Table 6.
Coeff. | Std error | P value | 95% CI | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Constant | 0.26 | 0.31 | 0.39 | − 0.35 | 0.88 |
Knowledge about COVID-19 | − 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.10 | − 0.23 | 0.02 |
Deterrence (perceived chance of police intervention in the event of non-compliance)a | − 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.76 | − 0.11 | 0.08 |
Perceived legal legitimacya | − 0.17 | 0.07 | 0.01 | − 0.31 | − 0.03 |
Perceived police legitimacya | 0.16 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.04 | 0.31 |
Social norms regarding social distancinga | − 0.47 | 0.07 | <0.001 | − 0.61 | − 0.33 |
Expressive function of the lawa | − 0.22 | 0.05 | <0.001 | − 0.31 | − 0.13 |
Functional worry about catching COVID-19 | − 0.40 | 0.12 | <0.001 | − 0.64 | − 0.16 |
Dysfunctional worry about catching COVID-19 | − 0.13 | 0.10 | 0.18 | − 0.32 | 0.06 |
Age gender interaction: 16–24 femaleb | − 0.42 | 0.17 | 0.02 | − 0.76 | − 0.08 |
25–44 maleb | − 0.23 | 0.14 | 0.11 | − 0.52 | 0.054 |
25–44 femaleb | − 0.48 | 0.14 | <0.001 | − 0.75 | − 0.21 |
45–64 maleb | − 0.38 | 0.19 | 0.05 | − 0.76 | − 0.01 |
45–64 femaleb | − 0.98 | 0.21 | <0.001 | − 1.40 | − 0.56 |
65 + maleb | − 0.91 | 0.70 | 0.19 | − 2.29 | 0.47 |
65 + femaleb | − 0.99 | 0.67 | 0.14 | − 2.30 | 0.32 |
City: Cardiffc | − 0.11 | 0.22 | 0.64 | − 0.55 | 0.33 |
Edinburghc | − 0.28 | 0.21 | 0.18 | − 0.70 | 0.13 |
Glasgowc | − 0.11 | 0.21 | 0.59 | − 0.51 | 0.29 |
Leedsc | − 0.09 | 0.20 | 0.67 | − 0.31 | 0.48 |
Liverpoolc | − 0.05 | 0.21 | 0.82 | − 0.46 | 0.36 |
Londonc | 0.23 | 0.16 | 0.14 | − 0.08 | 0.53 |
Manchesterc | − 0.03 | 0.20 | 0.87 | − 0.42 | 0.36 |
Newcastlec | − 0.30 | 0.23 | 0.19 | − 0.75 | 0.14 |
Sheffieldc | − 0.24 | 0.23 | 0.30 | − 0.69 | 0.21 |
None of thesec | 0.04 | 0.22 | 0.84 | − 0.38 | 0.47 |
Poisson regression model estimated using Stata 15. Source: Wave 3 of Policing the pandemic. Total n = 1015
OR odds ratio, CI confidence intervals
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
aComponent scores saved from principal components analysis
b Reference category: 16–24 male
cReference category: Birmingham