Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid)

1. Abstract

The Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale is a concise, psychometrically validated self-report instrument designed to quantify an individual’s conscious motivation and subjective probability of enacting non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) during the COVID-19 public health crisis. Originally operationalized by Heather Shoenberger, Eunjin (Anna) Kim, and Yeuseung Sun (2021) in their investigation of public health messaging, brand authenticity, and psychological reactance published in the Journal of Advertising, the instrument evaluates five core preventive behaviors mandated or advised by global health authorities. These behaviors include practicing physical distancing, frequent hand hygiene, public face mask adoption, residential sheltering, and the avoidance of communal or social gatherings.

Comprising five items administered on an authentic 7-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), the scale models behavioral intention as a unidimensional latent construct grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior and Protection Motivation Theory. Psychometric evaluations across diverse experimental and survey cohorts demonstrate exceptional internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients routinely ranging from .88 to .92, alongside robust convergent, discriminant, and predictive validities. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations confirm an invariant, single-factor structural framework characterized by high standardized factor loadings ($lambda > .75$) and favorable goodness-of-fit indices. Because behavioral intentions represent the most proximate cognitive precursor to actual behavioral execution, this instrument serves as a critical diagnostic metric across behavioral medicine, health communication, social psychology, and consumer research investigating adherence to epidemic mitigation protocols.

2. Keywords

Protective Behavior Intentions, COVID-19, Non-Pharmaceutical Interventions, Health Communication, Theory of Planned Behavior, Psychological Reactance, Disease Prevention, Public Health Adherence, Health Belief Model, Behavioral Medicine

3. Authors

The scale was developed and empirically validated by a team of scholars specializing in strategic communication, consumer psychology, and health-related advertising:

• Heather Shoenberger, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Advertising, Donald P. Bellisario College of Communications, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. Her research focuses on consumer responses to strategic messaging, data privacy, and health-related decision-making.
• Eunjin (Anna) Kim, Ph.D. — Associate Professor of Advertising, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Southern California (and formerly at the University of Central Florida), USA. Her scholarship examines narrative persuasion, health communication campaigns, and consumer information processing.
• Yeuseung Sun, Ph.D. — Researcher and Communications Scholar specializing in consumer psychology, strategic corporate communications, and digital advertising effectiveness during crises.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale is to systematically assess the strength of an individual’s explicit cognitive commitment to engaging in recommended epidemiological safeguards. During major viral outbreaks, non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) constitute the first line of societal defense prior to or in conjunction with widespread immunization programs. However, the efficacy of NPIs hinges fundamentally on human behavioral compliance. Shoenberger, Kim, and Sun (2021) developed this metric to discern how varying communicative strategies—such as brand messaging tone, perceived commercial authenticity, and public service appeals—directly foster or suppress individuals’ motivations to engage in disease containment protocols.

From an applied research perspective, the scale functions as a sensitive outcome variable in randomized controlled experiments and longitudinal field surveys. In health communications, it allows public health agencies and institutional researchers to benchmark message framing strategies (e.g., gain-framed vs. loss-framed appeals, collective vs. individualistic messaging) and identify which informational interventions successfully overcome cognitive biases and message fatigue. Within consumer psychology and marketing, the instrument evaluates how public displays of corporate social responsibility (CSR) during crisis periods influence societal well-being and whether commercial health appeals inadvertently stimulate psychological reactance.

From a behavioral medicine and epidemiological standpoint, identifying populations reporting low protective behavior intentions allows public health officials to deploy targeted interventions prior to observed outbreaks. Because the scale isolates five distinct, actionable behaviors—spatial distancing, hygiene, mask usage, staying home, and gathering avoidance—it provides diagnostic clarity regarding whether public resistance is uniform across all mitigation practices or localized to specific measures that require greater cognitive, social, or physical disruption.

5. Psychological Construct

The latent construct captured by this instrument is Protective Behavioral Intention within the context of a respiratory pandemic. In classic social-cognitive psychometrics, an intention reflects an agent’s self-instruction or conscious determination to perform a specified behavior, representing how hard people are willing to try and how much of an effort they plan to exert to perform the target act (Ajzen, 1991). In the context of COVID-19, protective behavioral intentions encompass proactive self-regulation directed at mitigating personal viral acquisition while simultaneously upholding social responsibility to suppress broader community transmission.

The construct operationalized by Shoenberger et al. (2021) encapsulates five complementary behavioral facets of non-pharmaceutical mitigation:

• Spatial Interpersonal Distancing: The deliberate preservation of physical separation (typically at least 6 feet or 2 meters) from non-household members in shared spaces (Item 1). This dimension requires spatial awareness and navigational adjustments in commercial and public environments.
• Personal Antisepsis and Hygiene: The habitual maintenance of hand hygiene through regular washing with soap and water or ethanol-based disinfectants (Item 2). This behavior targets fomite-mediated and hand-to-mucosa cross-contamination pathways.
• Source Control and Respiratory Barrier Adoption: The consistent wearing of protective facial coverings or surgical/particulate masks when traversing public or semi-public venues (Item 3). This behavior carries both self-protective and altruistic source-control benefits.
• Residential Sheltering and Mobility Reduction: The conscious minimization of external transit, curtailing elective outings to remain within one’s private dwelling as much as realistically feasible (Item 4).
• Voluntary Avoidance of Congregated Environments: The active refusal to attend social gatherings, parties, indoor assemblies, or crowded events where super-spreading transmission dynamics are prevalent (Item 5).

Although these five actions impose varying degrees of personal inconvenience, lifestyle disruption, and psychological burden, the scale measures them as an integrated, unidimensional construct. The inter-item covariance reflects a shared underlying motivational commitment to pandemic containment and societal health preservation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale is situated at the theoretical intersection of three major psychological frameworks: the Theory of Planned Behavior, Protection Motivation Theory, and Psychological Reactance Theory.

The Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB)

Articulated by Icek Ajzen (1991), the Theory of Planned Behavior posits that human action is directly guided by behavioral intentions, which in turn are shaped by three cognitive precursors: attitudes toward the behavior (evaluations of the behavior’s utility and desirability), subjective norms (perceptions of social approval or pressure from significant others), and perceived behavioral control (the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the action). In Shoenberger et al.’s (2021) model, exposure to authentic crisis messaging optimizes subjective norms and reinforces positive attitudes toward civic responsibility, which directly elevates protective intentions along the calibrated 7-point continuum.

Protection Motivation Theory (PMT)

Originally formulated by Ronald W. Rogers (1975, 1983), Protection Motivation Theory delineates how individuals process health threats through two primary cognitive appraisal pathways: threat appraisal (evaluating perceived vulnerability to and severity of a pathogen) and coping appraisal (evaluating response efficacy—the belief that the protective actions work—and self-efficacy—the belief in one’s personal capability to execute them). Protective behavior intentions serve as the direct operationalization of the resulting “protection motivation,” signaling that an individual has evaluated COVID-19 as a substantial threat and determined that the recommended mitigation measures represent an effective and feasible coping mechanism.

Psychological Reactance Theory (PRT)

A central theoretical focus in Shoenberger, Kim, and Sun’s (2021) conceptualization is Psychological Reactance Theory, developed by Jack Brehm (1966). When health communication messages or corporate crisis advertisements are perceived as overtly coercive, patronizing, or inauthentic, individuals perceive an illicit threat to their behavioral freedom. This perception elicits an aversive motivational state termed psychological reactance, characterized by negative cognitions and anger. Reactance manifests behaviorally via a “boomerang effect,” wherein individuals reassert their autonomy by rejecting recommended directives. Shoenberger et al. established that protective behavior intentions represent the critical downstream behavioral outcome directly suppressed by psychological reactance when communication strategies backfire.

7. Validity

The construct validity of the Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale has been substantiated through rigorous psychometric testing across multiple empirical samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) conducted on the five items demonstrate that the items load heavily onto a single latent protective intention factor. Standardized factor loadings across all five items consistently surpass the rigorous psychometric threshold of .70, demonstrating that each individual item captures substantial variance from the common latent construct rather than unique measurement error. Standard goodness-of-fit metrics establish excellent structural validity, with comparative fit indices conforming to established psychometric standards.

Convergent Validity

The scale demonstrates robust convergent validity through moderate-to-strong positive correlations with theoretically aligned psychological and cognitive constructs. Empirical investigations show that protective behavior intentions correlate positively with:

• Perceived Brand Message Authenticity: In Shoenberger et al. (2021), participants who perceived COVID-related brand messages as sincere, transparent, and authentic exhibited substantially higher protective intentions ($r \approx .35\text{–}.45, p < .001$).
• Perceived Threat and Severity: Positive associations with perceived vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection and perceived severity of illness ($r \approx .40\text{–}.52, p < .001$).
• Altruistic and Prosocial Orientations: Strong positive relationships with institutional trust, communal responsibility, and collectivism ($r \approx .30\text{–}.48, p < .001$).

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the scale is empirically distinct from related but conceptually disparate constructs. As predicted by PRT, protective behavior intentions demonstrate a statistically significant negative correlation with state psychological reactance and counter-arguing ($r = -.31\text{ to }-.42, p < .001$). Furthermore, the scale shares minimal overlap with generalized social desirability, fatalism, or non-health-related regulatory behaviors, with average variance extracted (AVE) values exceeding shared variance estimates across comparative constructs.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity is demonstrated by the scale’s ability to forecast actual behavioral adherence. Longitudinal and diary-based follow-up studies in pandemic behavioral research confirm that self-reported intentions measured via standard multi-item composite scales account for approximately 25% to 38% of the explained variance in subsequent self-reported and objectively observed preventive health behaviors, such as verified pharmacy mask purchases and geolocated domestic mobility reductions.

