Descriptive statistics
Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for our sample, whose ages ranged from 19 to 85 (M = 45.95, SD = 15.41).
Table 1 Sample characteristics for age, gender, ethnicity, and occupational class Perceptions of risk
A paired t-test showed a significant difference of 4.68% on average between perceived extrinsic mortality risk scores that took the effects of the pandemic into consideration (M = 32.73) and those that estimated the level of perceived risk that would have been experienced without the effects of the pandemic (M = 28.06, t(495) = 8.60, p < .001) (see supplement, Tables S1–2, for descriptive and correlational statistics for all measures of perceived COVID-19 related risk). Overall, 54% of our sample reported a difference in perceived extrinsic mortality risk when taking the effects of the pandemic into account. For one third of our sample, there was no difference in perceived risk when taking the effects of the pandemic into consideration compared with not doing so. Just over a third reported an increase of between 1 and 10%, one fifth reported an increase of over 20%, and the remainder of the sample reported a reduction in perceived risk when taking the effects of the pandemic into consideration (see supplement, Table S3).
Participants felt more able to control whether they would contract COVID-19 themselves (M = 74.12%) than whether they would spread the infection to others in the event that they became infected (M = 63.44%, t(495) = 7.05, p < .001).
We predicted that perceived extrinsic mortality risk, accounting for the pandemic, would be affected by a combination of perceived risk of infection and perceived threat to life. Perceived threat to life was predictive of the difference between perceived extrinsic mortality risk scores that took the outbreak of COVID-19 into consideration and scores that did not; b = .07, (95% CI = .02, .13), p < .01. However, perceived risk of infection was not predictive of this difference (see supplement, Table S4).
With respect to our demographic predictors of COVID-19 related risk perceptions (see supplement, Tables S5–11), age was found to predict higher levels of perceived threat to life (Table S6). Being male predicted lower levels of perceived threat to life (Table S6), as well as higher levels of perceived extrinsic mortality (when considered separate to the effects of the pandemic (Table S8). Being male also predicted being less concerned about spreading the virus to others in the event of personal infection (Table S10). Simplified NS-SEC was not associated with any of our measures of risk perception (Tables S5–11). Significant demographic predictors were included as control variables in all subsequent regression models pertaining to perceptions of risk.
General health behaviour during the pandemic
Greater perceived extrinsic mortality risk when taking the pandemic into account was associated with lower adherence to dietary advice (β = −.29, s.e. = .08, OR = 0.75, 95% CIs = 0.63, 0.88; see Fig. 1). Controlling for the known effect of gender (β = 0.40, s.e. = 0.16, OR = 1.49, 95% CIs = 1.09, 2.05), perceived extrinsic mortality risk was also associated with lower reported adherence to physical activity guidelines (β = −.32, s.e. = .09, OR = 0.72, 95% CIs = 0.61, 0.86; see Fig. 2), and with greater reported frequency of smoking (β = −0.30, s.e. = 0.11, OR = 0.74, 95% CIs = 0. 59, 0.93; see Fig. 3), even when controlling for the effect of socioeconomic status (NS-SEC, β = − 0.26, s.e. = 0.12, OR = 0.77, 95% CIs = 0.60, 0.98).
Perceived threat to life was also associated with lower adherence to physical activity guidelines (β = −.18, s.e. = .09, OR = 0.83, 95% CIs = 0.70, 1.00).
For an overview of the frequencies for the different reported levels of compliance with the UK Government’s recommendations regarding diet, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and smoking during the outbreak of COVID-19, see the supplement (Fig. S1 and Table S12).
Adherence to preventative measures
The median reported adherence to government measures designed to prevent the spread of COVID-19 infection was “almost always”, with the exception of avoiding touching one’s eyes, nose, or mouth with unclean hands, which, on average, participants only reported adhering to “most of the time” (see supplement, Fig. S2). 74.4% of our sample reported always adhering to advice not to meet others outside of the home. Similarly, 65.12% reported always adhering to advice to stay at home. However, only 23.59% reported always adhering to advice to not touch one’s face with unclean hands (see supplement, Table S13).
Our demographic predictors did not predict adherence to COVID-19 advice to stay at home, stay 2 m from others when out of the home, or avoid meeting others. However, being male was predictive of lower levels of adherence to preventative hygiene measures: handwashing (β = −.69, s.e. = .19, OR = 0.50, 95% CIs = 0.34, 0.73), covering one’s mouth when coughing (β = −.60, s.e. = .20, OR = 0.55, 95% CIs = 0.37, 0.81) and not touching one’s face with unclean hands (β = −.89, s.e. = .19, OR = 0.41, 95% CIs = 0.28, 0.59).
Perceived threat to life was positively associated with adherence to five out of six preventative measures (the exception being not meeting others outside of the home) and concern about spreading infection to others was associated with four out of six preventative measures (the exceptions being keeping a 2 m distance from others and not touching one’s face; see Table 2).
Table 2 Results from ordinal logistic regression analyses showing predictors of adherence to infection prevention measures