Abstract
Proscriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should not do) have been found in research to elicit greater perceptions of a threat to freedom, and greater reactance (anger, irritation and annoyance), than prescriptive injunctions (i.e., telling people what they should do), across several health and social behaviours. The current research investigated the effects of Injunction Type (proscriptive vs. prescriptive) and perceived legitimacy of the injunction, on intentions to comply with UK government behavioural guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic, and on reactance. In two online experimental studies (Study 1: N = 142; Study 2: N = 307), UK participants were presented with information about UK government COVID-19 guidelines that included either a proscriptive injunction or prescriptive injunction and reported their perceptions of the legitimacy of the injunction, their intentions to comply with government guidelines, a nd their reactance. In both Study 1 and Study 2, the effect of Injunction Type on intentions to comply and reactance was moderated by perceived legitimacy. In both studies, when perceived legitimacy was low, participants exposed to the proscriptive injunction indicated lower intentions to comply with UK government COVID 19 guidelines than did participants exposed to the prescriptive injunction, The findings imply that using a prescriptive injunction frame can elicit greater intentions to comply than using a proscriptive injunction frame when people perceive the injunction to be unreasonable. The results are discussed in relation to the role of legitimacy in determining the effectiveness of different types of injunctions on compliance with rules and guidelines.
This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
