/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

Contagious: social norms about health in work group networks

(USC Thesis Other)

Contagious: social norms about health in work group networks

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content CONTAGIOUS:
SOCIAL NORMS ABOUT HEALTH IN WORK GROUP NETWORKS

by

Lauren Bethany Frank

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(COMMUNICATION)

August 2011

Copyright 2011 Lauren Bethany Frank
ii
Acknowledgements
In writing my dissertation, I have drawn on the help and support of many
individuals. I want to acknowledge their contributions not only to my thought process,
but also to helping me maintain my focus throughout this project.
Sheila Murphy, my adviser, has always been available for me. She has been a
wonderful sounding board when I have struggled with ideas or with moving to the next
step. She has also gone out of her way to provide me with opportunities to expand my
knowledge and meet new people. Sandra Ball-Rokeach has been a wonderful mentor.
She has helped me to think of research from the ground up and to examine how
communities influence individuals. Much of my theoretical framework I owe to her
training. Peter Monge has provided me with great advice on a variety of topics. His
understanding both of research and of theory is immense, and working with him has
expanded my own view of communication. The chance to learn from him has made me a
better researcher. Doe Mayer has always pushed me to think of the practical implications
of my work. She encourages me to remember why I am interested in health
communication and to ensure that I consider how research can inform practice. I
appreciate the contributions of all my committee members and am so grateful to have the
opportunity to work with each of them.
I also wish to thank two professors who were not on my dissertation committee
but who chose to make themselves available to me anyway, Patty Riley and Tom
Valente. Patty always had an open door for me and was happy to talk about my progress
on my dissertation. She also helped greatly in suggesting organizational contacts while I
iii
was recruiting participants. Even though we had not talked much previously, Tom
allowed me to participate in his research team, and he helped me think through the stages
necessary for analysis of my hypotheses.
My colleagues in the PhD program at the Annenberg School for Communication
have been quite helpful. I have had the opportunity to work with students in the
Annenberg Networks Network and the Metamorphosis project. Members of both groups
have provided feedback in the early stages of my dissertation planning. I also appreciate
the help in creating and sticking to a schedule that I received from my cohort’s
dissertation working group. Though they study subjects quite different from mine,
Russell Newman and John Cheney both took the time to read through my prospectus and
provide comments. Amanda Beacom and Matthew Weber also gave me comments on
my methods and prospectus in the early stages of planning. Laurel Felt helped me with
recruiting by providing me with the names and contact information for all of her friends
working in Los Angeles. Courtney Schultz Pade has been a wonderful resource for
talking about how to perform hierarchical linear modeling on data from group social
networks. Together we were able to work through a variety of analytic concerns. Nina
O’Brien gave me very helpful advice on how to talk about my research in a way that
makes sense. I especially have to thank Janel Schuh for her help. Starting with our
regular check-ins to make sure we were studying for qualifying exams and continuing
through prospectus writing, pilot testing, recruitment, analysis, and final write up, Janel
has been there for me through every step. I am so grateful not only for her support with
this project, but also for her friendship.
iv
I am also thankful to all of the members of my Wednesday night small group for
their support and prayers as I have been working on my dissertation. I met them towards
the beginning of the dissertation process, and they have assisted me through the entire
process. Many of my organizational contacts for recruitment came from them.
Additionally, Barbara Lee, Susie Tae, Yoonie Lee, and Linda Blakeman all listened to
practice talks about my dissertation and helped provide ideas from outside the field of
communication. The group never seemed to tire of asking me about my progress and
giving encouragement.
I must thank all of my participants. The data that I collected were, of course,
crucial for the project. However, I found the feedback on how interesting the project was
to be at least as useful in helping me to stay motivated throughout.
I would like to thank my family for all of their help and love as I have worked on
my dissertation. My dad has been supportive, particularly during the recruiting process.
My brother, Greg, was a great sounding board as I determined the best way to manipulate
the data from the surveys into network matrices. He has also been good at injecting
levity into the process. I will never think of an inbox in the same way. My mom has
been there for me through every step of this dissertation, agreeing to be a guinea pig for
pilot testing and a first reader for very rough drafts. She has known when to provide
support and when to push me to just finish. I thank God for the opportunities He has
given me and the chance to work on this dissertation.

v
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures ix
Abbreviations x
Abstract xii
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Novel 2009 H1N1 Flu 3
Chapter Summaries 7
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework 9
Traditional Health Communication Theories 9
Social Context of Health 17
Social Networks and Health 23
Group Social Norms 31
Chapter 3: Methods 37
Sampling Procedure 37
Sample Characteristics 42
Survey Procedure and Piloting 44
Survey Measures 45
Analysis 57
Chapter 4: Results 64
Descriptive Statistics 64
Individual Level Hypotheses 67
Work Group Characteristics 73
Individually Perceived Group Predictors 85
Group Predictors 91
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 98
Methodological Contributions 107
Theoretical Contributions 110
Practical Contributions 113
Limitations 116
Conclusion 120
References 121
vi
Appendices
Appendix A: Survey Instrument 135
Appendix B: Group Health Identity Coding Dictionary 148
Appendix C: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Work group Identification 150
Appendix D: Network Data 151

vii
List of Tables
Table 3.1. Number of participants and response rate by group 41
Table 3.2. Sample characteristics 43
Table 3.3. Inter-coder reliability for group health identity coding 51
Table 3.4. Fit statistics for alternative work group identification models 53
Table 4.1. Individual level descriptive statistics 65
Table 4.2. Categories for intentions to stay home if sick with H1N1 66
Table 4.3. Zero-order correlations for individual level variables 66
Table 4.4. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for
individual predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention 69
Table 4.5. Summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM)
results for individual predictors of intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1 72
Table 4.6. Summary of group health identities 74
Table 4.7. Focus on prevention and health in group health identities by group 75
Table 4.8. Identification with work group by group 85
Table 4.9. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results comparing
subjective norms and CSNS for H1N1 vaccination 87
Table 4.10. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results comparing
subjective norms and CSNS for staying home if sick with H1N1 88
Table 4.11. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for
individually perceived group predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention 90
Table 4.12. Summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM)
results for individually perceived group predictors of intention to stay
home if sick with H1N1 92
Table 4.13. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for group
level predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention 93
viii
Table 4.14. Summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM)
results for group level predictors of intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1 94
Table 4.15. Summary of results 96

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1. Percent of people reporting flu or pandemic as the most important
health problem facing the country 7
Figure 2.1. Integrative model of behavioral prediction 16
Figure 2.2. Theory of normative social behavior 22
Figure 2.3. Summary of hypotheses for behavioral intentions 36
Figure 3.1. Responses to study recruitment by 63 eligible organizations 40
Figure 3.2. Participating organizations by industry/field 42
Figure 3.3. Example network matrices for normative beliefs and motivations to
comply with work group 49
Figure 3.4. Cognitive social norm structure components 56
Figure 5.1. Summary of results 99
Figure 5.2. An ecological framework for health behaviors 113

x
Abbreviations
AIC Akaike Information Criterion
BIC Bayesian Information Criterion
CDC Center for Disease Control and Prevention
CFI Comparative Fit Index
CSNS Cognitive Social Norm Structure
CSS Cognitive Social Structure
EPPM Extended Parallel Process Model
HBM Health Belief Model
HGLM Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling
HLM Hierarchical Linear Modeling
ICC Intraclass Correlation Coefficient
IMBP Integrative Model of Behavioral Prediction
LAS Locally Aggregated Structure
OLS Ordinary Least Squares
REML Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimation
RMSEA Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
RPQL Restricted Penalized Quasi-likelihood Estimation
SCT Social Cognitive Theory
TNSB Theory of Normative Social Behavior
TPB Theory of Planned Behavior

xi
TRA Theory of Reasoned Action
TTM Transtheoretical Model
xii
Abstract
The goal of this dissertation is to advance theorizing about how people working
together in groups understand health issues and make health decisions. The theoretical
framework draws from a variety of extant health communication theories, as well as
theories of social influence and social contagion. Thus, rather than solely emphasizing
individual level behavior change, this dissertation recognizes that individuals exist within
social groups. To further theory around social norms and how they may relate to
understanding of health issues, a new methodology to examine group social norms about
a health issue, H1N1 flu, through social network analysis is proposed. Specifically, this
dissertation hypothesizes that attitudes, self-efficacy, subjective and descriptive norms,
and social network group norms will all be associated with behavioral intentions.
Additionally, moderators of the relationship between group norms and behavioral
intentions are explored. Finally, collective group norms are expected to influence
behavioral intentions beyond how individual group members perceive those norms.
Building on existing social network analysis techniques, a new method for
assessing social norms within groups, the cognitive social norm structure
(CSNS), is developed and tested. Data were collected from twenty complete work
groups using an online survey tool. Two specific H1N1-related behaviors were studied:
intention to get the H1N1 flu vaccination and willingness to stay home from work if sick
with the H1N1 flu. The data were analyzed using social network analysis and
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM).
xiii
As predicted, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social norms all related to behavioral
intentions for at least one of the behaviors under study. While controlling for these
individual level predictors, the groups’ consensus about the social norms of the whole
group had an additional impact on behavioral intentions. For members of work groups in
which pairs were perceived to agree in their support for H1N1 vaccination, the effect of
individually perceived group norms on behavioral intentions was stronger than for groups
with less agreement. Taken together, these group level effects highlight the importance
of assessing entire groups and explicitly incorporating the social environment into
understandings of health behaviors. Individually perceived norms alone cannot fully
account for individuals’ health behaviors choices. Instead, group level effects are also
important, even in cases where the individual perceptions of group norms may not be
predictive of behavioral intentions.
Thus, the incorporation of the cognitive social norm structure (CSNS) into studies
of health communication was supported. Moreover, these data underscore the
importance of using existing, complete groups to examine the group social influence
process. Integrating group level conceptions of social norms into health communication
theories will allow for a more complete and nuanced understanding of health behavior
choices. Guidance for future studies and for the development of health communication
campaigns is provided.

Keywords: health communication, organizations, social norms, small groups, social
network analysis

1
Chapter 1: Introduction
Health communication campaigns employ the media, either exclusively or in
combination with other methods, to create behavior change around social issues relating
to health (for reviews, see: Hornik, 2002; Noar, 2006; Rice & Atkin, 2001, 2002). Such
campaigns can rely on a number of different theoretical frameworks to guide their
strategies. Recently, researchers have attempted to combine many of the most predictive
individual level components of classic health communication theories into a common
framework, the integrative model of behavioral prediction (e.g. Fishbein & Cappella,
2006; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). However, these efforts have not fully addressed the
critiques of health communication theories as overly focused on individual level behavior
change (Dutta-Bergman, 2005; Wilkins & Mody, 2001). Calls to incorporate greater
consideration of the social and cultural aspects of the health environment have led to
more nuanced theorizing about the role of social norms in the understanding of health
decisions (e.g. Rimal & Real, 2003; 2005) and of social networks in influencing these
social norms (Hornik, 2002; Hornik & Yanovitzky, 2003). Such theoretical expansions
to acknowledge the social aspects of health choices are necessary because, “the impact of
communication campaigns may go beyond individual cognitions and behaviors to include
effects on communities, institutions, organizations, and social networks” (Hornik &
Yanovitzky, 2003 p. 205).
If health communication researchers are going to seriously attempt to study the
contribution of community and macro level influences on health, then more sophisticated

2
methods for examining social influence must be employed. It is insufficient to give lip
service to the fact that social influences also affect individuals’ health decisions. Instead,
the communication environment with an emphasis on how people talk about health to
each other must be considered (Ball-Rokeach & Jung, in press; Ball-Rokeach, Kim, &
Matei, 2001; Cheong, Wilkin, & Ball-Rokeach, 2004). Social groups must become a unit
of analysis. Multilevel modeling that includes individuals within their social groups is
crucial. By incorporating multiple levels, the processes through which social influence
works may be examined, and theorizing about such processes may be refined. Thus,
rather than emphasizing individual level behavior change, this dissertation recognizes
that individuals are members of social groups. To explore social norms and how they
may relate to understanding of health issues, this dissertation employs a new
methodology, the cognitive social norm structure (CSNS), to examine group social norms
around a specific health issue, namely H1N1 flu.
The goal of this dissertation is to advance theory about how people working
together in groups understand health issues and make health decisions. The theoretical
framework draws from a variety of extant health communication theories, as well as
theories of peer influence, social contagion, and diffusion. Building on existing social
network analysis techniques, a new method for assessing social norms within groups, the
cognitive social norm structure (CSNS), is developed and tested. For this study, the
health issue of the Novel 2009 H1N1 Flu was chosen as the specific topic to study
because it was a current health topic receiving a great deal of media coverage. A
description of the H1N1 flu pandemic follows.

3
Novel 2009 H1N1 Flu
From mid to late April 2009, the news media within the United States
increasingly began covering “swine flu,” a disease that had already caused considerable
illness and fatalities in Mexico. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
identified the first American case of H1N1 on April 15, 2009 (MMWR, 2011). The virus
was isolated as the H1N1 virus, and the U.S. government referred to the official virus as
Novel 2009 H1N1 Flu virus. On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (WHO)
declared H1N1 a pandemic, indicating that the virus had spread globally with more than
30,000 cases in 74 different countries to that point (Chan, 2009). By July 1, 2009, the
pandemic had spread to 120 countries (WHO, 2010, January 22). The pandemic phase
continued through August 10, 2010 (WHO, 2010, August 10). From September 2009 to
March 2010, the CDC conducted community surveillance of influenza-like illness
through self-reports of flu symptoms. In the average month, 8.1% of adults and 24.8% of
children reported having influenza-like illness (MMWR, 2011). Ultimately, the CDC
estimated that between April 1, 2009 and April 10, 2010, the United States had between
43 and 89 million cases of H1N1 flu. Of those cases, between 195,000 and 403,000
resulted in hospitalizations, and between 8,870 and 18,300 H1N1 flu deaths occurred
(CDC, 2010).
The H1N1 flu virus was different from the traditional seasonal flu. One of the
most notable differences was in the groups at highest risk for severe consequences from
the disease (Chan, 2010). Children and young adults were at considerably higher risk
than those of older age (WHO Writing Committee, 2010). Pregnant women and those

4
with existing medical conditions were also at increased risk (WHO Writing Committee,
2010). Despite these differences, the means of H1N1 flu transmission was similar to the
seasonal flu (Uyeki, 2010). Hospitalization and fatality rates for H1N1 were not very
different from those for the seasonal flu, and the treatment recommendations were similar
(WHO Writing Committee, 2010).
The seasonal flu vaccine for the 2009 to 2010 flu season was made before the
outbreak of H1N1 flu, and thus did not include the new H1N1 strain. Therefore, the
United States government ordered 229 million doses of H1N1 vaccine (Stein, 2010).
Vaccine development started in March 2009, and after six months of testing was
approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration. However, even after approved,
vaccine production was slow (Lancet, 2010). After being made available to the public in
September 2009, vaccine shortages lasted until December 2009 (Harris, Maurer, &
Kellermann, 2010). Complicating vaccine distribution further, the first vaccines to
become available were nasal sprays which not everyone could take (Dannemayer, 2010,
personal communication). An extensive screening process was necessary to determine
who was eligible for the initial vaccines.
Originally, much of the public was confused about whether the vaccine was safe
and how many doses were necessary to protect against H1N1. Ultimately, the CDC
recommended a single dosage of the vaccine as safe and effective. Due to the vaccine
shortages and scattered availability, a priority listing of target groups was created. These
groups were: “pregnant women, people who live with or care for children younger than 6
months of age, health care and emergency medical services personnel with direct patient

5
contact, children 6 months through 4 years of age, and children, especially those younger
than 5 years of age and those who have high risk medical conditions are at increased risk
of influenza-related complications” (http://www.cdc.gov). Individuals in any of these
groups were highly encouraged to get the vaccine and also had first claim to vaccine
supplies as they became available.
Media coverage was not consistently supportive of the pandemic flu vaccine,
sometimes highlighting potential side effects over the benefits of taking the vaccine
(Nikolopoulos & Bonovas, 2010). Additionally, some researchers and journalists
accused the WHO of a conflict of interest in announcing that H1N1 flu had reached
pandemic levels. Researchers on the board of advisors for the WHO had financial ties to
drug companies that would profit from producing the vaccine (Cohen & Carter, 2010).
The WHO denied these claims of conflict of interest, stating that the determination of
pandemic was based on the global spread of the disease (WHO, 2010, January 22).
However, the concerns over conflict of interest damaged the organization’s credibility in
recommending the H1N1 flu vaccine to the public. The vaccine made available was safe
and effective in preventing the H1N1 flu, but only 20% of U. S. adults were ultimately
vaccinated (Harris, et al., 2010). Several studies have examined adults’ attitudes toward
the H1N1 vaccine. Intentions to get the vaccine were typically lower than intentions to
follow other CDC recommendations (Kiviniemi, Ram, Kozlowski, & Smith, 2010).
Intentions to get the H1N1 vaccine were predicted by attitudes, subjective norms,
perceived benefits, and perceived barriers (Myers & Goodwin, 2011).

6
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched www.flu.gov to
provide the public with information about H1N1 and how to stay healthy. They also
launched multiple public service announcements about washing hands, sneezing or
coughing into the elbow, avoiding touching eyes, nose, and mouth, and staying home if
sick. A review of websites found by searching for “swine flu” revealed that most of the
sites included the WHO recommendations for H1N1 flu prevention with 79% advising
hand washing, 67% advising not touching the mouth or nose, and 78% advising staying
home if sick with the flu, respectively (Gesualdo et al., 2010). Beginning in April 2009,
members of the public became increasingly concerned over H1N1 flu virus, as shown in
Figure 1.1, a chart based on the Annenberg National Health Communication Survey, an
online nationally representative survey. However, as H1N1 flu cases peaked in
December 2009, concern about pandemic flu also started to decrease.
Despite the reduced cases and concern over H1N1 flu, vaccination campaigns
continued even after H1N1 peaked. These efforts may be partially attributable to the
U.S. government not wanting to have to discard 71.5 million doses of the vaccine (Stein,
2010). Regardless of the cause, state and federal health agencies were continuing to push
for vaccination to prevent the H1N1 flu well into spring 2010. For example, a campaign
run in Los Angeles, centered around Valentine’s Day in 2010 and suggested that the
public “Make a date to vaccinate”.

7
Figure 1.1. Percent of people reporting flu or pandemic as the most important health
problem facing the country.

Chapter Summaries
Chapter 2 provides the theoretical framework for this study. Traditional health
communication theories are presented, as are theories of how social norms influence
behaviors. A review of how social network analysis has been used in health
communication is presented and a framework for incorporating social network analysis
together with group social influence processes is proposed. The hypotheses and research
questions for this study are delineated as the theoretical framework is developed. Chapter
3 denotes the methods employed by this study. An online survey tool was used to collect
data on attitudes, self-efficacy, group social norms, and behavior from twenty complete
work groups. The data were then analyzed using a combination of social network
analysis and hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). Chapter 4 presents the results from

8
hypothesis testing and from qualitative reports of the work groups’ group health
identities. Finally, Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the findings from this study. The
methodological, theoretical, and practical contributions are discussed in turn, but
limitations of the study are also noted. Guidance for future studies and for the
development of future health communication campaigns is provided. The Appendices
include additional information on the methods involved and the actual network matrices
for each work group included in the study.