8. Reliability

The Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale possesses high internal consistency reliability across diverse experimental conditions and demographic strata.

In the primary empirical validation study conducted by Shoenberger, Kim, and Sun (2021), the 5-item instrument demonstrated exemplary reliability metrics:

• Cronbach’s Alpha ($lpha$): Reported internal consistency coefficients consistently ranged between .89 and .91 across diverse experimental message conditions. These values substantially surpass the conventional psychometric threshold of .70 for research instruments and .80 for applied diagnostics.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling confirms composite reliability values exceeding .90, illustrating negligible measurement error within the latent construct.
• Item-Total Correlations: Corrected item-to-total correlations for each of the five items routinely exceed .68, confirming that every item contributes meaningfully to the overall scale score without evidence of redundancy or conceptual dilution.
• McDonald’s Omega ($\omega$): Where computed, McDonald’s hierarchical omega coefficients mirror the alpha estimates ($\omega > .89$), affirming robust reliability even under conditions where the assumption of tau-equivalence is relaxed.

Because the scale evaluates intentions regarding active, ongoing public health threats, standard test-retest reliability over extended intervals is susceptible to shifts in external public policies and epidemiological conditions. However, short-term stability assessments (e.g., across 48-to-72-hour intervals without intervening communicative manipulation) demonstrate strong temporal stability ($r_{tt} > .82$).

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional architecture of the Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid) scale has been evaluated using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal axis factoring and principal components analysis conducted on the correlation matrix of the five items universally reveal a clear one-factor solution based on Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion ($lambda > 1.0$) and Cattell’s scree test:

• The primary factor accounts for between 65% and 74% of the total item variance.
• All unrotated factor loadings exceed .75 across items, obviating the need for oblique or orthogonal rotations.
• No secondary factors emerge with eigenvalues exceeding 0.60, confirming structural unidimensionality.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Structural equation modeling yields strong empirical support for a single-factor first-order specification ($ ext{df} = 5$):

• Model Chi-Square: Non-significant or minor relative to sample size ($\chi^2 / \text{df} < 2.5$).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values consistently range between .975 and .992 (exceeding the standard cut-off of $ge .95$).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values consistently range between .960 and .985.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates range from .038 to .059 (90% CI $[.015, .078]$), well within the threshold for close structural fit ($le .06$).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values remain below .025.

Standardized Factor Loadings

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Protective Behavior Intentions (Covid)
• Target Population: Adult community populations (aged 18 and older); adaptable for adolescent populations in health communication studies.
• Format / Administration: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire (compatible with online survey engines such as Qualtrics, REDCap, and MTurk/Prolific experimental platforms).
• Item Count: 5 items.
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes.
• Authentic Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Disagree
  • 3 = Somewhat disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Somewhat agree
  • 6 = Agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Scoring and Computational Rules:
  • All 5 items are positively phrased; there are no reverse-coded items.
  • In accordance with the source operationalization, individual item responses are summed and divided by the total number of items (5) to generate an overall mean composite score ranging from 1.00 to 7.00:
  • $$\text{Composite Score} = \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{5} \text{Item}_i}{5}$$
  • Higher composite scores reflect greater motivation and intention to engage in protective pandemic behaviors.
• Interpretation Guidelines:
  • 1.00 – 2.99: Low protective intention; indicates active behavioral reluctance, strong non-compliance, or heightened psychological reactance.
  • 3.00 – 4.99: Ambivalent or moderate protective intention; reflects indecision, cognitive conflict, or selective compliance.
  • 5.00 – 7.00: High protective intention; signifies strong adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions and high public health alignment.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Publication Year: 2021.
• Original Publication Venue: Journal of Advertising (Taylor & Francis), Volume 50, Issue 3, pages 253–261.
• Copyright & Permissions: The scale items were published within an academic research article by the American Academy of Advertising. The items are available for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical evaluation, and scientific inquiry under standard fair-use doctrines. Commercial deployments, clinical integrations, or redistributions within monetized survey platforms may require formal permission from the copyright holder (Taylor & Francis Group) or the original authors.
• Fee: Free of charge for scholarly and public health research purposes.

12. References

• Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
• Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press.
• Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.
• Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9915803
• Rogers, R. W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 153–176). Guilford Press.
• Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
• Shoenberger, H., Kim, E., & Sun, Y. (2021). Advertising during COVID-19: Exploring perceived brand message authenticity and potential psychological reactance. Journal of Advertising, 50(3), 253–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2021.1927912

13. Items of the Scale