Medical mask as a means of personal and collective protection in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (cross-cultural aspects)

DOI: 10.33876/2311-0546/2020-51-3/74-91

Abstract

Using a medical mask is one of the ways to prevent the spread of respiratory infections, including COVID-19. The willingness to use the mask in different countries depends on a number of factors – epidemiological experience, cultural norms and attitudes, economic and political conditions, public awareness, etc. The purpose of this study is to analyze the first reaction of the population to prescriptions or recommendations of authorities to use medical masks as a means of personal protection during COVID-19 in different countries. We used methods of semi-structured in-depth interviews, questionnaires, photo-fixation of elements of people's behavior during the pandemic, content analysis of the media. In total, 366 questionnaires were collected (51 males and 315 females) among Russian-speaking people who were living or staying abroad at the time of the outbreak and spreading of COVID-19, as well as among Russians from different regions of Russia since March 23 to April 10, 2020. An analysis of the data showed that the willingness to use a mask depends on the country of residence of the respondent, gender, social distance and trust in the authorities. The results of the study demonstrate the effect of official decisions on the real behavior of people – the more serious are measures on the part of the government, the more responsible are people about preventive measures and the better they implement them. The results were interpreted from the point of view of “Individualism-Collectivism” dichotomous classification of cultures. These results are the first step of the study and reveal the first stage of people's response to the restrictions. Understanding of socio-cultural and ethnic circumstances of population’s perception and implementation of sanitary-hygienic prescriptions can be used in choosing the most optimal ways of warning and developing efficient methods to encourage the population to adhere to restrictions.

References 

1. Almedom, A.M. 2005. Social capital and mental health: An interdisciplinary review of primary evidence. Social science & Medicin 61: 943–964. DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.12.025
2. Anderson, R.M., H. Heesterbeek, D. Klinkenberg, and T.D. Hollingsworth. 2020. How will country-based mitigation measures influence the course of the COVID-19 epidemic? The Lancet 395(10228): 931–934. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30567-5
3. Baron-Cohen, S., and S. Wheelwright. 2004. The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism, and Normal Sex Differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 34(2): 163–175. DOI: 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00.
4.  Burkova, V.N., J.N. Fedenok, and M.L. Butovskaya. 2019. Empatija i intolerantnost' rossijskoj molodezhi v otnoshenii invalidov: polovye i lichnostnye razlichija [Empathy and intolerance of Russian youth towards people with disabilities: gender and personality differences]. Eksperimental’naya psikhologiya 12(1): 53–69. DOI:10.17759/exppsy.2019120105.
5. Burkova, V.N., M.L. Butovskaya, D.A. Dronova, and J.I. Apal'kova. 2019. Empatija, trevozhnost' i agressija u moskovskih studentov [Empathy, Anxiety, and Aggression among Moscow Students]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 5: 169–188.

1. Cava, M.A., K.E. Fay, H.J. Beanlands, E.A. McCay, and R. Wignall. 2005. Risk perception and compliance with quarantine during the SARS outbreak. J Nurs Scholarsh 37: 343–347. DOI: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2005.00059.x
2. Chirkov, V.I., R.M. Ryan, Y. Kim, and U. Kaplan. 2003. Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8(1): 97–110.
3. Fedenok, J.N., and V.N. Burkova. 2020. Social'noe distancirovanie kak al'truizm v uslovijah pandemii koronavirusa: kross-kul'turnoe issledovanie [Social distancing as altruism in the context of the coronavirus pandemic: a cross-cultural study]. Sibirskie istoricheskie issledovanija 2: 6–40.
4. Fenichel, E.P. 2013. Economic considerations for social distancing and behavioral based policies during an epidemic. Journal of Health Economics 32: 440–451. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2013.01.002
5. Hofstede, G. 1981. Culture and organizations. International Studies of Management and Organizations 10: 15–41.
6. Hofstede, G. 2014. Model' Hofstede v kontekste: parametry kolichestvennoj harakteristiki kul'tur [Model' Hofstede in context: parameters of quantity characteristics of cultures]. Jazyk, kommunikacija i social'naja sreda 12: 9–49.
7. Hofstede, G. and R. McCrae. 2004. Personality and culture revisited: Linking traits and dimensions of culture. Cross-Cultural Research 38 (1): 52–88.
8. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G.J., and Minkov, M. 2010. Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. Revised and expanded third edition. New-York: McGraw-Hill.
9. House, R. J., P.J. Hanges, M. Javidan, P.W. Dorfman, and V. Gupta. (Eds.). 2004. Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Sage publications.
10. Javidan, M. and A. Dastmalchian. 2009. Managerial implications of the GLOBE project: A study of 62 societies. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47(1): 41–58.
11. Kim, N. Ulichnye testy i SMS-rassylki: kak Juzhnaja Koreja vzjala pod kontrol' jepidemiju koronavirusa [Street tests and SMS: how South Korea has taken control of the coronavirus epidemic]. Forbes=Forbes. https://www.forbes.ru/tehnologii/395939-ulichnye-testy-i-sms-rassylki-kak-yuzhnaya-koreya-vzyala-pod-kontrol-epidemiyu (Accessed 03.2020).
12. Lebedeva, N.M., V.I. Chirkov, and A.N. 2007. Kul'tura i otnoshenie k zdorov'ju: Rossija, Kanada, Kitaj [Culture and attitude to health: Russia, Canada, China]. Moscow.
13. Lo, J.Y.C., T.H.F. Tsang, Y.-H. Leung, E.Y.H. Yeung, T. Wu, and W.W.L. Lim. 2005. Respiratory infections during SARS outbreak, Hong Kong, 2003. Emerg Infect Dis 11: 1738–41. DOI: 10.3201/eid1111.050729
14. MacIntyre, C., S. Cauchemez, D.E. Dwyer, H. Seale, P. Cheung, and G. Browne. 2009. Face Mask Use and Control of Respiratory Virus Transmission in Households. Emerg Infect Dis 15 (2): 233–241. DOI: 10.3201/eid1502.081167
15. Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. Chelovek i situacija. Uroki social'noj psihologii [Person and situation: lessons of social psychology]. Moscow: Aspekt Press.
16. Syed, Q., W. Sopwith, M. Regan, and M.A. Bellis. 2003. Behind the mask. Journey through an epidemic: some observations of contrasting public health responses to SARS. J Epi Comm Health 57: 855–856.
17. Triandis, H.C. Culture and Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
18. Van Kemenade, S. 2003. Social capital as a health determinant: how is it defined? Ottawa: Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. Working Paper 02-07. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/H13-5-02-7E.pdf
19. 24.  Vojtenko, V.P., V.A. Sokolov, and R.A. Lubskij. 2019. Kollektivizm i individualizm v Rossii kak predmet teoreticheskoj refleksii [Collectivism and individualism in Russia as a subject of theoretical reflection]. Filosofija prava 3(90): 71–77.

1. Zahn-Waxler, C., J.L. Robinson, and R.N. Emde. 1992. The Development of Empathy in Twins. Developmental Psychology 28(6): 1038–1047. DOI:10.1037/0012-1649.28.6.1038.