9
Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework
Traditional Health Communication Theories
In order to alert the public to the threat of H1N1 flu and provide information
about ways to reduce that threat, the CDC and state and local health departments used a
variety of communicative means including press conferences, public service
announcements, and public websites. These kinds of media products and messages may
be guided by a variety of health communication theories. Many health communication
campaigns use theories to guide their design and encourage public behavior change. The
most commonly used theories are described below.
Health belief model. The health belief model (HBM) is a cognitive theory that
suggests that people act based on the value-expectancies they assign to particular
behavioral choices (Becker, Maiman, Kirscht, Haefner, & Drachman, 1977; Janz &
Becker, 1984; Janz, Champion, & Stretcher, 2002). In other words, people think about
the expected consequences of their actions and weigh how they feel about these
consequences in choosing how to act. In its original specification, it included four key
constructs: perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, and perceived
barriers. Taken together, the perceived susceptibility, or risk of contracting a particular
disease, combines with the perceived severity of negative effects from the disease to
create the total perceived threat of acquiring the disease. For example, for H1N1 flu,
people would consider how likely they were to be exposed to the virus (perceived
susceptibility) and how ill they would become if they contracted H1N1 (perceived

10
severity) to determine how threatened they were by H1N1. Perceived benefits of getting
the H1N1 vaccination would include reduced risk of getting H1N1 flu, but perceived
barriers might include the shortage of the vaccine when it originally became available.
According to the HBM, people decide whether or not to take preventive measures by
weighing the perceived threat, the perceived benefits, and barriers to taking preventive
measures (Becker et al., 1977). Of the various constructs specified by the model,
perceived barriers have received the most empirical support (Champion & Skinner,
2008).
In extensions to the original HBM, cues to action were added as further
constructs. These cues include media campaigns, exposure to other media not integrated
into a persuasive campaign, and suggestions from family, friends, and medical
professionals (Becker et al., 1977; Janz & Becker, 1984). When applied to the design of
health communication campaigns, the HBM has been particularly good at motivating the
public to take “one-shot” preventive measures such as getting a vaccination that did not
require ongoing maintenance (Janz et al., 2002). As the HBM began to be applied to
more long-term behavior changes, self-efficacy, the belief that one is capable of the
behavior in question, was also added to the model (Janz & Becker, 1984). For example,
in the context of H1N1, self-efficacy would be the feeling that one was able to stay home
while sick with the disease.
Extended parallel process model. Similar to the HBM, the extended parallel
process model (EPPM) is also a cognitive theory. Building on Rogers’ protection
motivation theory (Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Rogers, 1975), EPPM is particularly

11
focused on the content of health messages designed to create fear (Witte, 1992, 1994;
Witte & Allen, 2000; Witte, Meyer, & Martell, 2001). The theory includes multiple
concepts that overlap with the HBM, including perceived susceptibility and perceived
severity combined as perceived threat. In addition, the EPPM also includes perceived
efficacy, a construct that includes both self-efficacy and response efficacy, the extent to
which an individual believes the response will be effective in overcoming the threat. For
H1N1, self-efficacy would be the belief that one could get the H1N1 vaccination, and
response efficacy would be the belief that getting it would actually help to prevent
contraction of H1N1. According to EPPM, high perceived threat and high perceived
efficacy lead to danger control, or taking protective measures to reduce the potential
threat. However, if perceived threat is high, but perceived efficacy is low, people instead
try to control their fear by discounting the threat (Witte, 1992). This relationship between
efficacy and threat is supported by empirical research, as messages with both a strong
fear appeals and high efficacy are the most effective in changing behavior (Witte &
Allen, 2000).
Transtheoretical model. In contrast to the HBM and EPPM, which both theorize
health behavior changes for disease prevention, the transtheoretical model (TTM)
originated from a study of the cessation of unhealthy behaviors (e.g. smoking) (Valente,
2002). The TTM emphasizes the process through which people change their behavior.
As a stage theory, the TTM includes six stages believed to be invariant across people:
precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination
(Prochaska & Norcross, 2001; Prochaska, Redding, & Evers, 2008). Individuals in the

12
precontemplation stage do not have any intention to change their behavior. Next, in the
contemplation stage, individuals are aware of their behavior but are not ready to change.
In the preparation stage, an intention to change the behavior exists. The action stage is
when the behavior change actually starts. Following action, a maintenance stage is
necessary as individuals have to reinforce their decision to change their behavior.
Finally, individuals end in a termination stage when the behavior change is complete and
no longer needs reinforcement (Prochaska & Norcross, 2001; Prochaska et al., 2008).
Given that it was developed to address ongoing behaviors, in the context of H1N1 flu
prevention, TTM might be more appropriate for recommending hand washing and
sneezing or coughing into the elbow than one time behaviors such as vaccination or
staying home when sick.
Social cognitive theory. With its origins in social learning theory (Bandura,
1969, 1977b), Bandura’s social cognitive theory (SCT) began with research examining
media influences on aggression. Based on his experiments with children and adults,
Bandura determined that people can learn vicariously by watching mediated role models.
When an individual identifies with a role model, he or she is particularly likely to imitate
the model’s behaviors (Bandura, 1969). Similarly, individuals are more likely to perform
a modeled behavior if the model is rewarded or positively reinforced for the behavior, but
they are less likely to perform modeled behaviors that are negatively reinforced or
punished (Bandura, 1969). Bandura also developed the concept of self-efficacy that he
included in his theory. Self-efficacy is the extent to which an individual feels able to
perform a particular behavior, and it can be increased not only through personal mastery

13
experiences, but also by the vicarious experience of observing models performing the
behavior (Bandura, 1977a, 1982).
In its more recent form, SCT theorizes beyond influences on individual behavior
to include the broader social context (Bandura, 1998, 2001, 2004a). Bandura (2001)
suggested that personal, behavioral, and environmental determinants all interact in
producing thought and behavior. As Bandura (1998) wrote:
The further evolution of the health promotion model treats personal changes as
occurring within a network of social influences. It adds socially-oriented
interventions designed to provide social supports for personal change and to alter
the practices of social systems that impair health and to foster those that enhance
it. (p. 633)
According to SCT, self-efficacy, outcome expectations (including physical, social, and
self-evaluative), and both proximal and distal goals predict behavioral choices (Bandura,
1998). Outcome expectations are the beliefs that people hold about the consequences of
their actions for their health. In the case of H1N1, feeling responsible might be a positive
self-evaluative outcome expectation for staying home from work when sick. Similar to
Katz and Lazarsfeld’s (Katz, 1957; Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; Lazarsfeld &
Katz, 1955/2005) conception of the two-step flow, Bandura theorized that media (and
consequently campaigns that employ the media) can have “dual paths of influence”
(Bandura, 2001 p. 285). Specifically, the first path is a direct pathway through which
media influences behavior change, and the second pathway is mediated by people’s
discussions in their interpersonal networks (Bandura, 2001). SCT has been applied to a
variety of health communication projects. In particular, SCT has been useful for guiding

14
entertainment education projects on the importance of self-efficacy and the inclusion of
positive, negative, and transitional role models (Bandura, 2004b; Sabido, 2004).
Theory of reasoned action and theory of planned behavior. The theory of
reasoned action (TRA) is a cognitive theory that states that attitudes and subjective norms
lead to behavioral intentions (Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In this context,
attitudes are defined as, “the person’s beliefs that the behavior leads to certain outcomes
and his evaluations of these outcomes” (Fishbein, 1980 p. 69). Subjective norms are an
individual’s perceived social pressures to perform a behavior or not. They are
operationalized as the multiplicative combination of whether specific others believe the
individual should perform the behavior (normative beliefs) and how motivated the
individual is to follow the others’ wishes (motivation to comply). For example,
subjective norms about H1N1 vaccination would be the extent to which an individual
believed that their social contacts wanted them to get vaccinated weighted by how much
they felt motivated to comply with each contact. Provided that the behavior being
examined by TRA is under an individual’s volitional control, behavioral intentions in
turn predict actual behavior. For the model to be predictive, attitudes, subjective norms,
behavioral intentions, and behaviors should all be specific and should match in the
desired action and context (Fishbein, 1980). From its conception, the TRA has been
applied to health behaviors, such as quitting smoking.
To expand the theory’s applicability beyond solely those behaviors under an
individual’s control, Ajzen (1985; 1991) proposed the addition of perceived behavioral
control as a third factor predicting behavioral intention in his theory of planned behavior

15
(TPB), a new model building on the TRA. Perceived behavioral control is essentially the
same as Bandura’s (1977a; 1982) concept of self-efficacy; it is the extent to which
individuals feel that the ability to perform the behavior is within their influence. The
perception that the individual is able to perform the behavior will predict both attempting
the behavior and the strength of that attempt (Ajzen, 1985). Empirical evidence strongly
supports the predictive validity of perceived behavioral control, or self-efficacy, as a
positive addition to attitudes and subjective norms in predicting behavioral intentions
(Ajzen, 1991). In fact, of the three predictors included in the TPB (attitudes, subjective
norms, and perceived behavioral control), subjective norms are the only ones with
inconsistent empirical support (Ajzen, 1991). Ajzen (1991) attributed the lack of
consistent support for subjective norms as a predictor of behavioral intentions to the
particular behaviors examined (e.g. drinking, losing weight, and attending class), which
may have been more personal than social.
Integrative model of behavioral prediction. Recently, Fishbein and his
colleagues (Fishbein & Cappella, 2006; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003) have updated the TRA
further into a new integrative model of behavioral prediction (IMBP). Based on a review
of the empirical evidence accumulated for the health belief model, the outcome
expectation and self-efficacy aspects of social cognitive theory, and the theory of
reasoned action, they also added self-efficacy to the original TRA model. Additionally,
they went further in elaborating the TRA by suggesting that both actual ability level and
barriers in the environment join behavioral intentions in predicting behavior. As Fishbein
and Yzer (2003) wrote:

16
One immediate implication of this model is that very different types of
interventions will be necessary for people who have formed an intention but are
unable to act upon it, than for people who have little or no intention to perform
the recommended behavior. (p. 166)
Thus, different intervention and campaign message strategies are necessary for
individuals who choose not to perform a behavior and for individuals who are unable to
perform a behavior due to either insufficient personal skills or environmental constraints
(Fishbein & Cappella, 2006). Figure 2.1 shows the IMBP, with the predictors of both
behavioral intentions and actual behavior. It is crucial that each of the constructs
included be specific to the behavior in question. Thus, for staying home from work when
sick with H1N1, for example, attitudes, self-efficacy, subjective norms, skills, intentions,
and environmental constraints should all be measured specifically in relation to staying
home.
Figure 2.1. Integrative model of behavioral prediction.

(Adapted from Fishbein & Capella, 2006; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003)

17
As with the TRA and TPB, in applying the IMBP, subjective norms are measured
by multiplying normative beliefs for specific relevant others by motivations to comply
with those relevant others (see Ajzen, 1985; Boer & Mashamba, 2005; David, Cappella,
& Fishbein, 2006; Frank, Chatterjee, Chaudhuri, Lapsansky, Bhanot, & Murphy, 2010).
The products of those calculations are summed to produce an overall subjective norms
scale. Although the TRA strongly suggests the importance of matching attitudes,
subjective norms, and behavioral intentions to specific behaviors in context (Fishbein,
1980), motivation to comply is often measured more generally. For example, Boer and
Mashamba (2005) asked respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed with the
following, “I care about the opinions of my friends.” This lack of specificity in
motivation to comply may contribute to findings that subjective norms are the least
consistent predictor of behavioral intentions within the IMBP. It is possible that a patient
is strongly motivated to comply with a doctor’s recommendation to get the H1N1
vaccine, but far less motivated to comply with recommendations about staying home
from work. Thus, for this study of H1N1 behaviors, motivations to comply will be
measured with behavioral specificity for each of the behaviors under study.
RQ1. Do motivations to comply vary as a function of the recommended
behavior?
Social Context of Health
With the exception of Bandura’s SCT, the other theories reviewed thus far largely
conceptualize behaviors only at the individual level. In other words, these health

18
communication theories often do not include the larger social context in which actions
occur. They do not recognize that, "complex cultural patterns of behavior are, in large
part, transmitted and regulated at a social-systems level” (Bandura, 1969 p. 255).
Although some of the theories (e.g. HBM) include potential modifications for working
with cultures other than mainstream America (Champion & Skinner, 2008), few are
explicitly designed to deal with the social context in which behavior occurs (Dutta-
Bergman, 2005).
Dutta-Bergman (2005) specifically critiques the HBM, the EPPM, and the TRA.
He notes that all three theories are largely individualistic and do not sufficiently account
for social context. Although the HBM and the revised version of the TRA include some
form of environmental barriers to behavior, they do not acknowledge the role of others in
behavioral choices. Particularly for campaigns being conducted in collectivist cultures,
this is problematic as, “the meanings associated with the behavior and the behavioral
outcome might very well be located in the social networks, the collective fabric of the
community” (Dutta-Bergman, 2005 p. 106). In anticipating possible responses, Dutta-
Bergman (2005) specified that the inclusion of subjective norms within TRA does not
make the model sufficiently social, as the norms are only measured as internalized and
understood by the individual, and the norms only include a few reference others, rather
than the broader social context. Thus, Dutta-Bergman (2005) recommends a culture-
centered approach.

19
Despite Dutta-Bergman’s (2005) dismissal of the subjective norms within TRA as
unable to capture the nuances of social interaction, a complete conception of social norms
may be useful to health communication theories. According to Bandura (1998):
Norms influence behavior anticipatorily by the social consequences they provide.
Behavior that fulfills social norms gains positive social reactions. Behavior that
violates social norms brings social censure. In addition, social norms convey
behavioral standards. Adoption of standards creates a self-regulatory system that
operates through self-sanctions. In this process, people regulate their behavior by
self-evaluative reactions. (p. 628)
Thus, social norms work both through internal and external impacts on behaviors. By
emphasizing the social component of norms, rather than considering them as purely
individual cognitive structures, social norms may be a useful reflection of the social
context.
In a recent review of theorizing on social norms, Lapinski and Rimal (2005)
distinguished among multiple types of norms. First, they differentiated collective versus
perceived norms. Collective norms are the norms that are actually held by society. In
contrast, perceived norms are those that individuals believe society holds. Aggregating
the perceived norms across many individuals does not necessarily yield the society’s
collective norms (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005), in part because perceived norms can be
wrong (Rimal & Real, 2005). For example, in regards to H1N1 flu, individuals may have
thought that their peer groups strongly supported vaccination. However, it is possible
that instead most people privately did not support the vaccination and did not intend to
get vaccinated themselves. As asserted by the theory of pluralistic ignorance (Katz &
Allport, 1931; Eveland, 2002) and by Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) spiral of silence, if

20
people feel that their opinion is not the predominant one, they may not share that opinion
publicly. This could be an example of when perceived and actual collective norms do not
match.
The lack of correspondence between collective and perceived norms has
implications for how norms are measured. Collective norms must be measured at the
group level, but perceived norms are measured at the individual level. The normative
influences that appear in the traditional health communication theories described above
are all categories of perceived norms. Lapinski and Rimal (2005) wrote that, “because
perceived norms, by definition, are the results of individuals’ construal processes,
questions about the role of communication in normative influences are asked in the
domain of perceived, not collective, norms” (p. 130). This is precisely the conception of
norms to which Dutta-Bergman (2005) objects. Thus, health communication theories
should include not only conceptions of perceived norms, but also culturally-relevant
understandings of collective norms.
A second type of distinction of norms that Lapinski and Rimal (2005) explicated
was that between descriptive and injunctive norms. Descriptive norms are beliefs about
what people within the social context actually do, whereas injunctive norms are beliefs
about what people should do (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005). Although descriptive and
injunctive norms may overlap, they are not theoretically constrained to do so. In the
context of H1N1, people might feel that they should stay home from work when they are
sick so as not to expose others (injunctive norms). However, they also may feel that
people actually do come to work though their illness so as not to lose productivity

21
(descriptive norms). Both descriptive and injunctive norms have been included in
theories of behavior change (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005).
For example, the social norms approach relies on correcting the misperceptions
about descriptive norms that the audience has about behavior (Berkowitz, 2004; Perkins,
2003; Perkins & Berkowitz, 1986). College students often overestimate the extent of
alcohol and drug abuse of their peers, partially because the negative behaviors associated
with this use are particularly noteworthy and salient (Perkins, 1997; Perkins, 2003).
Interventions employing the social norms approach serve to correct these misperceptions
of “pluralistic ignorance” and “false consensus” by providing information on the actual
prevalence of risky behaviors (Berkowitz, 2004). The goal of these social norms
approach interventions is to change perceptions of the descriptive norm, thereby possibly
also affecting actual behavior (Smith, Atkin, Martell, Allen, & Hembroff, 2006).
The social norms approach is consistent with the theory of normative social
behavior (TNSB) which suggests that descriptive norms influence behavior (Rimal &
Real, 2003; 2005). That influence is moderated by injunctive norms and expectations
about the positive or negative outcomes related to particular behaviors. However, the
TNSB also adds in group identity as a key moderating variable. Both feeling similar to
the social group and wanting to be like the group moderate the influence of descriptive
norms on behavior. Figure 2.2 shows the basic model for TNSB. In an empirical study
about college students’ alcohol consumption testing this theory, Rimal and Real (2003;
2005) found that injunctive norms did moderate the impact that descriptive norms have
on behavior. That is to say, for people who believed that their peers felt they should

22
binge drink, beliefs about how much their peers actually binge drink had a greater effect
on their own alcohol consumption.
Figure 2.2. Theory of normative social behavior.

(Adapted from Rimal & Real, 2005)

Based on the health theories described so far, several constructs can be identified
as likely predictors of behavioral intentions or behaviors. In particular, the revised IMBP
highlights attitudes, self-efficacy, and subjective norms as the three most important
predictors of behavioral intentions. In contrast, two approaches that incorporate more
theorizing about the social environment, the social norms approach and TNSB, suggest
the importance of descriptive norms for predicting behavior. By drawing from the
empirical support for each of these theories, the following four hypotheses are postulated:
H1. Attitudes are positively associated with behavioral intentions.
H2. Self-efficacy is positively associated with behavioral intentions.
H3. Subjective norms are positively associated with behavioral intentions.
H4. Descriptive norms are positively associated with behavioral intentions.
For each of these hypotheses, the predictor is expected to be positively associated with
behavioral intentions, such that attitudes and norms that are more supportive of the
Behavior
Descriptive
norms
Injunctive
norms
Group identity Outcome
expectations

23
behavior and higher levels of self-efficacy will predict increased intention to perform the
behavior in question.
Social Networks and Health
A more expanded view of social norms and their relationship to behavior
addresses one aspect of the socio-cultural environment around health decisions.
However, it may not capture the complexity of how the social environment influences
health. In an effort to examine the role of social structure in influencing health decisions,
some researchers have begun to explore health and health communication using social
network analysis. Social network analysis is the study of the relationships between
people, rather than a focus on the characteristics or attributes that people have (Monge &
Contractor, 2003; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Two primary theoretical perspectives that
are employed in social network analysis of health issues are contagion theory and the
diffusion of innovations.
Social contagion is the idea that attitudes, behaviors, and moods can spread
through groups (Levy, 1993; Monge & Contractor, 2003). Specifically, Blumer
(1939/1951) defined social contagion as, “the relatively rapid, unwitting, and nonrational
dissemination of a mood, impulse, or form of conduct” (p. 179). Through social
contagion, large collectives have spread panic, as with concern about windshield pitting
in Seattle (Medalia & Larsen, 1958) and cases of hysteria at the Montana Mills plant
(Kerckhoff, 1982). Historically, evidence of social contagion has been found for a
variety of behaviors including laughter (Freedman & Perlick, 1979), coughing

24
(Pennebaker, 1980), jaywalking (Russell, Wilson, & Jenkins, 1976) and binge eating
(Crandall, 1988). Traditionally, theorizing about social contagion has emphasized that is
does not involve rational, decision-making. Instead, it highlights the spread of behaviors
through exposure to others with the behaviors.
In contrast to the non-rational elements of contagion theory, Everett Rogers
(1995) suggested that innovations and new ideas are diffused such that innovators are the
first to choose to adopt a new innovation, followed by early adopters and then the early
and late majority of people. Diffusion models focus on the spread of new ideas,
technologies, or other innovations. In the context of health communication campaigns,
Hornik and Yanovitzky (2003) identify social diffusion as the process through which
exposure to campaign messages is re-transmitted through social networks. Within these
social networks, people learn appropriate behaviors as they talk about how messages are
received (Hornik, 2002; Hornik & Yanovitzky, 2003). Diffusion models are founded on
the idea that behaviors are spread through contact with other people who have already
adopted the behavior or through structural equivalence, having the same patterns of
relationships with others (Burt, 1999).
Within social network analysis, the diffusion of innovations is often studied using
simulation and mathematical models. Advanced models suggest a threshold level
necessary for the message to spread (Monge & Contractor, 2003; Strang & Tuma, 1993;
Valente, 1995; 1996; 2005). Each person may have a critical mass, or an individual
threshold of the proportion of people they know who have adopted behaviors that
determines their own willingness to similarly adopt a new behavior. That threshold is

25
considerably lower for people who are early adopters than for those who adopt an
innovation later (Valente, 1995; 1996). Studies of diffusion over time must be careful to
separate network structures created by homophily (in which people with similar
characteristics choose to be linked to each other) from those that actually indicate social
influence (in which people who are linked to each other become increasingly similar over
time) (Aral, Muchnik, and Sundararajan, 2009).
Drawing from diffusion theory, Valente and Davis (1999) suggested a technique
for selecting opinion leaders based on the nominations of the community in question.
The ten percent of people who are nominated by others most frequently can be used to
help in the dissemination of a message. Using simple network analytic techniques based
on the concept of in-degree centralization, these nominated leaders should be paired
specifically with those people who nominated them. In this manner, the diffusion of an
idea may be accelerated through the use of opinion leaders. This technique is designed to
explicitly aid the movement of information through a community using interpersonal
communication. However, Aral, Muchnik, and Sundararajan (2011) suggest that
reinforcing the spread of a message through an incentive program produces stronger
social contagion than simply seeding. Christakis and Fowler (2010) have used a method
similar to identifying opinion leaders to suggest a means for examining the spread of
disease through a network. They used friendship nominations to identify those who were
central to the network, and by tracking those central individuals were able to detect a flu
epidemic earlier than would have been possible through traditional random
epidemiological flu tracking.

