Blame Attribution and Compliance with COVID-19 Measures in Australia: The Theory of Planned Behaviour

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this paper authors examines how blame attribution and elements of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) influence compliance with COVID-19 measures in Australia, with a focus on public attitudes toward China and the Australian government. It contributes to understanding the psychological and societal factors affecting compliance during health crises.

Areas for Improvement

The hypotheses could be presented more succinctly in the manuscript for ease of readability and to reduce redundancy. While the TPB constructs are well-defined, additional clarification on how "motivation to comply" differs from "subjective norms" would strengthen the theoretical contribution. The study could further elaborate on why blame attribution to the Chinese government reduces self-protection intentions, addressing potential cultural or emotional mechanisms. The inclusion of emotions like fear or anger is commendable, but the authors could provide more discussion on how these emotions interact with TPB elements in influencing compliance. Given the findings on anti-Chinese sentiment, a deeper exploration of policy implications to mitigate discrimination would enhance the study's impact.

 

The abstract is comprehensive but could be condensed to focus more on the study's findings and implications. Introduction effectively sets the stage, the research gap could be more sharply articulated to highlight the contribution to existing TPB and health behavior literature. The survey procedure is well-described. Including more detail on the pre-testing phase could strengthen the methodology. The rationale for excluding some participants due to time constraints should be briefly justified in the main text. Tables are informative, but a clearer visual or graphical representation of key findings could improve reader engagement. The discussion appropriately interprets the results but could benefit from more alignment with the study's practical implications, particularly for policy and communication strategies. While comprehensive, a focus on more recent literature (post-2021) could provide additional relevance.

Author Response

Comments: Areas for Improvement

The hypotheses could be presented more succinctly in the manuscript for ease of readability and to reduce redundancy. While the TPB constructs are well-defined, additional clarification on how "motivation to comply" differs from "subjective norms" would strengthen the theoretical contribution. The study could further elaborate on why blame attribution to the Chinese government reduces self-protection intentions, addressing potential cultural or emotional mechanisms. The inclusion of emotions like fear or anger is commendable, but the authors could provide more discussion on how these emotions interact with TPB elements in influencing compliance. Given the findings on anti-Chinese sentiment, a deeper exploration of policy implications to mitigate discrimination would enhance the study's impact.

 

The abstract is comprehensive but could be condensed to focus more on the study's findings and implications. Introduction effectively sets the stage, the research gap could be more sharply articulated to highlight the contribution to existing TPB and health behavior literature. The survey procedure is well-described. Including more detail on the pre-testing phase could strengthen the methodology. The rationale for excluding some participants due to time constraints should be briefly justified in the main text. Tables are informative, but a clearer visual or graphical representation of key findings could improve reader engagement. The discussion appropriately interprets the results but could benefit from more alignment with the study's practical implications, particularly for policy and communication strategies. While comprehensive, a focus on more recent literature (post-2021) could provide additional relevance.

Response:
  Highlighted the distinction between Motivation to Comply (passive) and Subjective Norms (active) and examined how this differentiation interacts with blame attribution as a sense of victimhood, contributing to TPB’s theoretical framework.

  Discussed the potential mechanism where attributing blame to the Chinese government reduces self-efficacy in COVID-19 prevention, emphasizing how emotional responses like anti-Chinese sentiment can compromise rational preventive actions.

  Explored the interaction between emotions (e.g., fear, anger) and TPB constructs, with examples from the U.S. showing how politicized blame undermines compliance with preventive behaviors.

  Proposed the need for research into the mechanisms linking political ideology, emotional responses, and preventive behaviors to better understand how these factors influence public health actions.

  Expanded policy implications, advocating for framing pandemic issues as disease-focused rather than nationalistic to mitigate anti-Chinese sentiment and encourage rational public health responses.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should add briefly the global impact of COVID-19 as well in the Introduction before moving to Australian settings

Authors must justify the rationale for selecting blame attribution as a focus area in this study

Add justification on why specific demographic variables (age, ethnicity) were included in this study

There is a definite need to explain how survey items were adapted and validated against previous research.

Authors can explore the possibility of using graphs to depict regression results clearly.

Discuss potential reasons for non-significant effects of certain variables in the blame attribution analysis.

Elaborate on why emotional responses vary when blame is directed at individuals versus governments.

Link findings on self-protection intentions to existing public health strategies.

Suggest specific public health campaigns addressing the identified emotional barriers and provide appropriate references

Discuss how findings can inform communication strategies targeting diverse demographic groups.

Add more recent studies to contextualize TPB in the post-pandemic period.

Discuss how cultural differences in blame attribution may influence public behavior.

Acknowledge the limitations of using an online survey for data collection.

Add descriptive captions for all tables to improve readability.

Highlight significant results with bold text or shading.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors should add briefly the global impact of COVID-19 as well in the Introduction before moving to Australian settings

Authors must justify the rationale for selecting blame attribution as a focus area in this study

Add justification on why specific demographic variables (age, ethnicity) were included in this study

There is a definite need to explain how survey items were adapted and validated against previous research.

Authors can explore the possibility of using graphs to depict regression results clearly.

Discuss potential reasons for non-significant effects of certain variables in the blame attribution analysis.

Elaborate on why emotional responses vary when blame is directed at individuals versus governments.

Link findings on self-protection intentions to existing public health strategies.

Suggest specific public health campaigns addressing the identified emotional barriers and provide appropriate references

Discuss how findings can inform communication strategies targeting diverse demographic groups.

Add more recent studies to contextualize TPB in the post-pandemic period.

Discuss how cultural differences in blame attribution may influence public behavior.

Acknowledge the limitations of using an online survey for data collection.

Add descriptive captions for all tables to improve readability.

Highlight significant results with bold text or shading.

