Mental Imagery to Increase Face Covering Use in UK-based Public Places During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background The 2020 Covid-19 pandemic has required wide-ranging efforts to minimize the spread of the virus and to protect those most vulnerable to becoming unwell as a result of viral infection. These measures include social distancing, regular hand washing and wearing face coverings in public places where an individual is, inevitably, in closer proximity to non-household others than when not in a public place.

The evidence base for using face coverings in the context of the Covid-19 virus has been mixed and is applied in different ways in different countries. However, there is scientific consensus has been that wearing a face covering is likely to decrease viral transmissibility and, relatedly, substantially reduce the death toll and economic impact of the pandemic. The scientific evidence suggests that face coverings primarily offer protection to other people from the person wearing the face covering (who may, knowingly or not, been infected with the virus) rather than offering the person wearing the face covering personal protection themselves. In the UK, the most recent government advice (at time of writing, published on 7th August 2020) supports the use of face coverings.

Previous studies have suggested that varied demographic and belief-based factors (including perceived benefits) may influence variation in individuals' willingness to wear a face covering in the context of a viral epidemic/pandemic past and present. The Covid-19 pandemic is particular in the sense that the risk of viral infection is understood to be greatest to individuals other than the wearer of the face covering and, for this reason, psychological theories concerned with risk susceptibility/vulnerability (e.g. Protection Motivation Theory; Health Belief Model) may have less predictive utility in the context of the 2020 pandemic. However, other social-cognitive psychological theory may offer valuable insights into factors linked to face covering adherence. For example, variation in face covering wearing adherence would be predicted by traditional behavioural science theory as closely linked to a range of key beliefs about the target behaviour. Relevant belief-related factors include attitudes towards face covering (i.e. whether an individual holds (un)favourable beliefs about face covering are held), subjective norms towards face covering (e.g. whether an individual believes that important others such as friends and family hold (un)favourable beliefs about face covering), and perceived behavioural control towards face covering (i.e. the extent to which an individual believes they possess control over deciding to wear a face covering). Whether an individual believes they possess a high level of skill in using face coverings in required situations (i.e. public places/spaces) would also be theorized to predict face covering behaviour.

A further consideration linked to individual adherence to face covering requirements is what 'type' of person that individual is in terms of various relevant personality traits. For example, a relatively conscientious person might be expected to be more likely to routinely wear a face covering to protect individuals in close proximity from the risk of viral infection. Similarly, face covering adherence might be more likely among individuals whose personalities are characterised by humanistic, beneficent orientations towards other people. By contrast, an individual who self-reports high levels of narcissism, may be less likely to wear a face covering given that wearing a face covering might clash with their relatively vain/egotistical self-image.

In summary, this study aims to determine if different types of mental imagery intervention impact on face covering intentions and face covering adherence at a follow-up time point. The second study aim is to explore, through exploratory analyses, whether individual differences in light triad traits, conscientiousness, and narcissism will influence the impact of imagery interventions. Thirdly, the moderating role of social-cognitive variables of intervention effects will be explored. Fourthly, variation in 'imagery ability' (how capable individuals are at visualizing future actions) will be examined as a mediator of potential intervention effects.