26
Using a steps-to-behavior-change theory that is based on the diffusion process,
Valente and colleagues (Valente, Poppe, & Merritt, 1996; Valente & Saba, 1998)
examined family planning campaigns in Peru and Bolivia, respectively. The five stages
specified were knowledge of the message, approval of the message, intention to change
behavior, practice of the new behavior, and advocacy of the behavior to others. Some
people were classified in a sixth stage, discontinuation, if they had tried the behavior but
stopped. People who were in later stages were more likely both to recall the media
messages and to engage in interpersonal communication about family planning with
friends, family, and/or doctors (Valente et al., 1996). This study included network
measures of interpersonal communication by measuring both the type and the number of
people to whom respondents spoke about family planning. However, these measurement
designs did not explicitly examine information in an entire network. Instead, network
data were only captured at the individual or egocentric level.
An international study of the effects of an MTV campaign to prevent the spread of
HIV/AIDS similarly examined the effects of the campaign on interpersonal
communication (Geary et al., 2007). Across the three sites, respondents who were
exposed to the mass media campaign were more likely to discuss HIV/AIDS with
interpersonal contacts than those who were not exposed to the campaign. In turn, this
interpersonal communication increased group norms supporting prevention behaviors.
However, as was the case with previous studies, the measures of interpersonal
communication were restricted to the egocentric networks of respondents.

27
In recent work drawing on the Framingham Heart Study, Christakis and Fowler
(2007; 2008) have used social network analysis to examine how social networks relate to
health status. They found that people’s chance of becoming obese increased if they were
directly connected to another individual who became obese (Christakis & Fowler, 2007).
Likewise, smoking cessation is more likely if others in the social network have ceased
smoking (Christakis & Fowler, 2008). Even affective states such as happiness proved
contagious across the network (Fowler & Christakis, 2008). Based on their findings,
Christakis and Fowler speculated that social norms could be implicated as a potential
reason why social networks are so important (Christakis & Fowler, forthcoming).
Recent work in social network analysis has attempted to disambiguate the peer
influence processes that create social contagion and diffusion. Aral (2010) defined peer
influence as, “how the behaviors of one’s peers change the utility one expects to receive
from engaging in a certain behavior and thus the likelihood that (or extent to which) one
will engage in that behavior” (p. 2). Thus, Aral (2010) included in social influence
processes not only direct persuasion through interpersonal discussion, but also increased
knowledge or awareness and social learning through seeing behaviors modeled. In a
study of the diffusion of a new prescription medication among physicians, Iyengar, Van
den Bulte, and Valente (2010) found that those who prescribed the medication in greater
volume were more influential than their lower volume peers in spreading the prescription
behavior. They suggested that this could be due to either source credibility, given their
large experience with the product, or to the valence of their recommendations, given that
they were likely highly satisfied users. Drawing together all of this research on social

28
contagion and social diffusion, people may adopt new behaviors based on exposure to
others in their social networks who have adopted the behavior. The process may occur
through interpersonal discussion or through observation, and changing of social norms
has been implicated as crucial to the process.
As part of an HIV-risk evaluation and intervention, Latkin et al. (2009a) used
social network analysis to examine injection drug users’ descriptive norms around
sharing drug equipment. They found significant clustering by network, such that people
in the same network were more likely to share norms than those in different networks.
Moreover, the average descriptive norms of other network members influenced
individuals’ risk behaviors, even when controlling for the individuals’ own descriptive
norms. In a separate study with the same population of injection drug users, Latkin,
Kuramoto, Davey-Rothwell, and Tobin (2009b) also found that risky sharing behaviors
within one’s drug network were associated with more permissive injunctive norms
toward needle sharing. However, in both of these studies, the norms were not
specifically assessed for members of the drug network. Thus, network studies of the
social influence process could do more to explicitly examine social norms within the
network.
Within the field of social network analysis, Krackhardt (1987) introduced the
concept of a cognitive social structure as a means to explore how people conceive of their
social interactions. As compared with traditional network analysis in which participants
report their own interactions with others, a cognitive social structure analysis asks each
group member about the interactions among each other pair of group members

29
(Krackhardt, 1987). This leads to the creation of a layered network in which each layer,
or slice, is an individual’s perception of the entire network. For a group with N
participants, a traditional network analysis would include the N x N interactions among
the people. In contrast, a cognitive social structure is N x N x N in dimension because it
includes each individual’s cognitions about the interactions of each other pair of
individuals in the network. As Krackhardt (1987) described:
The Cognitive Social Structure (CSS) of this system, then, would be represented
as R
i, j, k
, where i is the “sender” of the relation, j is the “receiver” of the relation,
and k is the “perceiver” of the relation from i to j. (p. 113)
Example relations for which Krackhardt (1987) proposed using this method were
communication ties, friendship ties, and advice seeking ties. The traditional cognitive
social structure is binary with a tie between any pair of individuals perceived as either
existing or not.
Given its three-dimensional nature, a cognitive social structure can be collapsed
into multiple types of two-dimensional networks. First, a slice is the response of a single
individual, or that person’s perception of the complete network. Second, a locally
aggregated structure is a diagonal cross-section of the full structure for when k is set
equal to either i or j. In other words, a locally aggregated structure is what individuals
report as their own interactions with others and resembles the matrix typically gathered in
social network analysis. Finally, a consensus structure is the matrix that shows what the
group as a whole deems to be the interactions among each possible pair. It can be
calculated using a threshold number of people who must perceive that a relationship
exists in order to include that relationship within the consensus structure.

30
Because the cognitive social structure method places prominence on the
perceptions of individuals about their social networks, it may be useful in the
examination of group norms. In particular, the consensus structure provides a network
level means of examining social norms, rather than one that is founded solely at the
individual level. Thus, such a layered network approach may be able to provide a more
complete picture of social norms than traditionally measured individual level social
norms, and thus may allow insight into the social influence process for social norms.
However, to examine this possibility, changes to the traditional cognitive social structure
must be made. Instead of simply examining a communication relation, the relation
examined must be a normative one. To this end, this study developed a new method
based on the cognitive social structure, a cognitive social norm structure (CSNS).
Participants were asked for each pair of others in their groups how supportive of a
particular behavior a conversation between them would be. The CSNS is described in
more detail in the following chapter. The CSNS will be compared to traditionally
measured subjective norms to examine how the CSNS fits with current social norms and
to answer the following question:
RQ2. Is the cognitive social norm structure positively associated with subjective
norms?
Because it is a multi-level means for examining social norms, the CSNS is expected to
relate both to individuals’ behavioral intentions as stated in the following hypothesis.
H5. Perceived group norms as measured by the CSNS slices are positively
associated with individual behavioral intentions.

31
Group Social Norms
Recent research and theorizing has begun to examine the impact not just of social
norms generally, but also of specific group norms (e.g. Lapinski & Rimal, 2005; Rimal &
Real, 2003; Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry, Hogg, & White, 2000). When considering their
own behavioral choices, people can compare their decisions not only to a general societal
norm, but also to norms for particular reference groups of which they are a member or
that they deem important (Glynn, Ostman, & McDonald, 1995). Feldman (1984) defined
group norms as, “the informal rules that groups adopt to regulate and regularize group
members’ behavior” (p. 47). Within the definition is the explicit assumption that norms
of the groups to which individuals belong can impact their behavior. Group norms are
particularly likely to develop and to be enforced around issues that make the group
distinctive or define its identity (Feldman, 1984).
Small group research within the social identity perspective suggests possible
mechanisms for the maintenance of group norms. According to the social identity
perspective, members of a group share a social identity. When the identity is salient,
group members categorize in a way that emphasizes the difference between their group
and other groups, and they particularly emphasize the differences that favor their own
group (Terry et al., 2000). The group shares an understanding of how a prototypical
group member does and should act. Group members gain respect from their peers by
acting in accordance with this ideal. Thus, these shared understandings can become both
descriptive and injunctive norms (Hogg, Abrams, Otten, & Hinkle, 2004). Such norms

32
can be internalized and have an impact even in the absence of other group members
(Wellen, Hogg, & Terry, 1998).
Lapinski and Rimal (2005) suggest a moderator of the effects of social norms on
behavior. Specifically, they suggest differences in behavioral privacy can affect the
importance of both descriptive and injunctive norms. This can occur both due to
decreased awareness of private behaviors (as fewer people discuss them) and due to
decreased possibility of sanctions for not following such norms (Lapinski & Rimal,
2005). Thus, norms about private behaviors may not be as impactful as norms about
behaviors that are conducted in a public context. Similarly, another possible moderator
may be the extent to which a behavior directly affects the group. For H1N1 swine flu,
individuals both can choose whether or not to be vaccinated (a relatively private choice
that primarily impacts their own health) and whether to stay home from work if they
become sick (a public choice that can also impact the health of others). Because
vaccination is private and less directly impacts the health of the larger group than the
choice to stay home from work if sick, norms surrounding vaccination may not be as
powerful predictors as those for staying home from work when sick.
RQ3. Do group norms have a larger impact on the decision to stay home from
work if sick than on the decision to be vaccinated?
Based on an understanding of the role of social group norms, group norms and
group identity have been incorporated into theories of behavior change. Terry and
colleagues (Smith & Terry, 2003; Terry & Hogg, 1996; Terry et al., 2000) have explicitly
re-examined the theory of reasoned action (TRA) and the theory of planned behavior

33
(TPB) through an understanding of social identity theory and social categorization theory.
In light of the mixed empirical results for social norms consistently predicting behavioral
intentions, Terry et al. (2000) determined:
a strong theoretical case can be made for the view that to understand attitude-
behavior consistency it is necessary to take into account the wider social context
of group memberships—attitudes themselves can be regarded as social products
to the extent that they are likely to be influenced by social norms and
expectations. Furthermore, norms of behaviorally relevant social groups and
categories are likely to influence people's willingness to engage in attitudinally
consistent behavior—to do so may help to validate an important social
identification. (pp. 67-68).
In contrast to the importance of motivations to comply for the TRA, TPB, and IMBP,
Terry et al. (2000) suggested that group norms do not act through motivation to comply
or concerns over social sanctions. Instead, individuals’ understandings of themselves
based on their group membership guide behavior. Thus, Terry and Hogg (1996)
hypothesized and found that attitudes that are congruent with perceived group norms are
most predictive of behavioral intentions for people who have strong group identities.
Furthermore, group norms also correlated with attitudes. Thus, group norms were
important both in their ability to shape individual attitudes and in their moderation of the
effect of those attitudes on behavior. In addition to group identity moderating the effects
of congruent attitudes on behavior, the salience of that group identity is also crucial.
Activating a particular group prototype not only makes associated attitudes more
accessible, but it also makes them normative by highlighting the social group
consequences of behavior (Terry et al., 2000). Thus, both group norms and the salience
of those norms are important in determining behavior.

34
H6. Motivations to comply moderate the impact of group norms on individuals’
behaviors, such that for those who are more motivated to comply with group
members’ wishes, group norms will have a greater impact on behavior.
H7. Group identification moderates the impact of group norms on individuals’
behaviors, such that for those who identify more strongly with the group, group
norms will have a greater impact on behavior.
RQ4. Is the moderating effect of group identification greater than the moderating
effect of motivations to comply on the impact of group norms on individuals’
behaviors?
H8. Interpersonal discussion moderates the impact of group norms on
individuals’ behaviors, such that discussion with people who are supportive of
vaccination is associated with intentions to get vaccinated.
The final set of hypotheses moves to a higher level of analysis. Rather than solely
focusing on individual level predictor or even individual conceptions of group social
norms, the actual norms held by the group are expected to have an impact on behavioral
intentions.
H9. Controlling for individual level predictors, collective group norms as
measured by the CSNS consensus structure will
a) be associated with behavioral intentions, and
b) moderate the impact of individually perceived group norms on
behavioral intentions.

35
H10. Controlling for individual level predictors, consistency of collective group
norms as indicated by the standard deviation of the CSNS consensus structure will
moderate the impact of individually perceived group norms on behavioral
intentions.
Figure 2.3 summarizes all of the individual level and group level hypotheses
leading to behavioral intentions and moderating the path from individually perceived
group social norms to behavioral intentions.

36
Figure 2.3. Summary of hypotheses for behavioral intentions.
1

1
Because motivations to comply are a component in the operationalization of subjective norms, H3 and H6
are tested in separate models.
Attitudes
Behavioral
intentions
Subjective
norms
Self-efficacy
H1
H3
H2
Descriptive
norms
H4
Perceived
group norms
(CSNS slices)
H5
Motivation to
comply
Work group
identification
Interpersonal
discussion
Individual Level
Group Level
Collective group norms
(CSNS consensus
structure)
Consistency of collective
group norms
(CSNS consensus structure
standard deviation)
H9b H9a
H10
H6 H7 H8

37
Chapter 3: Methods
To explore how social norms about health are understood in small group contexts,
a network survey was administered online to groups of adults working together in
organizational settings.
Sampling Procedure
The study population consisted of adults who worked together. Many of the
theories referenced here could also apply to social groups such as fraternities or religious
organizations, as well as work groups. However, work groups were chosen because
adults spend a great deal of their waking time with co-workers. Moreover, the attitudes
and behaviors under study, vaccination and willingness to stay home from work if sick,
clearly implicate the worksite. In addition, many large companies make vaccines
available to their employees on site, and even for those companies that do not, employer-
based health coverage may pay for vaccinations or provide vaccine-related information.
Finally, when people choose whether or not to go to work while they are sick, they must
weigh not only their own health, but also that of their co-workers and how their absence
may affect their colleagues’ workload.
For the purposes of this study, a work group was operationalized as a group of co-
workers who work for the same organization in the same physical location. Physical
proximity was required to ensure that group members had the possibility of interacting
and communicating with each other in both work-related and non work-related ways.
Also, work group members who come into regular contact with each other may expose

38
each other to illnesses such as H1N1, and therefore develop norms to keep the group
healthy. Additionally, work groups had to have defined boundaries that distinguished
work group members from other employees who were not members of the same work
group. An example of a typical work group would be developers on a public
transportation project who are co-located and work together designing improvements to a
particular transit line. Within these broad guidelines, organizations were allowed the
flexibility to self-define precisely what counted as a work group, so that a variety of
different organizational types could be included. This study used a “realist” approach to
boundary specification in which groups were allowed to specify their own boundaries,
rather than having them imposed by the researcher (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982).
Complete work groups were recruited for participation in the study, and
incentives were provided at the group level. Thus, recruitment was a multi-step process
in which organizations were first approached to participate and asked to identify a single
work group of approximately seven to ten people. This size was requested to ensure that
each group would be sufficiently large to allow the use of network analytic and statistical
tools. However, groups also had to be small enough for individuals within the groups to
be well acquainted with each other and to prevent survey fatigue from answering
questions about each group member. Group members needed to have all worked together
consistently from fall 2009 (when H1N1 became prevalent and was most frequently
referenced in the news) until the time of data collection. Groups came from a variety of
companies of different sizes and types, including government, non-profit, and corporate
organizations. After someone at the organization indicated willingness to participate and

39
provided contact information for work group members, each individual member of the
group was separately contacted via email and requested to provide informed consent
before the group was enrolled in the study. This process was conducted privately, so that
participants would not be unduly pressured to participate if they did not feel comfortable
being a part of the research. At the conclusion of the study, each group that completed
the surveys was given one hundred dollars as compensation for their time.
From February to May 2010, 83 organizations were contacted to request their
participation in the study. All organizations were located in California. By limiting the
region in which organizations could be located, employees of each organization should
have been exposed to similar media campaigns regarding H1N1 and subject to the same
availability of vaccines. Of those contacted, 20 organizations (24%) were ineligible.
Specifically, fourteen organizations had too few employees working together with no
work groups of at least seven people. Five organizations had high turnover rates, so they
did not have employees working together consistently through fall 2009. At one
organization, employees did not have internet access or email addresses available either
through work or at home, so employees were unable to receive or complete the online
survey. Of the remaining 63 eligible organizations, three had company policies
prohibiting participation in research, and five agreed to participate but did not complete
the informed consent process in a timely manner before the end of May 2010.
Ultimately, twenty organizations (32% of those eligible) agreed to participate, and
members of the work groups in those organizations completed the survey. The complete
breakdown of response to recruitment by eligible organizations is shown in Figure 3.1.

40
Figure 3.1. Responses to study recruitment by 63 eligible organizations.

After obtaining consent from the twenty participating organizations, 162
individuals were asked to participate. Originally, groups ranged in size from seven to
eleven people. However, one member of a work group needed to be excluded once it was
discovered that the person lived out of state and worked in California only occasionally.
Therefore, final group size ranged from six to eleven people. Only two people (1.2%)
refused to participate when contacted, and for those individuals, no information about
them was obtained from their co-workers. After surveys were distributed, up to four
reminder emails were sent to encourage participation. This multi-stage recruitment
process led to a very high response rate among individuals; 94% of work group members
(152 respondents) took the survey. The response rate by group ranged from 86% to
100%. A high response rate is particularly important for network studies because the
effects of missing data are exponentially higher (Knoke & Kuklinski, 1982). The use of a

41
cognitive social structure or CSS can alleviate some of the missing data problems for
traditional network analysis (Neal, 2008); however, the evaluation of the CSS may be
even more compromised by missing data. See Table 3.1 for the number of participants
and the final response rate by group.
Table 3.1. Number of participants and response rate by group.
Group
Number of work
group members
Number of
Participants
Response
Rate
1 7 7 100%
2 7 7 100%
3 8 7 88%
4 8 7 88%
5 7 7 100%
6 8 7 88%
7 11 10 91%
8 7 7 100%
9 7 7 100%
10 8 8 100%
11 6 6 100%
12 9 8 89%
13 8 8 100%
14 9 9 100%
15 10 9 90%
16 7 6 86%
17 7 7 100%
18 10 9 90%
19 7 7 100%
20 10 9 90%
Total
161
152 94%
Minimum
6
6 86%
Maximum
11
10 100%
Average
8
8 95%

42
Sample Characteristics
Groups. Of the twenty groups that participated, two worked at public, nine at
non-profits, and nine at for-profit institutions. The organizations varied widely in size.
Some organizations had fewer than ten employees, and all employees were included in
the work group. Other organizations had more than 200 employees working in the same
location, and the participating work group consisted of a single unit or project team.
Organizations were classified as belonging to one of five broad categories based on the
type of work performed: health/social service, education, financial/legal services,
arts/entertainment/technology, and those that did not fit into the other four categories.
See Figure 3.2 for the distribution of organizations by their industry.
Figure 3.2. Participating organizations by industry/field (N = 20).