 

 

Response:

In the literature section:

• Justification for selecting blame attribution as a focus area:
  This has been clarified in the literature review, emphasizing that the focus on blame attribution was chosen to explore the emotional dimensions related to the study.
• Explanation for including specific demographic variables (age, ethnicity):
  Additional justification has been provided, noting that factors such as age and ethnicity significantly influence anti-China sentiments, making these variables essential to the analysis.
• Explanation of survey item adaptation and validation:
  The survey items were adapted and validated based on existing TPB variables, with the addition of blame elements to align with the study's objectives.
• Visualization of regression results:
  Graphs have been added to visually present the regression results more clearly.

 

Also, we have carefully addressed all the points raised, and the following revisions have been made in the Discussion section:

1. Proposal of Public Health Campaigns:
   We have incorporated a discussion on the necessity of developing emotionally impactful and personally relevant health communication campaigns. These campaigns aim to address the identified emotional barriers, such as fear or hope, using evidence-based strategies tailored to specific audiences, including college students. This discussion is supported by appropriate references, including Odunfa (2023).
2. Contribution to Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations:
   The discussion now elaborates on how our findings can inform the development of communication strategies that account for the political-emotional gap across diverse population groups. We highlight the importance of tailoring strategies to address the unique needs of different audiences.
3. Cultural Differences in Blame Attribution:
   We have included an analysis of how cultural differences in blame attribution might influence public behavior. This discussion explores potential implications for cross-cultural communication strategies and public health messaging.
4. Improved Table Captions:
   To enhance readability, we have added clear and descriptive captions to all tables, providing additional context and ensuring their alignment with the main discussion.
5. Emphasis on Key Results:
   Key findings in the tables have been emphasized using bold text or shading to draw attention to critical outcomes, making the results more accessible and impactful for readers.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

（1）The current title, "Australian Peoples’ Attitudes toward COVID-19 Restrictive Measures and China: Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour", is informative but overly broad. A more concise and focused title could better capture the essence of the research. For example: "Blame Attribution and Compliance with COVID-19 Measures in Australia: A Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach." Consider emphasizing key variables like blame attribution and compliance to attract a more targeted audience.

（2）The abstract is dense and includes excessive technical terms, making it less accessible. Simplify the language while maintaining depth, and explicitly mention key findings and implications to draw in readers.

（3）The introduction effectively sets the context but could benefit from a sharper focus. Streamline the discussion on the pandemic’s origin and Australia's responses, and quickly transition to the study's main focus: blame attribution and TPB.

（4）The literature review effectively connects blame attribution with emotional and behavioral outcomes. However, it could benefit from additional references that focus on Australia-specific studies or comparative analyses with other countries to deepen the contextual understanding.

（5）The hypotheses are well-articulated but lack detailed justification. Provide more explicit reasoning for the selection of blame attribution categories (e.g., why BA-China, BA-Australia, and BA-Individuals were prioritized) and their connection to TPB constructs.

（6）While the survey methodology is described in detail, clarity could be improved by specifying why Qualtrics was chosen over other survey tools and how it ensures sample representativeness. Additionally, elaborate on ethical considerations given the sensitive nature of the topic.

（7）The regression analyses are comprehensive, but the presentation of results could be enhanced. Use visual aids like tables or figures to summarize findings more effectively and facilitate interpretation for readers.

（8）The discussion section is insightful but occasionally repetitive. Condense sections where findings are restated without added analysis. Strengthen the practical implications by providing concrete recommendations for policymakers, particularly regarding public communication strategies and managing blame attribution during health crises.

Author Response

Comments:

（1）The current title, "Australian Peoples’ Attitudes toward COVID-19 Restrictive Measures and China: Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour", is informative but overly broad. A more concise and focused title could better capture the essence of the research. For example: "Blame Attribution and Compliance with COVID-19 Measures in Australia: A Theory of Planned Behaviour Approach." Consider emphasizing key variables like blame attribution and compliance to attract a more targeted audience.

 

Revision and Response for (1):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（2）The abstract is dense and includes excessive technical terms, making it less accessible. Simplify the language while maintaining depth, and explicitly mention key findings and implications to draw in readers.

Revision and Response for (2):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（3）The introduction effectively sets the context but could benefit from a sharper focus. Streamline the discussion on the pandemic’s origin and Australia's responses, and quickly transition to the study's main focus: blame attribution and TPB.

Revision and Response for (3):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（4）The literature review effectively connects blame attribution with emotional and behavioral outcomes. However, it could benefit from additional references that focus on Australia-specific studies or comparative analyses with other countries to deepen the contextual understanding.

Revision and Response for (4):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（5）The hypotheses are well-articulated but lack detailed justification. Provide more explicit reasoning for the selection of blame attribution categories (e.g., why BA-China, BA-Australia, and BA-Individuals were prioritized) and their connection to TPB constructs.

Response for (5):

Under the section Implications of Blame Attribution, I added more rationale explaining why the blame component contributes to exploring the role of emotional and logical factors combined in forming attitudes and behavioral intentions, which are important variables in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).

 

（6）While the survey methodology is described in detail, clarity could be improved by specifying why Qualtrics was chosen over other survey tools and how it ensures sample representativeness. Additionally, elaborate on ethical considerations given the sensitive nature of the topic.

Revision and Response for (6):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（7）The regression analyses are comprehensive, but the presentation of results could be enhanced. Use visual aids like tables or figures to summarize findings more effectively and facilitate interpretation for readers.

Revision and Response for (6):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

（8） The discussion section is insightful but occasionally repetitive. Condense sections where findings are restated without added analysis. Strengthen the practical implications by providing concrete recommendations for policymakers, particularly regarding public communication strategies and managing blame attribution during health crises.  

Revision and Response for (8):

We have revised base on the suggestions accordingly.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted