives pro-

motes public health and safety during a pandemic, understanding the factors that are associ-

ated with defiance of COVID-related public health directives is timely and necessary.

Deterrence and PMT, with their shared emphasis on perceptions of risk, severity of conse-

quences, and control over perceived threats, appear well-suited for this task.

To that end, the current study draws from the recently expanded deterrence model and

PMT to examine defiance of COVID-related directives from public health and government

officials. Using a national sample of 600 American adults and a structural equation model-

ing (SEM) strategy, the current study asks three research questions: To what degree do

Americans defy COVID-19 mitigation strategies during a pandemic? Do perceived cer-

tainty, severity, and control of consequences of COVID-19 influence defiance of mitigation

strategies? Does fear of COVID-19 consequences mediate the effect of perceived certainty,

severity, and control on defiance? By answering these questions, our goals are to assess the

generality of theory in extraordinary times and to understand defiance of directives critical

to public health and safety. We begin by providing an overview of the circumstances sur-

rounding the spread of COVID-19 and government responses to the virus.

THE SPREAD OF COVID-19 AND GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO THE VIRUS

On December 31, 2019, World Health Organization (WHO) officials in China were

alerted to cases of a pneumonia-like illness emerging out of Wuhan, Hubei Province (CDC,