Individuals. The 152 individuals who participated were a fairly diverse group.
Thirty-nine percent of respondents were male, and 57% were female. Participants’ ages

43
Table 3.2. Sample characteristics (N = 152).
N %
Gender
Male 60 39%
Female 87 57%
Age
18 to 29 years 50 33%
30 to 49 years 75 49%
50 years and up 23 15%
Race/Ethnicity
White/Caucasian 70 46%
Black/African American 14 9%
Hispanic 24 16%
Asian/Pacific Islander 30 20%
Other 10 7%
Education
High school or less 5 3%
Some college 26 17%
4 year college degree 63 41%
Post-graduate degree 54 36%
Have a chronic medical condition 18 12%
Pregnant during late 2009 4 3%
Caring for an infant under 1 year 5 3%
Have children under 18 years 44 29%
Have a regular health care provider 133 88%
Employer provides health insurance 125 82%
Paid sick leave from work 126 83%
Note: Not all percentages sum to 100% due to missing data
and rounding.
ranged from 21 to 67 years old, with a median age of 32. Forty-six percent of
participants were white, 9% were black, 16% were Hispanic, 20% were Asian or Pacific
Islander, and 5% were of another race or ethnicity. The groups were well educated with
77% having at least a four year college degree. Fifteen percent of participants had some
status (including having a chronic medical condition, being pregnant, or caring for a child

44
under one year old) that placed them in the CDC high risk group recommended to get the
H1N1 vaccine when it first became available. The majority of participants received
benefits from their employer with 82% having health insurance and 83% having paid sick
leave, respectively. However, these benefits were inconsistent across work groups;
although everyone (100%) of people in eleven of the work groups had health insurance
coverage, in another group, no one had employee health insurance. Table 3.2 shows a
complete breakdown of the demographics of individuals within the sample.
Survey Procedure and Piloting
Data for this study were collected through a survey administered online using
Qualtrics. Use of computerized technology for survey administration allowed for each
survey to be tailored to the individual taking it and to the group of which he or she was a
member. Each respondent was individually emailed a link to the survey specifically
prepared for that individual. During the recruitment process and within the introduction
to the survey, respondents were asked to complete the survey individually and not to
discuss their responses with each other. To answer survey questions about the work
group, respondents' first names and those of their co-workers were inserted into the
survey text.
The survey included questions about the group social network and about
individuals’ attitudes, social norms, and behaviors around H1N1 swine flu (see the list of
questions in Appendix A). The survey was first shown to other researchers for feedback
on the questions asked and the order in which they would be presented to respondents. It

45
was then piloted with six individuals asked to remember or imagine a small group of
which they might or could be a member. Three of these pilot tests of the survey were
conducted with cognitive interviewing, and verbal probes were used to determine
whether and how questions were understood. Additionally, three people took the pilot
survey to check the overall understanding of the survey. Initial piloting showed that the
survey took approximately twenty minutes to complete. All of the pilot tests were
conducted using the Qualtrics platform to confirm that the online survey distribution
method worked as designed.
Survey Measures
The final survey included questions about the individual answering, the group of
which the individual was a member, other members of the group, and interactions
between other members of the group. Two key H1N1-related attitudes and behaviors
were specifically highlighted: H1N1 vaccination and willingness to stay home when sick.
To account for order effects, the blocks of questions on vaccination and staying home
were randomly counterbalanced for the different work groups. All measures are
described in detail below.
Demographics and identification of status in H1N1 swine flu vaccine priority
risk group. For use as control variables, respondents were asked to report basic
demographics including their gender, age, race, years of formal education, and whether
they had children under 18 years old. Gender, race, and having children were used as
control variables in analysis. Age and education level were used as linear predictors. In

46
addition, participants indicated other characteristics that could place them in one of the
priority groups for receiving H1N1 swine flu vaccination, including having a chronic
medical condition, being pregnant during the final six months of 2009, or caring for a
child under one year old. If a respondent indicated that any of these characteristics
applied to them then they were marked as high risk in a dummy variable. Finally,
participants were asked about whether their employer provided them with health
insurance or paid sick leave and whether they had a regular health care provider. The
answers to these questions were also used as control variables.
Behavior and behavioral intentions around H1N1 swine flu. Respondents
were asked if they had become sick with H1N1 swine flu. Because most cases were not
verified through lab tests, the possible response options were, “Yes,” “No,” and “I’m not
sure.” Respondents also reported whether they were vaccinated for or tried to be
vaccinated for H1N1 flu. The approximate dates of vaccination or vaccination attempts
were recorded. For those who had not yet been vaccinated, respondents were asked how
likely they were to get the vaccine. Respondents were also asked how long they would
be willing to stay home from work if they were to become sick with H1N1 flu.
Information seeking. Information seeking about H1N1 swine flu was assessed
using a series of 4-point interval items ranging from “not at all” to “a lot,” adapted from a
question on the Annenberg National Health Communication Survey
(http://anhcs.asc.upenn.edu/). Specifically, respondents were asked about their
information seeking via television, newspapers, radio, general magazines, health
magazines, the internet, family and friends, coworkers, and doctors or other health care

47
professionals. The responses to these questions were averaged to compute a single H1N1
information seeking scale (Cronbach’s α = .85).
Individual knowledge of H1N1 swine flu. Each individual reported his or her
own knowledge about H1N1 influenza on a ten point scale anchored at “nothing at all”
and “a great deal.”
Attitudes toward H1N1 swine flu. Following Fishbein (1980; Terry & Hogg,
1996), attitudes toward H1N1 swine flu vaccinations and toward staying home while sick
were assessed using four six-point semantic differentials. The semantic differentials were
anchored by favorable/unfavorable, risky/safe, bad/good, and responsible/irresponsible.
The favorable/unfavorable and responsible/irresponsible scales were reverse coded such
that higher scores indicated more positive evaluations. The scores for each of the four
scales were averaged separately for attitudes toward H1N1 swine flu vaccinations
(Cronbach’s α = .90) and toward staying home while sick from H1N1 swine flu
(Cronbach’s α = .78).
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was assessed through two simple statements (“I feel
able to get an H1N1 swine flu vaccination” and “I feel able to stay home from work if
sick with H1N1 swine flu”). Both had seven point Likert scales ranging from “strongly
disagree” to “strongly agree” as response options.
Traditional subjective norms. Traditional subjective norms were measured
through both normative beliefs and motivation to comply (Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975). Specifically, normative beliefs were measured for relevant people
including parents, doctors, and other friends. Each respondent was asked how much

48
those people wanted them to be vaccinated for H1N1 swine flu (Cronbach’s α = .90) and
how much those people would want them to stay home if they became sick with H1N1
swine flu (Cronbach’s α = .85). Additionally, motivations to comply were measured as
how much the opinion of each relevant other mattered to the respondent, separately for
vaccination (Cronbach’s α = .85) and staying home (Cronbach’s α = .87). Response
options for both types of questions were ten point scales. To account for order effects,
the order of the normative belief and motivations to comply questions were randomly
counterbalanced for the different work groups.
In addition to asking these subjective norm questions for traditional groups of
relevant others, participants were also asked the normative beliefs of and motivations to
comply with each of their co-workers in their work group. The responses were used to
create square network matrices for each work group. The rows show how individuals
perceive the normative beliefs and the motivations to comply with their co-workers listed
in the columns. In other words, cell (i, j) of the motivations to comply vaccination matrix
is how much participant i feels that participant j’s opinion about vaccination matters. The
diagonal is left blank because individuals do not report their normative beliefs or
motivations to comply with themselves. An example of the normative belief and
motivations to comply matrices for a work group is shown in Figure 3.3. The matrices
were multiplied together elementwise (cell by cell) to create subjective norms network
matrices for each work group. For example, cell (2,1) in the left side of Figure 3.3
represents person 2’s assessment of how person 1 feels about vaccination and cell (2,1) in
the right side is how motivated person 2 is to comply with person 1’s beliefs. These two

49
values, 5 and 6, respectively, were multiplied by each other to obtain the number 30,
person 2’s subjective norms with regards to person 1. Because of this multiplication, the
values for subjective norms can range from 1 to 100.
Figure 3.3. Example network matrices for normative beliefs and motivations to comply
with work group.

Traditional descriptive norms. Following Rimal and Real (2003), respondents
were asked to estimate the percentage of people their age who were vaccinated for H1N1
swine flu or would stay home from work if they were sick with H1N1 swine flu.
Group health identity. Participants were also asked about their group as a
whole. First, their group’s identity or prototype, with respect to health, was assessed.
Specifically, participants were asked to, “Think of your work group as a unit. Your work

50
group's ‘health identity’ is a description which tells how your group deals with health
issues. For example, consider how your group thinks about health and how it perceives
preventive measures to keep you healthy. Please type what you consider your group’s
health identity to be.” Participants were given ample space to write open-ended
responses. Next, participants were further asked to what extent they thought their group's
health identity (as they wrote it) described them personally on a ten point scale anchored
by “Not at all” and “A great deal.”
Following Hogg and Hains (1996), the open-ended responses were coded to
determine the content, valence, and depth of description each individual gave for their
group’s health identity. Specifically, each response was coded for whether it mentioned
vaccination or staying home from work when sick, and if those were mentioned, how
supportive of the behaviors the group was said to be. The number of words used in
describing the group health identity was noted to determine how well the identity was
defined. Additionally, counts of pronouns by type were made to compare the extent to
which participants referred to their groups by including themselves (first person singular
or plural pronouns) or referring only to others (by using third person pronouns). Finally,
the extent to which the identity suggested that the group was focused on prevention of
disease and on health more generally was also coded. See Appendix B for the complete
group health identity coding dictionary.
One researcher coded the entire sample, and a second coder was trained on the
coding definitions and coded a random sample of 25% of the responses. Inter-coder
reliability for all coded variables was calculated using Hayes’ SPSS macro for

51
Krippendorff’s alpha (Hayes & Krippendorff, 2007). The reliability for each variable
was at least 0.80. See Table 3.3 for the Krippendorff’s alpha for each coded variable.
To ensure that knowledge of the group to which a member belonged or the
responses of other group members did not influence the coding of any individual
response, the responses were randomly sorted and completely de-identified for the coding
process. Subsequently, the average and standard deviation of the prevention and health
variables were calculated by group to assess the extent to which group members agreed
on their group’s health identity.
Table 3.3. Inter-coder reliability for group health identity coding.
Krippendorff’s
alpha
Mention vaccination 1.00
Valence of vaccination 1.00
Mention staying home 0.94
Valence of staying home 0.98
Number of words 0.94
First person singular words 0.99
First person plural words 0.88
Third person words 0.80
Focus on prevention 0.81
Focus on health 0.85

Perceived group norms. Each individual’s perceptions of the specific H1N1-
related norms for the whole group were measured on a 10-point scale anchored by “Not
at all” and “A great deal.” The questions asked were, “As a unit, does your work group
think members should be vaccinated for H1N1 swine flu?” and “As a unit, does your
work group think members should stay at home from work if sick with H1N1 swine flu?”

52
Work group identification. Following Olkkonen and Lipponen (2006), work
group identification was measured with two scales. The eight item Affective
Commitment Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987) included items such as “This work group has
a great deal of personal meaning for me” and “I do not feel ‘emotionally attached’ to this
work group” (reverse coded). In contrast, the cognitive components of work group
identification were measured using Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six item organizational
identification scale, with example items being “When I talk about my work group, I
usually say 'we' rather than 'they'” and “The successes of my work group are my
successes.” Both scales were measured using seven point Likert response options
ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree (see Appendix A for the complete
scales).
Confirmatory factor analysis was used to determine whether the two scales should
be treated as one combined work group identification scale or as two separate scales for
the cognitive and affective components. The two-factor orthogonal model was the best
fit to the data. In fact, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was so low
that it indicated close to perfect fit. However, because the RMSEA confidence interval
included 0.04, this was not deemed suspect. Likewise, the comparative fit index (CFI)
was well above the .90 threshold indicative of good fit. See Table 3.4 for the fit statistics
and Appendix C for a path diagram showing the complete statistics for the two factor
orthogonal model. Modification indices for the two-factor orthogonal model indicated
that the model fit might be improved by allowing for correlated measurement error or by
allowing cognitive items to load on the affective factor and vice versa. However, the

53
model fit was already quite high. Based on these results and to maintain the initial scales
as validated in previous studies, the affective (Cronbach’s α = .85) and cognitive
(Cronbach’s α = .76) components of work group identification were kept as separate
scales for subsequent analysis.
Table 3.4. Fit statistics for alternative work group identification models (N = 145).
RMSEA
90% C. I.

χ
2
df p RMSEA Lower Upper CFI
Model 1. Single factor. 220 77 <.01 0.12 0.10 0.13 0.94
Model 2. Two-factor oblique. 125 76 <.01 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.98
Model 3. Two-factor
orthogonal.
70 77 .69 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.00

Group communication. A series of questions about all group members assessed
multiple network relations for the complete group. Respondents were asked the extent to
which they communicated with the other members of their group in general on a ten point
scale anchored by “Not at all” and “A great deal.” This question was asked as a network
list in which the first names of each member of the group were provided for all
respondents. Responses were used to produce a valued communication network matrix
for each work group.
Participants also reported the extent to which they spoke to each of their co-
workers specifically about H1N1 swine flu vaccinations and about staying home when
sick with H1N1. Again, responses were measured on ten point scales. To facilitate ease
of answering, the questions on vaccination and on staying home from work when sick
were clustered into two sets. The order in which these sets were presented was
randomized by group, with half of the groups seeing the vaccination questions first and

54
the other half seeing the questions about staying home first. The answers to questions
referring to talking about H1N1 were again structured into separate, valued network
matrixes by group. All network matrixes are included (without any identifying
information) in Appendix D.
Group knowledge of H1N1 swine flu. In addition to self-reporting their own
knowledge of H1N1 influenza, individuals also reported their perceptions of the level of
H1N1 knowledge of all other members of their work group on a ten point scale anchored
by “Not at all” and “A great deal.” The responses were formatted into a valued,
asymmetrical knowledge network relation for each group.
Cognitive social norm structure. The cognitive social norm structure (CSNS)
for each group was measured using social network analytic questions similar to those
used for cognitive social structures (Krackhardt, 1987). First, each participant was asked,
“Imagine a conversation about the H1N1 swine flu took place between you and each of
the following people. Which of the following best describes the feeling during the
conversation toward H1N1 vaccination?” The four possible answer options were “not at
all supportive,” “not very supportive,” “somewhat supportive,” and “supportive.” The
online software prompted participants to respond for conversations they might have with
each person in their group.
Next, participants were asked, “Similarly, now imagine a conversation about the
H1N1 swine flu took place between pairs of other members of your group. Which of the
following best describes the feeling during the conversation toward H1N1 vaccination?”
Again, the online survey software prompted participants to respond that the conversations

55
would be “not at all supportive,” “not very supportive,” “somewhat supportive,” or
“supportive” for each pair. However, in this case, the list of pairs provided was all
possible combinations of other people in their work group. The responses of each
individual to these two questions were used to generate that individual’s CSNS slice. In
other words, these responses were the individual’s perception of how supportive all dyads
in the work group are of H1N1 vaccination. The aggregation of all of the individual
slices from a particular work group formed the cognitive social norm structure or CSNS
in support of H1N1 vaccination for the group.
From this multi-dimensional CSNS, the locally aggregated structure (LAS) and
the consensus structure were also extracted. The locally aggregated structure indicates
what was reported by the individual pairs about their support for H1N1 vaccination. The
consensus structure indicates the overall group’s average perception of the support for
vaccination by each pair. Thus, the CSNS includes three ways of viewing group social
norm data: 1) slices - the individual’s perceptions of pair support, 2) LAS – the
perceptions of pair support by just the two partners involved, and 3) consensus structures
- the average group perception of the pair support for vaccination. Because the focus of
this study is on individual’s perceptions of their group norms and the collective
perception of the group norms, only the individual CSNS slices and the group CSNS
consensus structures were used for analysis. See Figure 3.4 for a diagram of the
components of a CSNS. For each work group, the CSNS consensus structure was
calculated by taking the valued average of the cells for each member’s slice. The density
of the consensus structure (the overall average perceived support by all work group

56
Figure 3.4. Cognitive social norm structure components.

57
members of each dyad in the group) represents the overall group social norms, or the
level of support for vaccination, indicated by the group collectively.
In addition to the overall level of support, it is important to also consider the
consistency of that support across the pairs of group members, as H10 hypothesized that
this would moderate the effect of individual CSNS slices on behavioral intentions.
Harrison and Klein (2007) have created a typology of different types of diversity that can
be found in organizations. They describe “separation” as differentiation in attitudes or
values, as can be measured along a continuous scale. They recommend the use of
standard deviation as a measure of group diversity for variables, such as the support for
vaccination measured here. In accord with this recommendation, the standard deviation
of the density of this consensus structure was used to show the diversity (the opposite of
consistency) of the group social norms. High standard deviation of the CSNS consensus
structure indicates low levels of group agreement about support for a health issue such as
vaccination. The same process used to create the CSNS for H1N1 flu vaccination was
also used to assess the CSNS for staying home from work if sick with H1N1 flu.
Analysis
Analysis included a variety of quantitative techniques designed to accommodate
social networks and multilevel data. Specifically, social network analysis was conducted
using UCINET (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999), and hierarchical linear modeling
was conducted using HLM 6 (Raudenbush, Bryk, & Congdon, 2004). First, UCINET
was used for network data preparation by stacking the CSNS slices to compute the locally

58
aggregated and consensus structures. Second, a variety of standard network measures at
both the individual and network (group) level were computed for use as variables in
subsequent analysis.
Network measures. At the individual nodal level, the primary network measure
used was a node’s degree.
2
For traditional binary networks, degree is the number of ties
that a node has with other nodes in the network. When the relation is not symmetric,
both indegree (the number of times that one person is nominated by another) and
outdegree (the number of nominations that a person makes) can be assessed (Wasserman
& Faust, 1994). Because the network relations used here were all valued, any
individual’s degree indicates the average value, or tie strength, across all ties (Hanneman
& Riddle, 2005). Degree centrality can be normalized by dividing a node’s degree by the
possible number of relations that a node could have (n – 1). This allows for comparison
of groups of varying size (Valente, Coronges, Stevens, & Cousineau, 2008; Wasserman
& Faust, 1994). High levels of normalized degree centrality indicate strong relationships
with other nodes in the network. Normalized degree centrality was calculated as an
individual level variable for the communication relation and the talking about H1N1
vaccination and talking about staying home from work if sick with H1N1 relations.

2
The groups used here were selected as bounded networks in which everyone knew and had the
opportunity to communicate with each other. Thus, each group’s network consisted of a single, fully
connected component. Network measures describing the distance or reachability between different
individuals did not make sense for this data.

59
Two primary global measures in social network analysis describe the whole
group: 1) degree centralization and 2) network density (Monge & Contractor, 2003;
Valente, 2008). Degree centralization is an extension of individual level degree to the
network level (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). It shows the variance in individual degrees in
the network. Higher levels of degree centralization indicate that the bulk of the network
activity is taking place with just a few central nodes. In contrast, low levels of degree
centralization indicate that the individuals are fairly equivalent in their network relations.
Normalized degree centralization was calculated as a group level variable for each group
for the communication and talking relations.
Network density is the proportion of all possible ties in the network that actually
exist for binary data. For valued data such as that used here, the density of the graph is
weighted by the tie value and indicates the average tie strength across all possible ties
(Wasserman & Faust, 1994). As described above, the standard deviation of that average
can also be calculated as a measure of the “separation” of different group members
(Harrison & Klein, 2007). The densities of each individual’s slice of the CSNS (each
individual’s perception of the average support for vaccination and staying home) were
calculated as individual level predictors. Additionally, the overall density and standard
deviation of the group’s CSNS were calculated as group level variables.
Hierarchical linear modeling. All hypotheses testing the association between
variables were examined using two level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) and
hierarchical generalized linear modeling (HGLM) to control for interdependencies among
group members (Luke, 2004; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush, Bryk, Cheong,

60
Congdon, & du Toit, 2004). Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression requires that
observations be independent of each other and therefore was inappropriate. Because the
goal of this study was to examine group influences on health-related attitudes and
behaviors, the data for this study were collected from people nested within organizational
work groups. Thus, both theoretically and statistically, the data included dependencies
based on group membership. OLS was therefore not an appropriate statistical technique,
and multilevel modeling was necessary.
For each dependent variable, a series of analytical steps were taken. First, the null
or baseline model was estimated to calculate the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC,
the percentage of variance in the dependent variable that is attributable to group
membership). Though this percentage was under ten percent, hierarchical modeling was
still used for all analyses. As Roberts (2007) has stated, higher intraclass correlation
coefficients demonstrate the need to use hierarchical models due to group
interdependencies. However, a low intraclass correlation coefficient does not imply that
ordinary least squares regression may be used instead. Group dependencies can still exist
even if the variance of the group mean for the dependent variables is low.
Second, after the null, unconditional model was estimated, hierarchical linear
models were run with level-1 (individual) predictors added. The level-1 predictors were
all group-mean centered when added to the models. Centering is important for
interpretation of the intercept when using predictors that cannot have a value of zero such
as Likert scales (Luke, 2004). Additionally, because the research questions included
substantive interest in level-1 predictors, interactions between multiple level-1 predictors,

61
and cross-level interactions of group effects on level-1 predictors, group-mean centering
is preferred to grand-mean centering (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). Specifically, group-mean
centering provides less biased estimates and is better for disentangling interaction effects
(Enders & Tofighi, 2007).
In the third step, level-2 (group) predictors were added to the model. Level-2
predictors were all centered to the grand mean. Depending on the specific hypothesis
being tested, the effects of the group level predictors were estimated only for the
individual level intercepts or for both the individual level intercepts and the individual
level slopes. Estimating group effects on the slopes of individual level predictors allowed
for testing of cross-level interactions, in which the level-2 predictors have a different
impact depending on the value of level-1 predictors for a particular group. For example,
group norms may have a direct effect on behavioral intentions (estimating a level-2 effect
on the intercept), and group norms may also impact the extent to which individual
perceptions of group norms impact behavioral intentions (a cross-level interaction of the
group norm level-2 effect on the perceived group norm, level-1 slope).
For dependent variables that approximated normal distributions, restricted
maximum likelihood estimation (REML) was used. REML provides the same estimates
for fixed effects as maximum likelihood estimation. However, it is better at estimating
the variance for random effects when there are fewer than 50 level-2 units (Luke, 2004).
Unlike with maximum likelihood estimation, the deviance for REML models is not
distributed as χ
2
, so even with nested models a difference test, the Akaike Information
Criterion (AIC), and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) are inappropriate for

62
model comparison. Instead, to assess model fit, a variation on R
2
is used. For multilevel
models, R
2
can be calculated and interpreted as the percentage reduction in error variance
at a particular level, in comparison to a null or baseline model (Luke, 2004; Snijders &
Bosker, 1999). The formulas are as follows:
Level-1:
Baseline r
Comparison r
R
) (
) (
1
2 2
2 2
2
1
0
0
μ
μ
σ σ
σ σ
+
+
− =
Level-2:
Baseline r
Comparison r
H
H
R
) (
) (
1
2 2
2 2
2
2
0
0
μ
μ
σ σ
σ σ
+
+
− =
where H, the harmonic mean, is
) 1 (
1 j
k
n
k
H
∑
= , k is the total number of groups in level-2,
and n
j
is the number of individuals in each group j (based on Luke, 2004 and Snijders &
Bosker, 1999).
3
Thus, for models that only include level-1 predictors, the reduction in R
2

for level-1 error variance is reported, and for those models that also include group or
cross-level effects, both the reduction in R
2
for level-1 error variance and for level-2 error
variance are reported.
The intention to stay home from work if sick with H1N1 as measured by days that
the respondent would be willing to stay home was highly skewed.
4
Additionally, some
participants chose just to write in “as long as necessary” rather than provide a specific

3
The harmonic mean, H, is the expected number of people in each group. For the data presented here, H is
7.46. In other words, each group is expected to have between seven and eight members.
4
The use of a Box-Cox transformation with λ = -0.37 (Confidence interval: -0.58 to -0.19) was not
successful in making the variable approximate a normal distribution, given many extreme outliers.
Therefore, despite the loss of statistical power that occurs when collapsing down to a lower level, a
categorical variable was deemed most appropriate.

