Emerging attitudes of lay people towards lockdown during COVID-19 pandemic: an exploration of attitude types through Q-methodology

Main Article Content

Devasheesh Mathur

Abstract

The unprecedented coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic has forced us to live in a constrained manner. The norms of social distancing and work-from-home in conjunction with severely reduced socio-economic activities have put psychological and behavioural burdens on lay people. This study explored the emerging attitudes of lay people towards the existing situation. The Covid-19 pandemic is unprecedented in its magnitude, and most citizens are not prepared to remain in a state of lockdown for a long period of time. The ABC model evaluated the affective, behavioural and cognitive aspects of lay people’s attitudes towards lockdown. A quasi-experimental Q-sorting technique was used to explore the emerging attitudes towards the existing situation. Factor analysis along with textual analysis of submitted answers were conducted. In this study, 5 attitude types emerged based on the ABC model. The attitudes differed in terms of a person’s threat perception towards Covid-19, locus of control, practical and work-place issues, information-seeking behaviour and community-orientation. Most respondents appeared psychologically adaptive to the existing situation and maintained an optimistic outlook. However, this attitude may be their knee-jerk reaction because very little is known about the pandemic. Some people are uncertain of how to handle the situation and are becoming pessimistic by the day, while there are others who are dismissive of the situation and continued to live as before. The emerging attitude types and their components are useful indicators for national and provincial governments in their communication about the pandemic. In addition, organizations can use this information to assess their employees’ preparedness in a crisis and manage it accordingly.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Section
Original Articles
Author Biography

Devasheesh Mathur, Healthcare Management, Goa Institute of Management, India

Healthcare Management, Goa Institute of Management, India

References

1. Holmes EA, O'Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, Ballard C, Christensen H, Silver RC, Everall I, Ford T. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. The Lancet Psychiatry; 2020.
2. Raphael B. Overview of the development of psychological support in emergencies. Advances in Disaster Mental Health and Psychological Support. 2006:6.
3. Poudel K, Subedi P. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on socioeconomic and mental health aspects in Nepal. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2020;66(8):748-55.
4. Shigemura J, Ursano RJ, Morganstein JC, Kurosawa M, Benedek DM. Public responses to the novel 2019 coronavirus (2019‐nCoV) in Japan: Mental health consequences and target populations. Psychiatry Clin eurosci. 2020;74(4): 281.
5. Aledort JE, Lurie N, Wasserman J, Bozzette SA. Non-pharmaceutical public health interventions for pandemic influenza: an evaluation of the evidence base. BMC public health 2007;7(1): 1-9.
6. Taha S, Matheson K, Cronin T, Anisman H. Intolerance of uncertainty, appraisals, coping, and anxiety: The case of the 2009 H 1 N 1 pandemic. Br J Health Psychol. 2014;19(3): 592-605.
7. Taha SA, Matheson K, Anisman H. H1N1 was not all that scary: Uncertainty and stressor appraisals predict anxiety related to a coming viral threat. Stress and health 2014;30(2): 149-57.
8. Puterman E, Delongis A, Lee-Baggley D, Greenglass E. Coping and health behaviours in times of global health crises: Lessons from SARS and West Nile. Glob Public Health 2009. 1;4(1): 69-81.
9. Richardson ET, Barrie MB, Kelly JD, Dibba Y, Koedoyoma S, Farmer PE. Biosocial approaches to the 2013-2016 Ebola pandemic. Health Hum Rights. 2016;18(1): 115.
10. Raude J, Setbon M. Lay perceptions of the pandemic influenza threat. Eur J Epidemiol 2009;24(7): 339-42
11. Raude J, Deguen S, Setbon M. French public response to the pandemic threat: an exploratory study. Bull Epidemiol Hebd. 2009(15): 141-4.
12. Elledge BL, Brand M, Regens JL, Boatright DT. Implications of public understanding of avian influenza for fostering effective risk communication. Health Promot Pract. 2008 ;9: 54S-9S.
13. Teasdale E, Santer M, Geraghty AW, Little P, Yardley L. Public perceptions of non-pharmaceutical interventions for reducing transmission of respiratory infection: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies. BMC public health. 2014;14(1): 1-7.
14. Rania N., Coppola I. Psychological Impact of the Lockdown in Italy Owing to the COVID-19 Outbreak: Are There Gender Differences? Front. Psychol. 12:567470. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.567470
15. Serafini G, Parmigiani B, Amerio A, Aguglia A, Sher L, Amore M. The psychological impact of COVID-19 on the mental health in the general population. QJM-INT J MED 2020;1:113(8):531-7.
16. Mukhtar S. Psychological health during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic outbreak. Int J Soc Psychiatry 2020;66(5): 512-6.
17. Becker MH. The health belief model and personal health behavior. Health education monographs 1974;2:324-473.
18. Ajzen I, Fishbein M, Lohmann S, Albarracín D. The influence of attitudes on behavior. The handbook of attitudes 2018;10:197-255.
19. Ajzen I, Madden TJ. Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of experimental social psychology 1986;1:22(5):453-74.
20. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs: NJ 1986;1986(23-28).
21. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 1983;51(3):390.
22. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
23. Crosby RA, Kegler MC, DiClemente RJ. Understanding and applying theory in health promotion practice and research. Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research 2002;15:1-5.
24. Noar SM, Zimmerman RS. Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction?. Health Educ. Res. 20051;20(3): 275-90.
25. McLeroy KR, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health EducQ. 1988;15(4): 351-77.
26. Kumar S, Quinn SC, Kim KH, Musa D, Hilyard KM, Freimuth VS. The social ecological model as a framework for determinants of 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine uptake in the United States. Health Educ Behav. 2012;39(2) :229-43.
27. Eagly A, Chaiken S. Attitude structure. Handbook of social psychology. 1998;1:269-322.
28. de Jonge P, Ormel J, van den Brink RH, van Melle JP, Spijkerman TA, Kuijper A, van Veldhuisen DJ, van den Berg MP, Honig A, Crijns HJ, Schene AH. Symptom dimensions of depression following myocardial infarction and their relationship with somatic health status and cardiovascular prognosis. Am J Psychiatry. 2006;163(1) :138-44.
29. Gochman DS, editor. Handbook of health behavior research II: provider determinants. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013 Nov 11.
30. Petrie KJ, Weinman J, editors. Perceptions of health and illness: current research and applications; 1997.
31. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, Rubin GJ. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The lancet; 2020;14:395(10227): 912-20.
32. Chew QH, Wei KC, Vasoo S, Chua HC, Sim K. Narrative synthesis of psychological and coping responses towards emerging infectious disease outbreaks in the general population: practical considerations for the COVID-19 pandemic. Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 2020;1: 61(7).
33. Brown, S.R., Political subjectivity: Applications of Q methodology in political science. Yale University Press; 1980.
34. Watts, S. and Stenner, P., Doing Q methodological research: Theory, method & interpretation. Sage 2012.