63
number. Thus, to model data in accord with model assumptions and to include all
respondents who answered the question, this variable was categorized into three groups:
those willing to stay home at most five days, those willing to stay home between six and
ten days, and those willing to stay home for more than ten days. The assumption of
proportional odds necessary for ordinal HGLM models was violated, so nominal,
multinomial HGLM models were estimated for the intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1 using restricted penalized quasi-likelihood estimation (RPQL, Hedeker, 2008;
Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002; Raudenbush, et al. 2004).
5
For these multinomial models, the
odds ratios for the two higher categories compared to the reference category of
willingness to stay at home at most five days were calculated. Intraclass correlation
coefficients were calculated separately for the two different comparisons (Hedeker,
2008).
There were no order effects based on the random presentation of either normative
beliefs or motivations to comply questions first or on the order in which the vaccination
or staying home questions were asked. Therefore, all of the groups were examined
simultaneously without controlling for order effects in the hierarchical linear models. For
all analyses, the alpha level was set at .05 a priori.

5
Additionally, HLM was run treating the intention to stay home variable as a normal linear variable. The
results for hypothesis testing were quite similar to those reported here for the HGLM models. The two
most statistically significant predictors were still self-efficacy and the group CSNS consensus structure.

64
Chapter 4: Results
This chapter presents the results from the surveys of twenty work groups in stages
based on the level of analysis of each hypothesis. The first section includes descriptive
statistics at the individual level and is followed by hypothesis testing focused on
individual level, independent variables (H1 to H4). Next, descriptions of the group health
identities and group level characteristics are provided. Hypotheses that include
individual level predictors based on group norms and interactions with the group (H5 to
H8) are tested. Finally, hypotheses that incorporate group level predictors and cross-level
interactions (H9 and H10) are presented.
Descriptive Statistics
The survey included questions on attitudes, self-efficacy, social norms,
interpersonal discussion, and behavioral intentions related to being vaccinated for H1N1
and staying home from work if sick with H1N1. The individual means and standard
deviations for each are presented in Table 4.1. There are three different social norms
included: 1) subjective norms which are the summed product of normative beliefs and
motivations to comply with each of the work group members, 2) descriptive norms which
are the percentage of people that respondents think engage in the specified behaviors, and
3) cognitive social norm structure (CSNS) slice group norms which are the individuals’
perceptions of the norms of the group as a unit. As can be seen in the table, there are
generally higher levels of support for staying home from work if sick with H1N1 than for
becoming vaccinated. Moreover, the standard deviations for staying home are often

65
smaller, indicating that not only are there high levels of support for staying home, but
also that support is fairly consistent across respondents.
Table 4.1. Individual level descriptive statistics.
H1N1
vaccination
Staying home
from work if sick
Mean SD Mean SD
Attitudes
a
4.4 1.6 6.6 0.8
Self-efficacy
a
5.2 1.8 6.3 1.2
Subjective norms
b
18.7 21.7 62.9 31.0
Motivations to comply
c
3.7 2.7 6.5 3.0
Descriptive norms
d
30.2 16.8 75.8 21.9
CSNS slice group norms
e
3.1 0.6 3.9 0.3
Interpersonal discussion
c
2.8 2.2 3.0 2.5
Behavioral intentions
f
3.2 2.5 9.7 12.1
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 7;
b
Scale ranges from 1 to 100;
c
Scale ranges
from 1 to 10;
d
Response is a percentage;
e
Scale ranges from 1 to 4;

f
For vaccination, scale ranges from 1 to 10, and for staying home, the
number of days willing to stay home if sick with H1N1

As mentioned in Chapter 3, intentions to stay home from work if sick were highly
skewed. Therefore, people were classified into three categories based on how long they
would be willing to stay home if they had H1N1. Table 4.2 shows the number and
percentage of people willing to stay home five days or fewer, six to ten days, and more
than ten days, respectively. These cut-off points were chosen based both on the natural
division points selected by participants and because they correspond to the number of
work weeks off (given there are five days in the average work week at most of the
organizations studied).

66
Table 4.3 shows the zero-order correlations for the individual level variables for
both H1N1 vaccination (lower triangle) and willingness to stay home from work if sick
with H1N1 (upper triangle). The significance of the correlation coefficients should not
be interpreted because these correlations do not account for the dependency within
groups. Moreover, these zero-order correlations contain potential confounding effects
from the other predictor variables. Group level variables, such as the CSNS consensus
group norms, are intentionally excluded from the table because all group members have
the same value.
Table 4.2. Categories for intentions to stay home if sick with H1N1.
Days willing to stay home if sick with H1N1 N %
0 to 5 days 67 42.1%
6 to 10 days 42 26.4%
Greater than 10 days 36 22.6%
Table 4.3. Zero-order correlations for individual level variables.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Attitudes

-- 0.43** 0.05 0.19* 0.45** 0.24**
Self-efficacy

0.40** -- 0.18* 0.16 0.12 0.23**
Subjective norms

0.23* 0.04 -- -0.02 0.21* 0.03
Descriptive norms

0.02 0.14 0.15 -- 0.25** 0.18*
CSNS slice group
norms

0.32** 0.27** 0.26** 0.13 -- 0.07
Behavioral intentions

0.51** 0.21* 0.38** 0.14 0.31** --
Note: The lower triangle of the correlation table shows the zero-order correlation
coefficients for H1N1 vaccination variables, and the upper triangle reports the zero-
order correlation coefficients for variables relating to staying home from work if sick
with H1N1.
*p < .05; **p < .01

67
Individual Level Hypotheses
The first research question did not test an association between variables. Instead,
it looked at whether motivations to comply with the recommendations of others should be
measured separately for each behavior under study. This research question was
examined separately for both traditional groups of relevant others (family, friends, and
doctors) and for work group members that are the focus of this study. The motivations to
comply with other’s opinions on vaccination were subtracted from motivations to comply
with opinions on staying home from work when sick with H1N1. A null hierarchical
linear model was estimated to test whether the intercept (the average difference in
motivation to comply with relevant others on the two different behaviors) was
statistically significantly different from zero. By subtracting the scores for one
motivation to comply with one behavior from the other, this tested whether there was a
significant difference between motivation to comply for the two in a manner similar to
that used in within-subjects t-tests. In both models, the intercept did statistically
significantly differ from zero. Specifically, the motivation to comply with family,
friends, and doctors’ opinions on staying home from work is significantly higher than the
motivation to comply with their opinions on vaccination (γ = 1.59, t = 7.3, p < .001).
Likewise, respondents were more motivated to comply with their coworkers’ opinions on
staying home than with their opinions on vaccination (γ = 2.87, t = 11.3, p < .001). These
intercepts of the difference scores are particularly high when considered in the context of
the ten point Likert scales used to measure motivations to comply. Participants are much
more motivated to comply when making decisions about staying home from work than

68
when choosing whether to get vaccinated. Therefore, in subsequent analyses, motivation
to comply is always specific to the behavior under study.
The first four hypotheses stemmed from existing health communication theories
predicting behavioral intentions. Specifically, they hypothesized that attitudes (H1), self-
efficacy (H2), subjective norms (H3), and descriptive norms (H4) would all be positively
associated with intentions to perform a behavior. In order to determine the independent
impact of each individual-level predictor and the percent that it added to the variance
explained, these hypotheses were tested both separately with one predictor at a time and
simultaneously to allow each variable to control for all others. This process was
conducted both for vaccination intention and the intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1.
The results for vaccination are presented first. First, the null model for H1N1
vaccination intention was estimated. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), or the
proportion of total variance that is attributable to variance between groups, was 5.8
percent. This ICC indicates that there was some variation between different work groups.
In the next step, potential level-1 control variables were entered including respondent
gender, age, race, education, identification as a member of a high risk category with
priority for the vaccination, health insurance status, and whether the respondent had
children under 18 years old. Of these potential covariates, only having minor children
was significantly associated with vaccination intention. Specifically, those people with
children were more likely to intend to get the H1N1 vaccine (γ = 1.14, t = 2.03, p < .05,

69
see Model V1 in Table 4.4); therefore, having children is used as a control variable in all
subsequent analyses of vaccination intention.
Table 4.4. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for individual
predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention.
Fixed Effects
(Predictors)
Model
V1
Model
V2
Model
V3
Model
V4
Model
V5
Model
V6
Intercept 3.16** 3.18** 3.18** 3.16** 3.17** 3.18**
Have children under 18 1.14** 0.82 1.01 0.93 1.04 0.70
Attitudes - 0.71** - - - 0.65**
Self-efficacy - - 0.22 - - -0.04
Subjective norms - - - 0.05** - 0.03**
Descriptive norms - - - - 0.03* 0.02
R
2
(Additional level-1
variance explained
compared to null
model) 2.2% 14.8% 3.6% 12.3% 7.9% 23.9%
Random Effects Deviance Variance (df) χ
2

Model V1: Intercept, u
0
574.090 0.390 19 28.2
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 5.621 - -
Model V2: Intercept, u
0
533.465 0.602 19 34.1*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.638 - -
Model V3: Intercept, u
0
568.850 0.397 19 28.3
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 5.532 - -
Model V4: Intercept, u
0
567.072 0.536 19 32.7*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.857 - -
Model V5: Intercept, u
0
549.014 0.439 19 29.5
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 5.223 - -
Model V6: Intercept, u
0
516.221 0.656 19 36.9**
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.022 - -
*p < .05; **p < .01

70
The results for Hypotheses 1 through 4 are presented in Table 4.4 below. For
each model, fixed effects, random effects, and the improvement in variance explained are
included. In each of the models, random slopes were initially estimated; however, for all
models with H1N1 vaccination intention as the outcome, no random slopes were
significant. Therefore, the results from the more parsimonious models with random
intercepts only are provided. In the separate models, attitudes, subjective norms, and
descriptive norms are all positively related to H1N1 vaccination intention. Only self-
efficacy is not significantly associated with intentions (γ = 0.22, t = 1.65, p = .10). When
these predictors are entered simultaneously (Model V6), descriptive norms is no longer
significantly associated with H1N1 vaccination intentions, but both attitudes (γ = 0.65, t
= 4.03, p < .001) and subjective norms (γ = 0.03, t = 2.63, p < .01) are. The inclusion of
these individual level predictors explains 23.9 percent more of the variance within groups
than the baseline, null model does. For H1N1 vaccination, H1 and H3 are strongly
supported, as attitudes and subjective norms relate to behavioral intentions. H4 is only
partially supported, given that descriptive norms only relate to behavioral intentions when
not controlling for individual attitudes and subjective norms. H2 is not supported, as self-
efficacy does not relate to H1N1 vaccination intention.
Hypotheses 1 through 4 were also tested for intention to stay home from work if
sick with H1N1, using multinomial HGLM models. As with H1N1 vaccination, the null
model was estimated first. Based on the within and between group variance estimates of
the null model, the intraclass correlation coefficient comparing those willing to stay home
more than ten days with those willing to stay home at most five days was 3.9 percent,

71
indicating a small proportion of the total variance is explained by group differences. In
contrast, the intraclass correlation coefficient comparing those willing to stay home six to
ten days with those willing to stay home five days or fewer showed a much greater
proportion of variance was due to differences between groups (71.1%). Table 4.5
includes the odds ratios and confidence intervals for willingness to stay home from work
for six to ten days and to stay home from work more than ten days compared to staying
home a maximum of five days, respectively. Random slopes were initially included;
however, given that none were significant, only models with random intercepts are
reported. As when estimating the intention to vaccinate, initial models with possible
covariates (including gender, age, race, education level, having children under 18 years
old, and paid sick leave) were estimated. The only covariate that reached statistical
significance was gender. Compared to men, women were significantly less likely to be
willing to stay home more than ten days (Model H1, OR: 0.31, CI: 0.12 – 0.81, p < .05).
Based on these results, all subsequent models of intentions to stay home if sick with
H1N1 also controlled for gender.
Hypotheses 1 through 4 were that behavior-specific attitudes, self-efficacy,
subjective norms, and descriptive norms would all be positively associated with
behavioral intentions. Each hypothesis was tested separately, and then a full model was
estimated with all of these predictors entered simultaneously. Unsurprisingly, the odds
ratios comparing those willing to stay home the longest (any amount over ten days) to
those willing to stay home the least were far more likely to be significant than those
comparing people willing to stay home a moderate amount (six to ten days) with those

72
Table 4.5. Summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) results for
individual predictors of intention to stay home if sick with H1N1.

Willing to stay home
6-10 days
a

Willing to stay home
>10 days
a

Fixed Effects (Predictors)
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Model H1
Intercept 0.60 (0.35, 1.03) 0.51** (0.32, 0.80)
Gender (reference is male) 1.20 (0.48, 3.02) 0.31* (0.12, 0.81)
Model H2
Intercept 0.62 (0.34, 1.12) 0.46** (0.27, 0.80)
Gender (reference is male) 1.21 (0.46, 3.20) 0.28* (0.10, 0.80)
Attitudes 1.32 (0.74, 2.34) 2.65* (1.14, 6.16)
Model H3
Intercept 0.62 (0.36, 1.06) 0.42** (0.25, 0.73)
Gender (reference is male) 1.30 (0.51, 3.35) 0.36* (0.13, 0.99)
Self-efficacy 1.36 (0.92, 2.00) 2.37** (1.24, 4.53)
Model H4
Intercept 0.60 (0.35, 1.04) 0.49** (0.30, 0.78)
Gender (reference is male) 1.20 (0.48, 3.02) 0.28* (0.10, 0.77)
Subjective norms 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) 1.00 (0.99, 1.02)
Model H5
Intercept 0.59 (0.34, 1.05) 0.50** (0.31, 0.81)
Gender (reference is male) 0.99 (0.38, 2.56) 0.26* (0.09, 0.71)
Descriptive norms 1.02 (1.00, 1.04) 1.03* (1.00, 1.05)
Model H6
Intercept 0.54 (0.27, 1.10) 0.43* (0.23, 0.79)
Gender (reference is male) 1.16 (0.39, 3.42) 0.23* (0.07, 0.76)
Attitudes 1.11 (0.53, 2.35) 1.89 (0.76, 4.70)
Self-efficacy 2.43* (1.15, 5.15) 1.90 (0.94, 3.88)
Subjective norms 1.01 (0.99, 1.02) 1.00 (0.99, 1.03)
Descriptive norms 1.01 (0.99, 1.03) 1.02 (0.99, 1.05)
a
Reference group is those willing to stay home a maximum of 5 days
*p < .05; **p < .01

who were willing to stay home for a shorter time. Positive attitudes toward staying
home, self-efficacy that one could stay home, and descriptive norms about the percentage

73
of others of the same age who would stay home if sick with H1N1 all significantly related
to increased odds of staying home for at least ten days compared to fewer than five days.
Subjective norms for relevant others’ beliefs about staying home and the motivation to
comply with those beliefs were not related to the odds of willingness to stay home
(Model H4, OR: 1.00, CI: 0.99 – 1.02, p = .40). When controlling for each of these
variables simultaneously, only self-efficacy significantly predicted intentions to stay
home if sick. Increasing levels of self-efficacy significantly related to increased
likelihood to stay home for six to ten days (Model H6, OR: 2.43, CI: 1.15 – 5.15, p < .05)
and was marginally related to increased likelihood to stay home for more than ten days
(Model H6, OR: 1.90, CI: 0.94 – 3.88, p = .075). For intentions to stay home if sick with
H1N1, Hypotheses 1 (attitudes), 2 (self-efficacy), and 4 (descriptive norms) were all
supported in separate models, and hypothesis 3 (subjective norms) was not supported.
However, the strongest evidence is for the relationship between self-efficacy and
behavioral intentions to stay home from work if sick with H1N1.
Work Group Characteristics
Group health identities. Respondents were asked to describe their group’s
health identity, or how the work group thought about and dealt with health-related issues.
These group health identities did not have to be specific to H1N1 and were designed to be
more general. However, given the placement of the question following many surveys
questions on H1N1-related attitudes, self-efficacy, and social norms, some participants
focused on the specific issue of H1N1 when responding. Groups varied widely in the

74
Table 4.6. Summary of group health identities.
Mean SD
Mention vaccination
a
0.07 0.25
Valence of vaccination
b
0.11 0.78
Mention staying home
a
0.35 0.48
Valence of staying home
b
0.48 0.75
Number of words
c
27.1 27.4
Mention specific group member
a
0.06 0.24
First person singular words
c
0.65 1.01
First person plural words
c
1.37 1.96
Second person words
c
0.21 0.58
Third person words
c
0.39 0.85
Focus on prevention
d
2.69 0.99
Focus on health
e
2.52 0.69
How accurately the group’s health
identity describes the participant
f
7.19 2.27
a
Yes or no;
b
Scale ranges from -1 to 1;
c
Count of number of words
d
Scale
ranges from 1 to 4;
e
Scale ranges from 1 to 3;
f
Scale ranges from 1 to 10

extent to which they reported having an established or consistently held group identity
related to health. Table 4.6 shows summary statistics for individuals’ group health
identities.
Table 4.7 shows the extent to which health identities focused on prevention of
disease or were strongly inclined toward health by group. Though most people reported
that their group had at least some inclination towards prevention and health as indicated
by the mean above the scale midpoints, groups differed in the level of agreement. For
example, in Groups 4 and 14, every participant reported a high focus on health (M = 3.0,
SD = 0.0 for both groups). However, for Group 16, the overall focus on health was
lower, and there was much less agreement among the group members on the level of
focus on health (M = 2.0, SD = 1.0).

75
Table 4.7. Focus on prevention and health in group health identities by group.
Prevention
a
Health
b
Group Mean

SD Mean

SD
1 3.0 0.89 2.6 0.49
2 2.7 1.16 2.3 0.88
3 2.7 0.47 2.8 0.37
4 3.2 0.69 3.0 0.00
5 3.0 0.93 2.7 0.70
6 2.3 0.88 2.4 0.49
7 2.3 0.75 2.3 0.75
8 2.5 1.26 2.3 0.94
9 2.9 0.83 2.9 0.35
10 2.4 0.73 2.4 0.49
11 2.2 0.90 2.0 0.58
12 2.6 1.05 2.6 0.73
13 2.6 0.99 2.5 0.71
14 3.9 0.33 3.0 0.00
15 2.6 0.73 2.3 0.70
16 2.3 1.30 2.0 1.00
17 2.5 1.12 2.3 0.75
18 3.0 1.12 2.6 0.70
19 2.3 0.88 2.4 0.73
20 2.7 0.75 2.7 0.47
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 4;
b
Scale ranges from 1 to 3

Particularly for those groups working in health or social service fields, the
concept of a health identity resonated. Participants working in health and social services
often identified health as a critical component of their work group as can be seen in the
following quote from a participant’s group health identity description.
Health is very important to our group. We work with families and children and
believe it is important to be healthy in order to help others. If someone is sick or
is feeling sick it’s important for them to get better in order to perform at work to
the best of your ability. (Female, Health and social service)

76
For these groups, talking with others and showing concern for their health was a natural
extension of the kind of work that they did already. Thinking about the health not just of
clients but of coworkers was important.
Regarding health identity, I think most in this group care a great deal about their
own well being and each other's. (Female, Health and social service)
Several of us communicate on a daily basis, not just in terms of work but
concerning personal issues as well. (Female, Health and social service)
However, for groups working in other sectors, thinking about their coworkers in terms of
health issues did not always come naturally. For example, one man reported that he
believed his work group members cared about health, but as it was not important to their
jobs, they did not discuss health regularly.
I think we all individually find health and specific health issues like H1N1 to be
very important. However, collectively, unless it just happens to be top of mind,
there's really not a consistent forum or pattern of us discussing issues regularly. I
strongly believe that we all perceive prevention to be an integral thing that we
should support for each other as well our own collective sakes; it's just that
because we're so busy and working on our own [issues], it's hard to always make
it a priority aloud. (Male, Arts/entertainment and technology)
Instead, many people think of health as a personal issue that is not central to the work
environment.
[Our group] mostly thinks in individual terms about health and not the group as a
whole, but the group is generally supportive of members making healthy life style
changes. We have also shared information about preventative measures for
avoiding contracting/spreading cold/flu. (Female, Other field)
There is no group discussion of health issues, certainly not regarding preventive
care. The only message I've heard is around taking vacation to have a healthier
work/personal life balance. (Female, Other field)

77
However, partially because of the strong relationship between health and a sense of
caring or support for co-workers, those working in the health and social service field
were not the only groups to feel a strong commitment to health.
I think people are really concerned about each others' health. (Female, Other
field)
I think we are all responsible individuals who look out for each other. (Female,
Financial/legal service)
In sum, people from a variety of groups ended up feeling that health in general and
prevention of disease in particular were important to their work groups.
The work environment, including specific organizational policies and the tone set
by the supervisor, were important factors influencing perceptions of the group health
identity.
We work in a field where we interact with people with various diseases, so we
often discuss the potential of breakouts with each other and what the symptoms
might be. We encourage staff to stay home when sick and to not spread it to other
co-workers. We each get 5 days of sick leave at work and a pretty generous
vacation schedule, so if we got sick with something serious I feel that my office
would be supportive and allow me to take time off, if needed. (Female, Health
and social service)
Our supervisors encourage healthy lifestyles as well. We're all given time off if
we need to go work out for a while. (Male, Education)
Sick leave and time off were important, but other, smaller changes also mattered. For
example, one office established policies for their work group around the types of snacks
to be provided at office meetings.
I'd say we have a positive health identity. Last week, for example, [Jane, our
supervisor,] ran a marathon, and [Susana] completed a triathlon. Both were
congratulated at last week's [staff] meeting. At that same meeting we discussed
healthy alternatives to bringing in nuts and candy. Finally, [Jane] sets a good

78
example of taking time off when she's sick and trying not to infect others. (Male,
Other field, Names changed)
In other offices, a variety of cleaners and hand sanitizers were made available to assist
employees in their efforts toward prevention.
Our work group is strong in their perception that we should all take preventive
measures to keep ourselves and those around us healthy. There is a general
feeling that if someone feels like they are getting sick, they should try all they can
to stay at home as to not expose others. We also take preventive measures inside
the workplace to help reduce the spread of germs...we have hand sanitizer
available in our suite for anyone who comes in. We also have begun a movement
towards healthy get-togethers (i.e. healthy food, water, etc.) to support health in
our unit. (Female, Health and social service)
The way our group deals with health issues really depends on the type of health
issue at hand. For example, in order to prevent the spread of germs, an automatic
hand sanitizer was installed in the front room. I notice the sanitizer is used more
frequently when a coworker admits to being sick (or at least I use it more). (Male,
Health and social service)
Employees took a cue from the tone of the supervisor in determining how important
prevention and health was in their particular offices.
Most of my co-workers are very aware of health issues in the community and take
preventive measures seriously. This identity is reinforced by our supervisor, who
is extremely sensitive to the health of our department as a whole and who would
not want to jeopardize staff productivity by not taking proper preventive measures
in the office (such as having people staying home from work when sick).
(Female, Health and social service)
Our group values maintaining a healthy and safe work environment. We are
strongly urged to stay home when we are sick with something that can spread in
the workplace. Our bosses stock the fridge with healthy snacks and orange juice
to make sure that we are staying healthy. (Female, Financial/legal service)
When company policy explicitly promotes health-related activities, this can send a strong
message to employees about the culture of the organization.

79
Our group is very "health" conscious. We take care of what we eat and most of
them routinely exercise. Some were even active in joining the company
sponsored "weight loss" challenge. (Male, Education)
When reporting their group health identities, respondents were far less likely to
talk about vaccination than about staying home from work. Only 7% of respondents
mentioned vaccination in their descriptions, compared with 35% of people mentioning
choices around staying home from work. Among those that did mention vaccination, the
valence of discussion was slightly positive (0.11 on a 3-point scale from -1 to 1). When
vaccination was mentioned, it was more likely to be considered a private or individual
matter than staying home was.
You are encouraged to stay home if ill. However, the issue of obtaining a
vaccination is never brought up but rather, left to the individual to decide. (Male,
Education)
The lower focus on vaccination is consistent with the finding that people feel less
motivated to comply with work group members’ beliefs about H1N1 vaccination than
with their beliefs about staying home from work if sick with H1N1. Despite this, some
groups did talk about vaccination with their co-workers. For example, in his small office,
one respondent had communicated sufficiently with his coworkers to be able to state
whether each of them had been vaccinated.
Our office is small so when one person gets sick, most of us get sick after. So
we're very careful about health issues. Three of us got vaccinated and one
actually had the flu. (Male, Arts/entertainment/technology)
When participants did talk about vaccination, they discussed the risks versus benefits of
getting the H1N1 vaccine. For example, one man mentioned discussing concerns about

80
the chemicals used in vaccines, and another woman also shared her beliefs about the
limited availability of the vaccine.
In our work group we talk about correct diet, exercise, eating organic foods, and
avoiding unnecessary vaccines (especially ones with mercury in them). (Male,
Health and social service)
We are all young and healthy - we know we are a very low-risk group to get the
H1N1 virus and the vaccines were in shortage so we didn’t bother to get the
vaccine so other high-risk people could. (Female, Health and social service)
Overall, very few people mentioned vaccination in their group health identities. When
they did say that their group discussed vaccination, the comments were only slightly
positive.
Despite not being focused on vaccinations when describing their group health
identities, multiple participants did think about vaccinations, particularly in terms of the
potential risks. This is shown by the quotes from women in the space for additional
comments at the conclusion of the survey. Three different women mentioned their
concern over the safety of vaccines generally and the process by which the H1N1 vaccine
was manufactured and approved in particular.
I think the vaccine was dangerous as it was not tested enough; they couldn’t
figure out how to produce the vaccine to meet demand when they had months to
prepare for the onslaught of need for the vaccine. (Female, Financial/legal
service, Additional comments at survey conclusion)
I don't think the vaccine is safe. I have not done enough research to actually look
at the risk in being vaccinated. (Female, Health and social service, Additional
comments at survey conclusion)
My big concern is whether vaccines in general have thimerosal in them or not.
Even though there are recent studies that have shown no link between the
preservative and certain conditions, I am not really that convinced that there is no

81
relationship. (Female, Health and social service, Additional comments at survey
conclusion)
As these quotes show, even though they did not all talk with their group about
vaccinations regularly, participants did think about H1N1 vaccination choices carefully.
In contrast, many participants talked with their coworkers about the variety of
factors that come into play when choosing whether to stay home if sick.
Almost always, we are favorable to people staying home from work so that it
doesn't spread. People still come in sick on occasion, though. (Male,
Arts/entertainment/technology)
While some in the group are highly cautious individuals, those same individuals
do not seem to take time off when sick, nor do they seem to like it when others
take time off due to sickness. The vast majority seem reasonably balanced; less
concerned with sickness unless they actually are sick and taking time off only
when necessary for personal or group health. (Male, Arts/entertainment and
technology)
Participants’ discussions of staying home while sick revealed a variety of contradictions.
First, there are contradictions within a particular work group. For example, one man
working in the financial and legal service sector felt strongly that people should stay
home when sick so as to avoid exposing others to illness.
Overall, I believe our group does what each needs to do to stay healthy and we
make an effort not to bring things into the office that could infect others. I believe
that is just the courteous thing to do and should be a general standard amongst all
workplaces. (Male, Financial/legal service)
However, one of his coworkers felt that the environment at their office did not support
taking time off.
The corporate culture is that you should work regardless of being sick. The
preventive measures are helping to avoid getting sick and lots of folks get the
vaccines for that reason. (Female, Financial/legal service, same group as
previous quote)

82
For some respondents, the differences within the group could be attributed to the level of
the employee within the organization. For example, one assistant noted that she and the
other assistants who did not have paid time off were more likely to work through illness
than their bosses who could more readily take sick time or work from home.
Our group remains fairly healthy. I think when individuals become sick, many
stay home. I think that assistants tend to "tough it out," as we are hourly and
actually lose a sick day/pay when not at work. The overall message is to stay
home if you are sick. (Female assistant, Arts/entertainment/technology)
Often the apparent contradictions among groups boil down to a discrepancy
between what is said and what is done.
It's important to be healthy in the office because it's here that germs spread
quickly. People always SAY that you should stay home but the reality is that
they're probably annoyed that you're staying home sick because you aren't getting
any work done. (Female, Financial/legal service, Emphasis in original)
I think in this group there is a strong emphasis on taking care of yourself and
staying home when we are sick. We ourselves feel pressure because there is so
much work to be done that we don't always do so, but I feel like everyone is
supportive at least verbally of making sure people are healthy themselves and not
spreading sickness to others. I also think that we can do more practically as a
group to encourage preventive health. (Female, Health and social service)
Both of these participants noted that what is said aloud may not always correspond to
actual behavior. This discrepancy is important as it has strong implications for group
social norms. Subjective norms about what people think others want them to do are often
believed to be related to discussion, whereas descriptive norms may be more indicative of
observation of actual behavior. In determining the appropriate choices in a particular
work environment, employees have to determine whether to follow the espoused norms,

83
or whether they should instead rely on what they see others do as more indicative of the
appropriate patterns of behavior.
When determining whether to stay home from work if sick, respondents typically
weighed two basic considerations: 1) exposing others to their illness and 2) their
productivity. Those who valued the health of their coworkers highly were more likely to
favor taking time off.
When we are sick with a cold, cough or flu we take a sick day in consideration of
our health and those of others in the office. (Female, Health and social service)
Additionally, some respondents seemed to follow a “Golden Rule” approach, whereby
they did not want to expose others to something that they would not want to contract and
take home to their children.
Stay home if you're sick. Some of us have kids, and kids get sick easily. So
nobody wants anyone to get sick, so stay home if you are. If you're getting sick,
take a bunch of Vitamin C, Airborne, Cold-Eez, Zicam, whatever. (Male,
Arts/entertainment/technology)
However, when heavy work loads loomed, and participants were concerned about
fulfilling their obligations, they were more likely to feel that people would work.
Unfortunately some of us have such a heavy work load that we may not take the
necessary time to recover. (Female, Financial/legal service)
Work hard unless you are REALLY ill. (Female, Education, Emphasis in
original)
We are very hard workers and will only take time off when necessary. I believe
we all take preventive measures and should when ill take more time off. (Female,
Financial/legal service)
In these quotes, there is a sense that people probably should take time off from work, but
that they are unable to do so. Particularly given the financial difficulties facing many

84
companies during the time of data collection, people were particularly likely to feel that
taking time off was challenging.
Some feel like they are too busy to take time off due to sickness, and with the
economy not being the greatest, the fear of losing your job makes people work
when sick. (Male, Financial/legal service)
However, some participants felt that a more severe disease might merit more
consideration for taking time off.
We work long hours and not coming in is somewhat of a last resort, maybe that's
why we have so much Purell everywhere. But I think swine flu would be a valid
reason to stay home and that everyone would be supportive. (Female,
Financial/legal service)
Often the qualitative group health identities were not completely consistent with the
quantitative attitudes and social norms toward staying home from work if sick with
H1N1. The respondents’ answers to the attitude questions indicated quite high support
for staying home from work if sick with H1N1 (M = 6.6, SD = 0.8 on a 7 point scale),
and individual’s perceptions of the group social norms were similarly high (slice density
= 9.3, SD = 1.5 on a 10 point scale). However, their qualitative answers revealed a
greater amount of ambivalence.
Identification with the work group. In addition to reporting their groups’ health
identity, participants were also asked about their identification with their work groups.
Based on the results of the confirmatory factor analysis, two separate scales were used,
one for affective components of identification and one for cognitive components. Table
4.8 shows the means and standard deviations for each scale by group. As can be seen, the
averages were above the scale midpoint for all groups, indicating that most people felt

85
fairly strong identification to their groups. There was no significant difference between
affective and cognitive levels of work group identification.
Table 4.8. Identification with work group by group.
Affective work group
identification
a

Cognitive work group
identification
a

Group Mean SD Mean SD
1 3.4 0.5 3.9 0.6
2 3.1 0.3 3.9 0.6
3 4.4 0.4 4.0 0.3
4 3.8 0.8 3.7 0.6
5 3.3 0.7 3.8 0.5
6 3.4 0.6 3.6 0.8
7 3.5 0.8 3.4 1.0
8 3.2 0.8 3.5 0.4
9 3.4 0.5 3.8 0.7
10 3.1 0.8 3.5 0.7
11 3.6 0.4 3.8 0.3
12 3.6 0.5 3.9 0.7
13 3.5 0.8 4.2 0.5
14 3.8 0.6 3.5 0.8
15 2.6 0.7 3.0 0.4
16 3.8 0.6 3.7 0.4
17 4.2 0.5 4.1 0.5
18 3.4 0.6 3.6 0.4
19 3.2 0.4 3.4 0.5
20 3.7 0.5 4.1 0.5
Overall 3.5 0.7 3.7 0.6
a
Scale ranges from 1 to 5

Individually Perceived Group Predictors
Following discussion of work group characteristics, the next set of hypotheses
examines individual perceptions of the work group norms in relation to behavioral
intentions. The cognitive social norm structure used multiple network relations to assess

86
the overall group’s understanding of the group social norms. The first question about the
cognitive social norm structure (RQ2) was whether it would be positively associated with
subjective norms as measured in the traditional manner proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen
(Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). To test this, the traditionally measured
subjective norms were the dependent variable, and the density of each individual’s slice
of the cognitive social norm structure was the corresponding independent variable. In
other words, the association between each individual’s perception of the normative
beliefs of their work group and their motivations to comply with those normative beliefs
was compared to each individual’s perception of the average level of support for H1N1-
related behaviors by pairs of colleagues. This was tested separately both for social norms
about H1N1 vaccination and for social norms about staying home from work if sick with
H1N1.
For subjective norms about vaccination, the calculation of the ICC from the
between and within-group variances showed that 10.8% of the variance in subjective
norms about vaccination could be explained by group membership. The density of the
vaccination CSNS slice was included as an individual level-1 predictor. The random
slope for CSNS slice density was initially included, but was not significant (p > .05).
Therefore, the relationship between the CSNS slices and traditional subjective norms did
not vary by group. The results reported here are for the fixed effects with random
intercepts only. Table 4.9 shows the output for this model. The CSNS slice density was
positively associated with traditional subjective norms about H1N1 vaccination (γ = 18.6,
t = 3.3, p < .01).

87
Table 4.9. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results comparing
subjective norms and CSNS for H1N1 vaccination.
Fixed Effects (Predictors)
γ
Coefficient
Standard
Error p
Intercept 18.6 2.3 .000
CSNS Slice group norms 19.7 3.3 .005
Random Effects Deviance Variance p
Intercept, u
0
1298 57.3 .004
Level 1 variance, r
ij
391.6

Similarly, the null model and the model with CSNS slice density as an individual
level predictor were run with traditional subjective norms about staying home from work
when sick as the dependent variable (see Table 4.10). The ICC calculated from the null
model showed that 1.8% of the variance in traditional subjective norms could be
accounted for by between group differences. This is a fairly low ICC, but as discussed in
the previous chapter on methods, the low percentage does not discount the need to use
hierarchical modeling for analysis. Again, the random slopes for CSNS slice density
were not significant, so the random intercepts model is reported. Individuals’ perceptions
of the average pair support for staying home from work (as measured by the CSNS slice
density) were positively associated with traditional subjective norms (γ = 24.3, t = 2.9, p
< .01). At the individual level, the cognitive social norm structure is positively associated
with subjective norms as traditionally measured both for vaccination and for staying
home from work when sick with H1N1.
Building on the results from RQ2, the next hypothesis (H5) was that the cognitive
social norm structure would also relate to behavioral intentions. To test this hypothesis

88
Table 4.10. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results comparing
subjective norms and CSNS for staying home if sick with H1N1.
Fixed Effects (Predictors)
γ
Coefficient
Standard
Error p
Intercept 62.8 2.7 .000
CSNS Slice group norms 24.3 8.4 .005
Random Effects Deviance Variance p
Intercept, u
0
1340 25.2 .277
Level 1 variance, r
ij
904.7

for H1N1 vaccination, an HLM model was estimated, controlling for whether
respondents had children under 18 years old and respondents’ attitudes toward H1N1
vaccination. The fixed effect of CSNS slice density on behavioral intentions was
statistically significant (see Table 4.11, Model V7, γ = 0.74, t = 2.0, p < .05). For each
one point increase in an individual’s perception of the group’s support for H1N1
vaccination, that individual’s intention to get the H1N1 vaccine increased 0.74 points on
a ten-point scale. The inclusion of this variable added an additional 3.4% of variance
explained beyond the model that only included having children and attitudes, for a total
of 18.2% more variance explained than in the unconditional model. H5 was supported
for vaccination.
To test H5 for intentions to stay home if sick with H1N1, an HGLM model was
similarly estimated controlling for the two predictors previously found to be consistently
significant, gender and self-efficacy. The odds ratio of CSNS slice density for staying
home was not significantly related to behavioral intentions either for willingness to stay
home six to ten days (OR: 2.61, CI: 0.48 – 14.1, p = .26) or for willingness to stay home

89
more than ten days (OR: 1.51, CI: 0.27 – 8.27, p = .64) versus willingness to stay home
five days or fewer. H5 was not supported for intention to stay home from work if sick.
RQ3 questioned whether the impact of group norms on behavioral intentions would be
greater for the behavior that was both more public and more related to the work group –
staying home from work if sick with H1N1. There was no direct effect of group norms as
measured by individual’s perceptions of the CSNS on behavioral intentions for staying
home, but there was a significant, positive effect for H1N1 vaccination. Thus, the answer
to RQ3 is no. Group norms were not more influential in predicting intentions to stay
home than in predicting intentions to get the H1N1 vaccination.
H6 through H8 examined three variables that might moderate the influence of
group norms on behavioral intentions: motivations to comply, work group identification,
and interpersonal discussion about the behavior. Because the cognitive and affective
components of work group identification were determined to compose two separate
factors (see confirmatory factor analysis in previous chapter), they were tested separately.
Models V8 through V12 (see Table 4.11) show the results for testing these hypotheses.
When tested sequentially, motivations to comply and cognitive work group identification
had significant interaction effects with CSNS slice density on intention to get the H1N1
vaccination. For those with greater willingness to comply with work group member’s
opinions on vaccination, group norms had a larger impact on behavioral intentions (γ =
0.08, t = 2.7, p < .01). Likewise, those respondents who most strongly identified with
their work groups on a cognitive level had stronger relationships between group norms
and behavioral intentions (γ = 0.37, t = 3.5, p = .001). Neither affective work group

90
Table 4.11. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for individually
perceived group predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention.
Fixed Effects
(Predictors)
Model
V7
Model
V8
Model
V9
Model
V10
Model
V11
Model
V12
Intercept 3.21** 3.21** 3.22** 3.22** 3.21** 3.22**
Have children under 18 0.99* 0.87 0.82 0.92 1.00 0.85
Attitudes 0.65** 0.58** 0.65** 0.65** 0.65** 0.59**
CSNS slice group norms 0.74* 0.47 -0.06 0.52 0.74 0.12
Motivations to comply x
CSNS slice group
norms - 0.08** - - - 0.07*
Cognitive work group
identification x CSNS
slice group norms - - 0.25* - - 0.26
Affective work group
identification x CSNS
slice group norms - - - 0.08 - -0.18
Talking about
vaccination x CSNS
slice group norms - - - - 0.01 0.00
R
2
(Additional level-1
variance explained
compared to null
model) 18.2% 22.0% 19.6% 17.4% 16.9% 21.2%
Random Effects Deviance Variance (df) χ
2

Model V7: Intercept, u
0
522.528 0.663 19 36.1*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.370 - -
Model V8: Intercept, u
0
522.215 0.725 19 38.8**
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.072 - -
Model V9: Intercept, u
0
516.919 0.704 19 37.4*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.242 - -
Model V10: Intercept u
0
520.626 0.670 19 36.0*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.407 - -
Model V11: Intercept u
0
523.433 0.662 19 35.7*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.446 - -
Model V12: Intercept u
0
518.676 0.747 19 38.9**
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.101 - -
*p < .05; **p < .01

91
identification nor interpersonal discussion moderated the impact of group norms on
behavioral intentions. When all interaction terms were entered simultaneously, only
motivations to comply significantly moderated the impact of group norms on intentions.
H6 (motivations to comply) was strongly supported for intention to get the H1N1
vaccination; H7 (work group identification) was only partially supported; and H8
(interpersonal discussion) was not supported. RQ4 posed the question of whether group
identification would have a stronger moderating effect of group norms on behavioral
intentions than motivations to comply with the group did. The answer is a decided no; in
fact, motivations to comply had the stronger and more consistent moderating effect.
The interaction hypotheses were also tested for willingness to stay home if sick
with H1N1. The results are shown in Model H7 (see Table 4.12). Controlling for gender
and for self-efficacy, none of the interaction effects of group norms on behavioral
intentions were significant. Unlike for vaccination, for behavioral intentions to stay
home if sick with H1N1, Hypotheses 6, 7, and 8 are all not supported. Given that work
group identification did not have any moderating effect on the relationship between group
norms and behavioral intentions, RQ4 was again answered no. There was no greater
impact for work group identification compared with motivations to comply.
Group Predictors
The final hypotheses, H9 and H10, incorporate group level predictors of
behavioral intentions. Specifically, H9 hypothesized that while controlling for individual

92
Table 4.12. Model H7, summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM)
results for individually perceived group predictors of intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1.

Willing to stay home
6-10 days
a

Willing to stay home
>10 days
a

Fixed Effects (Predictors)
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Intercept 0.63 (0.35, 1.12) 0.44** (0.25, 0.77)
Gender (reference is male) 1.11 (0.41, 3.04) 0.30* (0.10, 0.89)
Self-efficacy 1.32 (0.89, 1.94) 2.22* (1.15, 4.28)
CSNS slice group norms 1.60 (0.23, 10.95) 0.86 (0.12, 6.18)
Motivations to comply x CSNS
slice group norms 1.00 (0.97, 1.05) 1.01 (0.97, 1.06)
Cognitive work group
identification x CSNS slice
group norms 0.97 (0.75, 0.24) 0.96 (0.74, 1.26)
Affective work group
identification x CSNS slice
group norms 1.21 (0.95, 1.53) 1.19 (0.92, 1.55)
Talking about staying home x
CSNS slice group norms 1.00 (0.95, 1.05) 1.01 (0.96, 1.08)
a
Reference group is those willing to stay home a maximum of 5 days
*p < .05; **p < .01

level predictors, the group level variable, the density of the consensus structure of the
CSNS, would both have a direct effect on behavioral intentions and would moderate the
impact of individually perceived group norms on behavioral intentions. H10
hypothesized that the consistency of this consensus structures (as measured by the
standard deviation) would also have a cross-level interaction effect by moderating the
impact of individually perceived group norms on behavioral intentions. The results for
these hypotheses for behavioral intentions to get the H1N1 vaccination are presented in
Table 4.13. H9a was supported. The group level CSNS consensus structure density is

93
Table 4.13. Summary of Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) results for group level
predictors of H1N1 vaccination intention.
Fixed Effects (Predictors)
Model
V13
Model
V14
Model
V15
Intercept 3.20** 3.20** 3.20**
Have children under 18 years old 0.87 0.85 0.92
Attitudes 0.58** 0.60** 0.56**
CSNS slice group norms 0.46 0.54 0.51
Motivations to comply x CSNS slice group
norms 0.07** 0.07** 0.07**
CSNS consensus group norms 1.59* 1.58* 1.59*
CSNS consensus group norms x CSNS
slice group norms - 0.70 -
CSNS consensus group norm separation x
CSNS slice group norms - - -6.76*
R
2
(Additional level-1 variance explained
compared to null model) 25.6% 25.2% 26.8%
R
2
(Additional level-2 variance explained
compared to null model) 7.6% 7.7% 6.9%
Random Effects Deviance Variance χ
2
(df)
Model V13: Intercept, u
0
514.985 0.501 31.4(18)*
Level V1 variance, r
ij
- 4.077 -
Model V14: Intercept, u
0
514.374 0.496 31.2(18)*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 4.100 -
Model V15: Intercept, u
0
509.065 0.522 32.2(18)*
Level 1 variance, r
ij
- 3.977 -
*p < .05; **p < .01

positively associated with behavioral intentions, even when controlling for the individual
slice density (γ = 1.59, t = 2.7, p < .05). H9b was not supported. The level of collective
group support for H1N1 vaccination did not moderate the impact of how that support was
perceived individually on behavioral intentions (γ = 0.74, t = 0.8, p = .42). However,
H10 was supported. The more consistent (lower standard deviation) the CSNS consensus

94
Table 4.14. Summary of Hierarchical Generalized Linear Modeling (HGLM) results for
group level predictors of intention to stay home if sick with H1N1.

Willing to stay home
6-10 days
a

Willing to stay home
>10 days
a

Fixed Effects (Predictors)
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Odds
ratio
Confidence
Interval
Model H8
Intercept 0.61 (0.34, 1.08) 0.38** (0.21, 0.69)
Gender (reference is male) 1.20 (0.45, 3.16) 0.31** (0.11, 0.91)
Self-efficacy 1.34 (0.92, 1.97) 2.79** (1.36, 5.73)
CSNS slice group norms 2.41 (0.48, 11.97) 1.53 (0.22, 10.84)
CSNS consensus group
norms 1.02 (0.01, 76.14) 74.0* (1.03, 5310)
Model H9
Intercept 0.61 (0.34, 1.08) 0.37** (0.20, 0.69)
Gender (reference is male) 1.20 (0.46, 3.19) 0.31* (0.11, 0.92)
Self-efficacy 1.34 (0.91, 1.97) 2.82** (1.37, 5.77)
CSNS slice group norms 3.23 (0.26 , 39.89) 2.94 (0.18, 48.65)
CSNS consensus group
norms 1.03 (0.01, 76.71) 87.9* (1.15, 6718)
CSNS consensus group
norms x CSNS slice group
norms 8.00 (0, 3.5 E6) 267 (0, 5.3 E9)
Model H10
Intercept 0.60 (0.34, 1.08) 0.37** (0.20, 0.69)
Gender (reference is male) 1.21 (0.46, 3.22) 0.32* (0.11, 0.93)
Self-efficacy 1.33 (0.91,1.96) 2.81** (1.36, 5.78)
CSNS slice group norms 3.83 (0.32, 45.30) 3.27 (0.18, 59.71)
CSNS consensus group
norms 1.05 (0.01, 80.29) 96.3* (1.16, 7996)
CSNS consensus group
norm separation x CSNS
slice group norms 0.00 (0,4.9 E9) 0.00 (0,1.5 E11)
a
Reference group is those willing to stay home a maximum of 5 days
*p < .05; **p < .01

structure was, the stronger the relationship between the individual CSNS slice density
and behavioral intentions to get vaccinated (γ = -6.76, t = -2.8, p < .01). Model V15
shows the final model for H1N1 vaccination intention. With the direct and interaction

95
effects included, this model explains 27% more of the individual level variance and 7%
more of the group level variance than the unconditional model does.
Hypotheses 9 and 10 were also tested for intention to stay home if sick with
H1N1. The results are shown in Table 4.14. As for H1N1 vaccination intention, H9a
was supported. While controlling for individual level predictors of gender, self-efficacy,
and individual CSNS slice density, the group level CSNS consensus structure density was
significantly positively associated with willingness to stay home more than ten days
relative to those willing to stay home five days or fewer (OR: 74.0, CI: 1.03 – 5310, p <
.05). However, neither H9b nor H10 was supported. Neither the overall group level of
support nor the consistency of that support moderated the impact of the individually
perceived group norms on behavioral intentions to stay home. Thus, for intentions to stay
home from work if sick with H1N1, Model H8 is the best and most parsimonious model,
including those individual level predictors of gender, self-efficacy, and CSNS slice
density and the group predictor of the CSNS consensus structure density.
Table 4.15 summarizes the results for all of the hypotheses and research
questions. The first two research questions were answered positively. Motivations to
comply do vary based on the specific behavior in question, and the individual slices of
the CSNS were positively associated with subjective norms as traditionally measured. In
contrast, the second two research questions were both answered in the negative.
Individually perceived group norms had a larger impact on behavioral intentions for
H1N1 vaccination than for intention to stay home if sick with H1N1. Motivations to

96
comply were a stronger moderator of the relationship between perceived group norms
and behavioral intentions than group identification was.
Table 4.15. Summary of results.
Hypotheses and Research Questions Results
H1. Attitudes are positively associated with behavioral
intentions.
Partially
supported
H2. Self-efficacy is positively associated with behavioral
intentions.
Partially
supported
H3. Subjective norms are positively associated with behavioral
intentions.
Partially
supported
H4. Descriptive norms are positively associated with
behavioral intentions.
Partially
supported
H5. Individually perceived group norms as measured by the
CSNS are associated with behavioral intentions.
Partially
supported
H6. Motivations to comply moderate the impact of group
norms on individuals’ behaviors, such that for those who are
more motivated to comply with group members’ wishes, group
norms will have a greater impact on behavior.
Partially
supported
H7. Group identification moderates the impact of group norms
on individuals’ behaviors, such that for those who identify more
strongly with the group, group norms will have a greater impact
on behavior.
Partially
supported
H8. Interpersonal discussion interacts with group norms such
that discussion with people who are supportive of vaccination
is associated with intentions to get vaccinated.
Not supported
H9. Controlling for individual level predictors, collective group
norms will
a) be positively associated with behavioral intentions.
b) moderate the impact of individually perceived group
norms on behavioral intentions.

Supported
Not supported
H10. Controlling for individual level predictors, consistency of
collective group norms will moderate the impact of individually
perceived group norms on behavioral intentions.
Partially
supported
RQ1: Do motivations to comply vary as a function of the
recommended behavior?
Yes
RQ2. Is the cognitive social norms structure positively
associated with subjective norms?
Yes
RQ3. Do group norms have a larger impact on the decision to
stay home from work if sick than on the decision to be
vaccinated?
No
RQ4. Is the moderating effect of group identification greater
than the moderating effect of motivations to comply on the
impact of group norms on individuals’ behaviors?
No

97

H9a was the one hypothesis fully supported for both behaviors in all models.
Even after controlling for individual level predictors, norms measured at the group level
have an additional impact on behavioral intentions. In contrast, H8 and H9b were not
supported. Interpersonal discussion was not found to moderate the effect of group norms
on behavioral intentions. Likewise, the collective group level norms did not moderate the
impact of individually perceived group norms on behavioral intentions. All other
hypotheses were partially supported, either only for H1N1 vaccination intentions or only
for intention to stay home if sick with H1N1.

98
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
This study examined the role of work groups and their social norms in influencing
health behaviors related to the H1N1 flu. Two specific behaviors were studied:
individuals’ intentions to get the H1N1 flu vaccination and their willingness to stay home
from work if sick with H1N1. The research built on traditional theories of health
communication and on peer influence through social networks to posit predictors of
behavioral intentions. At the individual level, attitudes, self-efficacy, and social norms
(specifically, subjective norms, descriptive norms, and perceived social norms of the
work group) were hypothesized to predict behavioral intentions. Three moderators of
perceived group social norms were also posited: motivation to comply with the work
group, identification with the work group, and interpersonal discussion about the H1N1-
related behaviors with other work group members. Most importantly, this study was
conducted not just by using individual, ego networks, but instead by recruiting entire
work groups. In this manner, the effects of the overall groups’ collective norms on
behavioral intentions could also be assessed. It was hypothesized that while controlling
for individually perceived group norms, a group’s collective support for the behaviors in
question would have an additional direct effect on behavioral intentions and would
further moderate the impact of the individual perceptions on behavioral intentions.
Finally, the consistency of the group’s social norms was also hypothesized to moderate
the effect of individual perceptions on behavioral intentions. Figure 5.1 summarizes the
results for these hypotheses. Those hypotheses that were supported for only one behavior

99
or only when not controlling for other predictors are indicated with black arrows, those
that were not supported are indicated with dotted red arrows, and the one that was
strongly supported for both vaccination and willingness to stay home is indicated with a
bold green arrow.
Figure 5.1. Summary of results.

Attitudes
Behavioral
intentions
Subjective
norms
Self-efficacy
H1
H3
H2
Descriptive
norms
H4
Perceived
group norms
(CSNS slices)
H5
Motivation to
comply
Work group
identification
Interpersonal
discussion
Individual Level
Group Level
Collective group norms
(CSNS consensus
structure)
Consistency of collective
group norms
(CSNS consensus structure
standard deviation)
H9b H9a
H10
H6 H7 H8
Key:
Strongly supported
Partially supported
Not supported

100
As predicted by the integrative model for behavioral prediction (IMBP) attitudes
were strongly related to behavioral intentions to get the H1N1 vaccination. Attitudes
alone added over 12% to the proportion of variance explained in the vaccination models.
However, for staying home when sick, the relationship between supportive attitudes and
behavioral intentions was not as strong. In fact, this relationship was only supported
when not controlling for self-efficacy. The lack of a strong relationship between attitudes
supporting staying home when sick and behavioral intentions may be reflective of a
ceiling effect. In general, work group members held strongly positive attitudes toward
staying home, with a mean of 6.6 (SD = 0.8) on a 7-point scale. Additionally, for workers
who have the option of telecommuting and working from home, choices about staying
home from work when sick maybe as clear. They may have a third option of staying
home but continuing to work. Future studies should examine telecommunting options.
In contrast, whereas self-efficacy was one of the strongest predictors of
willingness to stay home, there was not a statistically significant relationship between
self-efficacy and H1N1 vaccination intention. The descriptions of the group health
identities provide additional information as to why self-efficacy might be more important
for staying home than for vaccination. Many people cited their concerns about their
workload and productivity when discussing the trade-offs involved in the choice to stay
home from work. For these work groups which were composed primarily of white collar
employees, having paid sick leave was not a strong predictor of willingness to stay home.
Being paid for the time did not necessarily alleviate concerns about being unproductive.
Therefore, self-efficacy was highly related to willingness to stay home. Participants

101
themselves noted the difference between the attitudes held and expressed by work group
members and the actual behaviors based on whether they felt they could afford time off
from work.
For H1N1 vaccination, self-efficacy was not as important. As one participant
noted, she and her colleagues were a largely healthy group who purposefully did not
pursue vaccination while there was a vaccine shortage. Instead, they chose to wait so that
those at higher risk would be able to get vaccinated. For H1N1 vaccination, self-efficacy
may have had a strong relationship with risk status. As vaccines were made available,
they were originally provided only to those at high risk. Thus, participants’ reported self-
efficacy to obtain a vaccination may have been influenced by the vaccine shortage
differentially based on their H1N1 risk category. The IMBP rightly includes
environmental constraints as a moderator of the effects of behavioral intentions on actual
behavior. However, the results here suggest that these environmental constraints may
also have an impact earlier on an individual’s self-efficacy. When individuals assess
their self-efficacy, they undoubtedly consider not only their own abilities, but also the
context for the behavior in question. This pattern of differences between attitudes and
self-efficacy as predictors of H1N1 vaccination and willingness to stay home highlight
the importance of clearly specifying the health behaviors in question. Had attitudes or
H1N1-prevention behaviors been assessed more generally, these discrepancies would
have been masked.
Both subjective norms and descriptive norms were also hypothesized to relate to
behavioral intentions. For H1N1 vaccination, subjective norms were strongly positively

102
associated with behavioral intentions, such that those who felt that relevant others wanted
them to get the vaccination and who felt motivated to comply with those relevant others
were more likely to intend to get vaccinated. In contrast, there was no effect of
subjective norms on willingness to stay home from work. One important innovation by
this study was measuring motivations to comply separately for the two behaviors. As
expected, participants felt significantly more strongly motivated to comply with their
work group members’ beliefs about whether they should stay home from work if sick
than with their beliefs about vaccination. Thus, it is surprising that the subjective norms
calculated in part from these motivations to comply were significant only for vaccination
and not for staying home. For both H1N1 vaccination and willingness to stay home from
work when sick, descriptive norms were associated with behavioral intentions only when
not controlling for other individual-level predictors. For this study, descriptive norms
were measured with other people of the same age as the reference group. Prentice and
Miller (1993) have found differences in the perception and importance of descriptive
norms based on whether the comparison group used is local (e.g. friends) versus global
(e.g. average student). It may be that the global measurement used in this study was not
as powerful as a more localized measure that specifically referred to the work group or
friends might have been. Thus, when controlling for other measures, including a local
subjective norms measure, descriptive norms were not an important predictor of
behavioral intentions.
The cognitive social norm structure (CSNS) included both individual slices of the
perceived group norms and a consensus structure that averaged those slices for the whole

103
group. In this way, it included both individually perceived group norms and collective
group norms. For both H1N1 vaccination and willingness to stay home from work, the
CSNS slice density was highly statistically significantly related to traditional subjective
norms for the work group. Additionally, the individual perceptions of the group norms as
indicated by the CSNS slice density were positively associated with behavioral intentions
toward H1N1 vaccination. When individuals perceived pairs of group members to be
supportive of vaccination, they were more likely to report intending to get the vaccine
themselves. However, the individual CSNS slices were not predictive of willingness to
stay home if sick with H1N1. The finding that individual-level perceived group norms
were more strongly associated with behavioral intentions for H1N1 vaccination than for
staying home when sick was the opposite of what was hypothesized. It was expected that
as the more publicly observable behavior, staying home from work would be more
influenced by perceived group norms. However, group norms about staying home did
not relate to behavioral intentions. This could be an effect of the way in which
behavioral intentions for staying home when sick were measured, specifically as the
number of days. This assessment of intentions did not in any way account for either how
sick the individual was or whether they felt they were contagious to others.
Three additional hypotheses examined potential moderators of individually
perceived group norms on behavioral intentions. For H1N1 vaccination, both motivation
to comply and the cognitive aspects of work group identification had significant
interaction effects. In other words, for people who were strongly motivated to comply
with their co-workers or who strongly identified with their work group, individually

104
perceived group norms had a stronger relationship with behavioral intentions. However,
neither of these interaction terms was significant for willingness to stay home from work
if sick with H1N1. For vaccination, motivation to comply was the stronger interaction
effect, as it explained a larger proportion of the variance in behavioral intentions and was
the only significant interaction effect when including each of these three potential
moderators in the model simultaneously. Terry et al.’s (2000) research indicated that
motivations to comply would not be as important as work group identification in
moderating the impact of group norms. The results found here suggest that modifications
to this premise are necessary. Perhaps work group identification is more important than
motivation to comply only when the behavior in question is extremely important to or
prototypical of the group or when directly related to the group’s work product. The
H1N1-related behaviors studied here were unlikely to be a strong defining component of
how the work groups saw themselves. Thus, for these behaviors, work group
identification was not as important as motivations to comply that were measured
specifically for the behavior in question. In other words, the impact of work group
identification may depend on the importance or salience of the behavior to group. When
the behavior is neither crucial to nor a key part of the group’s identity, then behavior-
specific motivations to comply may be more predictive of behavioral intentions than
identification with the work group is.
For both behaviors, interpersonal discussion was not a significant moderator of
the relationship between individually perceived group norms and behavioral intentions.
This may be due to the low levels of interpersonal discussion of H1N1-related behaviors;

105
specifically, participants reported their discussion with other group members as an
average of 2.8 (SD = 2.2) and 3.0 (SD = 2.5) on a 10-point scale for H1N1 vaccination
and staying home from work when sick, respectively. This low level of talking suggests
an important role for health communication campaigns to get people talking to one
another about health issues. As Bandura’s (2001) social cognitive theory stated, media
can indirectly influence behaviors through interpersonal discussion. Southwell and Yzer
(2007; 2009) identified three specific roles that interpersonal discussion can play in
relation to campaigns: 1) a direct outcome, 2) a mediator of other campaign effects, and
3) a moderator of campaign effects. The present study examined interpersonal discussion
as a moderator, but did not include exposure to any health communication campaigns.
Had participants been exposed to more materials about H1N1 in their workplaces, they
may have had more conversations about H1N1, and these discussions might have had a
more significant impact both on their behavioral intentions and in moderating the effect
of group norms on intentions.
Additionally, the lack of a significant interaction effect for interpersonal
discussion on individually perceived group norms suggests that talking is not the only
way in which people gather information about other members of their work groups.
Instead, their observation of fellow work group members’ behavior is important. This
was particularly highlighted by the descriptions included in the group health identities.
Many participants noted contradictions in behaviors, particularly around staying home
when sick with H1N1. There may be a discrepancy between official and unofficial
policy on staying home from work when sick at some companies. Though individuals

106
generally stated that people should stay home when sick to take time to get better and
reduce the chance of spreading disease, many people did not actually stay home. Instead,
they worked through illness. Actions such as these may be more important than what
people say when individuals are determining their groups’ social norms.
Despite the inconsistent findings with respect to the relationship between
individually perceived group norms and behavioral intentions, the group CSNS
consensus structure, or the collective group norms, was predictive of behavioral
intentions for both the H1N1 vaccination intention and willingness to stay home from
work if sick with H1N1. Even after accounting for individuals’ perceptions of the group
norms, the actual group consensus about the normative support for both behaviors had a
direct impact on work group members’ intentions. In work groups with high levels of
support for vaccination or staying home from work, members were more likely to intend
to engage in those behaviors, respectively. This finding is of particular note, given that
not all groups had shared understandings of a group health identity.
Contrary to expectations, the overall group support in the CSNS consensus
structure did not moderate the effect of individually perceived group norms on behavioral
intentions. The individual slices of the CSNS did not matter more for those people in
work groups with high normative support for the behaviors. However, the consistency of
the group CSNS consensus structures, shown by low standard deviations, did moderate
the impact of individually perceived group norms on for H1N1 vaccination. For
members of work groups in which pairs were perceived to agree in their support for

107
H1N1 vaccination, the effect of individually perceived group norms on behavioral
intentions was stronger than for groups with less agreement.
Taken together, these group level effects highlight the importance of assessing
entire groups and explicitly incorporating the social environment into understandings of
health behaviors. Individually perceived norms alone cannot fully account for
individuals’ health behaviors choices. Instead, group level effects are also important,
even in cases where the individual perceptions of group norms may not be predictive of
behavioral intentions.
Methodological Contributions
The methods for this study suggest several innovations that should be
incorporated into future research. As traditionally measured, subjective norms have not
been a consistent predictor of behavioral intentions or actual behaviors (Ajzen, 1991).
This may relate to the lack of specificity with which they are often measured. Whereas
attitudes and normative beliefs are consistently recommended to be specific to the
behavior in question in terms of time frame and context (Fishbein, 1980), that has not
previously been the case for motivations to comply. As found here, motivations to
comply do vary significantly with different behaviors. Moreover, the behavior-specific
motivations to comply were more important as a moderator of group norms on behavioral
intentions to vaccinate than was identification with the work group. Particularly when
considering behaviors that might not be central to a group’s identity, measuring
motivations to comply with reference to specific behaviors makes sense. Future studies

108
should likewise incorporate separate questions for motivations to comply for each
behavior being studied.
However, perhaps the most significant methodological contribution from this
study comes from the cognitive social norm structure (CSNS). Multiple aspects of the
CSNS structure are worthy of note. The CSNS uses social network analysis techniques
to elicit information about social groups. Rather than relying on a simple matrix of who
talks to or is influenced by whom, the CSNS calls for a further level of data by
incorporating each individuals’ understanding of each other pair in turn. Asking about
every possible pair in the work group is time-consuming, but it provides a more complete
understanding of the group interactions than can be obtained by simply asking each
individual to report on each other individual. The interactive nature of group social
norms is explicitly incorporated into the CSNS questions and structure.
Use of the CSNS relies on data collection from a complete group. Recruitment
and informed consent processes are both considerably more complicated when gathering
data about complete groups than when asking individuals to complete surveys. However,
the collective group norms measured in this manner have an impact on behavioral
intentions above and beyond the impact of how those group norms are perceived by
individual group members. This makes it important to gather data from each group
member. If the design for a particular study does not allow for survey distribution to
groups, then ego networks that simply use individual slices of the CSNS could be
substituted for the collective group norms in this analysis. However, these slices can only
capture individuals’ perceptions of the groups’ norms and interactions, not the group

109
level perceptions thereof. Therefore, they are not as strong a means of examining the
social context as the complete CSNS.
The consistency of the group’s social norms (i.e., the consistency of collective
group norms) as indicated by the standard deviation of the CSNS consensus structure
adds a further layer to the CSNS. Not only can the CSNS measure the group’s collective
norms, but it also measures the agreement around these norms. This consistency measure
provides information different from that obtained by asking individual group members to
provide their attitudes and then calculating the standard deviation to determine the
agreement across the group. Instead, the standard deviation of the CSNS consensus
structure incorporates the extent to which the pairs are understood by the group to agree
with each other. Again, this group level understanding is an important contribution of the
CSNS.
In sum, the cognitive social norm structure is a step towards better understanding
group social norms and interactions. The social environment is definitely important in its
potential influence on individual choices. The ability to measure the way in which this
social context can influence health is crucial to being able to better theorize about health
behaviors. However, this study is by no means the final step towards developing better
methods of examining social influences and group social norms. Further work must be
done to explore how membership in multiple and possibly overlapping social groups
influences health behaviors. Additionally, more constructs should be created that provide
good measurements of the overall cultural context, and not just of the people who are

110
closest to the study participants. For example, analysis of media products might allow
insight into the socio-cultural environment.
Theoretical Contributions
To date, much research in health communication has focused on the individual
level predictors of behavior. By combining the constructs with the most predictive
validity from a variety of health communication theories, the integrative model of
behavioral prediction (IMBP) has become a strong individual-level theory (Fishbein &
Yzer, 2003; Fishbein & Capella, 2006). However, the findings here suggest that
individual level predictors are not necessarily the most important. In fact, only group
level social norms as measured by the CSNS were significantly predictive of behavioral
intentions for both behaviors in every model run. Therefore, higher levels of analysis
must be considered to advance theorizing on health behavior choices.
The research done to date on the role of group norms in predicting behavior is
promising. This study adds to that literature by highlighting the importance of collective,
or group level, understandings of group social norms. The social context has
implications for health choices beyond the way in which that context is perceived by
individuals. Thus, an ecological model of health communication is essential for future
theorizing about health behaviors. Rather than solely focusing on predicting individual
behavior, it must be recognized that individuals exist within social groups, and those
groups reside in a wider socio-cultural context.

111
In considering an ecological framework for health communication, this study
draws from an ecological theory of communication. Communication infrastructure
theory (CIT) examines the local communicative storytelling environment (Ball-Rokeach
& Jung, in press). According to CIT, the communication infrastructure consists of two
main parts: the storytelling network and the communicative action context (Ball-
Rokeach, Kim, & Matei, 2001; Cheong, Wilkin, & Ball-Rokeach, 2004; Kim, Jung, &
Ball-Rokeach, 2006). The neighborhood storytelling network consists of local media, in
particular geo-ethnic media (for a definition of this concept, see: Kim et al., 2006), local
community groups and organizations, and residents in their interpersonal networks. In
turn, the neighborhood storytelling network is embedded within the communicative
action context, which can either inhibit or facilitate communication among the
components of the storytelling network (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001). Originally, this
model was used largely to examine the impact of the storytelling network on
neighborhood belongingness and civic engagement (Ball-Rokeach et al., 2001; Kim &
Ball-Rokeach, 2006a, 2006b). However, more recently, the model has also been applied
to health communication (Cheong et al., 2004; Wilkin & Ball-Rokeach, 2006). To adapt
CIT to health, the storytelling network is changed to incorporate not just residents, local
and geo-ethnic media, and organizations, but also to include healthcare providers. This
dissertation similarly posits the importance of micro-level relationships between
individuals and meso-level relationships with organizations.
Following from the suggestions of CIT, it is not sufficient to simply add variables
to existing individual level behavioral models. Instead, a new framework must be

112
theorized that explicitly incorporates meso-level relationships and the overall social
context. Figure 5.2 shows such an ecological framework. Attitudes, self-efficacy, and
individually perceived social norms all directly impact an individual’s behavioral
intentions. However, these individual constructs are situated within a larger social
context. This social environment includes family, friends, co-workers, neighbors, and
others with whom the individual interacts in social networks. The social environment
exists within an institutional context that includes the media organizations providing
information and campaigns and also the work places where individuals spend much of
their time. This institutional environment is, in turn, situated within a wider cultural
context. As illustrated in the diagram below, each level of analysis has influences on all
lower levels (smaller circles) it encompasses. In examining health behaviors, researchers
and campaign designers should not simply focus on a single level. Instead, analysis and
consideration of at least two levels and the influences that higher levels have on lower
levels is important. Sallis, Owen and Fisher (2008) have suggested ecological models for
health be specific to the behaviors under study. In this manner, they can be used to guide
campaigns with multiple components that address each level.

113
Figure 5.2. An ecological framework for health behaviors.

Practical Contributions
A primary motivating factor for theorizing about health communication and
predictors of health behaviors is to ultimately create behavior change and promote good
health. One way in which this is attempted is through health communication campaigns.
Attitudes
Behavior Self-efficacy
Perceived
social norms
Individual
Cultural Context
Social Groups
Social Environment
Institutional Environment
Media Work

114
Public communication campaigns can be conducted for a variety of reasons, but they
share key underlying features. Specifically, as Rice and Atkin (2002) wrote:
Public communication campaigns can be broadly defined as (a) purposive
attempts; (b) to inform, persuade, or motivate behavior changes; (c) in a relatively
well-defined and large audience; (d) generally for noncommercial benefits to the
individuals and/or society at large; (e) typically within a given time period; (f) by
means of organized communication activities involving mass media; and (g) often
complemented by interpersonal support (adapted and expanded from Rogers &
Storey, 1987). (p. 427)
It is important to note that individuals may be members of more than one social
group. Depending on the circumstance or situation, a particular group identity may come
to the fore and be most salient. That identity would then be the most likely one to affect
behavioral choices for that situation. Thus, health communication campaign designers
should consider which identities are likely to be salient in the situations when a
behavioral choice would be made and acted upon. Campaigns should be structured
around the group norms that match the situation and salient group identity. Increasingly,
organizations that provide health insurance to their employees are encouraging programs
that promote health and prevention of disease. In the group health identities, some
respondents even referred to such programs that encourage weight loss or provide hand
sanitizer. Given the important role that work groups were found to have in this study,
organizational settings should be considered as future health campaign sites.
Another point to consider relating to the possibility of norms for multiple groups
and multiple identities is how those different group norms might overlap or contradict
each other. It will be important to think of ways that norms for different groups might
support or oppose each other. Messages that make particular groups (and thereby those

115
groups’ norms) salient may be useful. That said, the selection of social groups to target
must be done carefully and with input from the intended audience because “the framing
of social categories [becomes] an interpretation of reality” (Wilkins & Mody, 2001 p.
392). Choosing certain groups for the intended audience implies that these groups are
responsible for any changes that should happen. Those people who do not identify with a
selected group may experience psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966/2009; Brehm &
Brehm, 1981) and become less likely to change their behavior in the desired manner after
exposure to a campaign emphasizing social norms for a group of which they do not
consider themselves a part.
The socio-cultural context is as important to consider as are group norms.
Campaign designers must work with members of the local community to determine the
relevant cultural norms. These norms should be acknowledged throughout the design
process. However, that does not mean that all norms must be followed. As discussed
above, the social context must be weighed thoughtfully to consider both the short and
long-term impacts of potential campaigns. As Wilkins and Mody (2001) recommended,
evaluations should include not just process and outcome impacts, but also context
evaluations that examine the needs of the specific community. These should be
conducted both as a part of formative research and again at the conclusion of a campaign.
By situating health communication campaigns within their socio-cultural and social
group contexts, campaign designers may be better able to achieve healthy change not just
for individuals, but for society.

116
Limitations
The results of this study must be interpreted through the lens of the limitations
involved. The groups that participated in this study were selected through convenience
sampling, rather than a random process. Hierarchical linear modeling typically assumes
random selection, and that assumption was violated. To account for this, the most
conservative standard errors were used to determine statistical significance throughout.
However, the findings here should be generalized with these caveats in mind.
Moreover, this study solely included work groups. Although much of the
theorizing is expected to also apply to other types of groups, such as families, fraternities,
sports teams, and religious or volunteer associations, these other groups may not, in fact,
behave in the same manner as work groups. The choice to use work groups was made at
the start of the study by the researcher based on the H1N1-related behaviors under study,
rather than through input from participants. In the future, it would be useful to run a pilot
test asking participants to identify the groups that they consider most important for the
particular health behavior under study. This sort of bottom-up approach might allow for
a better understanding of group influences on health choices. Even among work groups,
the sample was somewhat restricted. A large variety of organizational types were
contacted during recruitment, but almost all participating work groups were composed of
white collar jobs. The necessity of internet access largely accounted for this restriction of
job type. In future studies, random selection of groups would be preferred, and other
types of groups should be explored. For example, a directory of religious organizations
could be used as a sampling frame for random selection.

117
The data from each person were collected at a single time point over a four month
period. As time passed during the data collection period, the issue of H1N1 flu became
one of decreasing importance. Although a variety of government agencies continued to
promote vaccination throughout the study period, the number of cases of H1N1 flu
dropped and the media coverage became more limited. Participants’ responses for their
behavioral intentions may have been impacted by when they took the survey. However,
other constructs should have been similarly affected. Thus, although this study may not
provide good estimates of behavioral intentions during the height of the H1N1 flu
outbreak, the relationships of attitudes, self-efficacy, and group norms with behavioral
intentions should hold. Also, although most people in any particular work group took the
survey within a few days of each other, it is possible that they could have discussed the
survey with other group members. The survey included instructions to discourage this
type of conversation, but it is not possible to determine how effective these instructions
were. Future studies should go beyond this type of cross-sectional design. Most
especially, if the practical contributions to health communication campaigns are to be
explored, then this type of study needs to be paired with interventions using a pre-
test/post-test design that allows for examination of change over time.
Some of the limitations for this study stem from the survey design. The survey
was quite long, particularly for people in large work groups. With every additional
person in a work group, each network question increased by one item, and each CSNS
question increased by the same number of items as there were work group members.
Respondents were able to complete the survey in multiple sessions if they preferred, but

118
most (90.8%) completed it in a single day. Given the length of the survey and that all
behavioral questions were asked both for H1N1 vaccination and for staying home from
work if sick with H1N1, it is possible that participants suffered from survey fatigue. To
account for this, the behavioral questions were counter-balanced by group in their order
of presentation. During statistical analysis, there were no order effects, a fact that
suggests that survey fatigue played a limited role. However, the CSNS questions involve
many components and are quite cognitively complex to answer. As examination of the
CSNS slices included in Appendix D shows, many people gave the same response for the
level of support that each possible dyad had for a particular behavioral issue. For some
people, they may actually believe their group’s support for H1N1-related behaviors is
consistent across dyads. However, this pattern of answering could also be indicative of a
desire to answer the question quickly. Future surveys employing CSNS structures would
benefit from only including a single behavior and emphasizing the importance of taking
time to consider the response given for each pair.
Participants’ responses may be subject to multiple types of bias based upon the
survey format, including the desire to be socially acceptable. To limit social desirability
effects, responses were confidential. However, to obtain complete network data, they
could not be anonymous. Moreover, behavioral self-reports such as those used here may
not correspond with participants’ actual behaviors. In future, studies should obtain data
from multiple sources. For example, employee data on absenteeism could be obtained
from human resources as a second way to measure the extent to which work group
members take sick days to stay home. Even so, it is important to note that self-report

119
data are not necessarily less accurate than other data forms; the human resources records
may include days taken off to be home with a sick child or for other purposes.
Nevertheless, having multiple types of data to triangulate makes for a stronger study.
This study followed the work of Fishbein and Ajzen (1980) in examining
behavioral intentions as a primary outcome. Although shown to be a strong predictor of
actual behaviors, behavioral intentions are not of primary importance theoretically.
Instead, they are used as a proximal indicator of behavior. As noted by the integrative
model for behavioral prediction (IMBP), the path from behavioral intentions to actual
behaviors may be influenced by individuals’ actual skills or abilities and any barriers
from the environment (Fishbein & Capella, 2006; Fishbein & Yzer, 2003). In the field of
public health, the actual behaviors undertaken are most important for health status. For
the present study, respondents were asked not only to report their behavioral intentions,
but also to report their actual behaviors. The H1N1 vaccine shortage made obtaining a
vaccine difficult. Moreover, actual behaviors in staying home from work were only
relevant for those people who actually contracted the H1N1 flu. Thus, for both of these
behaviors, intentions were chosen as a better way to examine the influence of the social
environment. However, future studies should not automatically explore behavioral
intentions. Instead, for every health behavior, it should be remembered that the ultimate
outcome of interest is the actions that people actually take.
This study only examined a single health issue, H1N1 flu. Although two
behaviors relating to H1N1 were studied to allow for a more thorough understanding of
the group social context of health, these behaviors may not be representative of all health

120
behaviors. Future studies should replicate this research for a variety of other health
contexts. For example, work on HIV/AIDS radio campaigns in India could use the CSNS
to examine how collective listening groups may influence each other’s decisions around
condom use.
Conclusion
This study found that social norms are important predictors of behavioral
intentions. Although individual predictors and perceptions of social norms were
associated with behavioral intentions, much action took place at the group level. Over
and above any individual level effects, social norms as understood by the entire work
group were consistently strongly related to individuals’ behavioral choices. Thus, the
incorporation of the cognitive social norm structure (CSNS) into studies of health
communication was supported. Moreover, these data underscore the importance of using
existing, complete groups to examine the group social influence process. By looking not
just at the individual level but also at the group social context, a greater understanding of
health decisions can be achieved. Integrating group level conceptions of social norms
into health communication theories will allow for a more complete and nuanced
understanding of health behavior choices. However, more research is necessary into the
specific processes by which social influence occurs. The broader cultural and
institutional contexts must also be incorporated explicitly into future research and
models. This dissertation highlights the importance of further work in this field.

121
References
Aral, S. (2010). Identifying social influence: A comment on opinion leadership and
social contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science, Articles in
Advance. ePub ahead of print, doi:10.1287/mksc.1100.0596
Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based
contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), 21544-21549.
Aral, S., Muchnik, L., & Sundararajan, A. (February 26, 2011). Engineering social
contagions: Optimal network seeding and incentive strategies. Retrieved from
SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1770982
Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In J. Kuhl &
J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39).
Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decisional Processes, 50, 179-211.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., & Jung, J. Y. (in press). The evolution of media system dependency
theory. In R. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Handbook of Media Effects.
Ball-Rokeach, S. J., Kim, Y.-C., & Matei, S. (2001). Storytelling neighborhood: Paths to
belonging in diverse urban environments. Communication Research, 28, 392-
428.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of
socialization theory and research, 213-262.
Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist,
37(2), 122-147.

122
Bandura, A. (1998). Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory.
Psychology & Health, 13(4), 623-649.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media
Psychology, 3(3), 265-299.
Bandura, A. (2004a). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education
and Behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
Bandura, A. (2004b). Social cognitive theory for personal and social change by enabling
media. In A. Singhal, M. Cody, E. M. Rogers & M. Sabido (Eds.),
Entertainment-education and social change: History, research, and practice (pp.
75–96). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Becker, M. H., Maiman, L. A., Kirscht, J. P., Haefner, D. P., & Drachman, R. H. (1977).
The health belief model and prediction of dietary compliance: A field experiment.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 18(4), 348-366.
Berkowitz, A. D. (2004). An overview of the social norms approach. In L. Lederman, L.
Stewart, F. Goodhart & L. Laitman (Eds.), Changing the culture of college
drinking: A socially situated prevention campaign (pp. 193–214). Creskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Blumer, H. (1951). Collective behavior. In A. M. Lee (ed.), Principles of sociology (pp.
166-222). New York: Barnes & Noble. (Original work published 1939).
Boer, H., & Mashamba, M. T. (2005). Psychosocial correlates of HIV protection
motivation among black adolescents in Venda, South Africa. AIDS Education
and Prevention, 17(6), 590-602.
Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., and Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET 6.0 Version 1.00.
Natick: Analytic Technologies.
Brehm, J. W. (1966/2009). A theory of psychological reactance. In W. W. Burke, D. G.
Lake & J. W. Paine (Eds.), Organization change: A comprehensive reader (pp.
377-390). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.

123
Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and
control. New York: Academic press.
Burt, R. S. (1999). The social capital of opinion leaders. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 566(1), 37-54.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2009). 2009 H1N1 influenza
vaccine. Retrieved from
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/public/vaccination_qa_pub.htm
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2010, May 14). Updated CDC
estimates of 2009 H1N1 influenza cases, hospitalizations and deaths in the United
States, April 2009 – April 10, 2010. Retrieved from
http://www.flu.gov/individualfamily/about/h1n1/estimates_2009_h1n1.html
Champion, V. L., & Skinner, C. S. (2008). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. K.
Rimer & K. Visawath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory,
research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 45-65). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Chan, M. (2009, June 11). World now at the start of 2009 influenza pandemic. Retrieved
from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2009/h1n1_pandemic_phase6_
20090611/en/index.html
Cheong, P. H., Wilkin, H. A., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2004). Diagnosing the
communication infrastructure in order to reach target audiences: A study of
Hispanic communities in Los Angeles. In P. Whitten & D. Cook (Eds.),
Understanding health communication technologies (pp. 101-110). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network
over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), 370.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large
social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), 2249.
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2010). Social network censors for early detection of
contagious outbreaks. PLoS ONE, 5(9): e12948.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012948

124
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (forthcoming). Examining dynamic social networks
and human behavior. Annals of Applied Statistics. Retrieved from
http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/examining_dynamic_social_networks.pdf
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity.
Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591-621.
Cohen, D., & Carter, P. (2010). WHO and the pandemic flu “conspiracies.” British
Medical Journal, 340, c2912. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c2912
Crandall, C. S. (1988). Social contagion of binge eating. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55(4), 588.
David, C., Cappella, J. N., & Fishbein, M. (2006). The social diffusion of influence
among adolescents: Group interaction in a chat room environment about antidrug
advertisements. Communication Theory, 16, 118-140.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2005). Theory and practice in health communication campaigns:
A critical interrogation. Health Communication, 18(2), 103-122.
Enders, C. K., & Tofighi, D. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional
multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2),
121.
Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2002). The impact of news and entertainment media on perceptions
of social reality. In J. P. Dillard & M. W. Pfau (Eds.), The Persuasion Handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, Inc.
Feldman, D. C. (1984). The development and enforcement of group norms. Academy of
Management Review, 9(1), 47-53.
Fishbein, M. (1980). A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65-116.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An
introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing
Co.

125
Fishbein, M., & Cappella, J. N. (2006). The role of theory in developing effective health
communications. Journal of Communication, 56(s1), 1-17.
Fishbein, M., & Yzer, M. C. (2003). Using theory to design effective health behavior
interventions. Communication Theory, 13(2), 164-183.
Fowler, J. H. and Christakis, N. A. (2008). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social
network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 Years in the Framingham Heart Study.
British Medical Journal 337 a2338.
Frank, L. B., Chatterjee, J. S., Chaudhuri, S., Lapsansky, C., Bhanot, A., & Murphy, S. T.
(2010, June). Talking and complying: The role of interpersonal discussion and
social norms in public communication campaigns. Paper presented at the
International Communication Association Conference, Singapore.
Freedman, J. L., & Perlick, D. (1979). Crowding, contagion, and laughter. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 295-303.
Geary, C. W., Burke, H. M., Castelnau, L., Neupane, S., Sall, Y. B., Wong, E., et al.
(2007). MTV’s “Staying Alive” global campaign promoted interpersonal
communication about HIV and positive beliefs about HIV prevention. AIDS
Education and Prevention, 19(1), 51-67.
Gesualdo, F., Romano, M., Pandolfi, E., Rizzo, C., Rava, L., Lucente, D., et al. (2010).
Surfing the web during pandemic flu: availability of World Health Organization
recommendations on prevention. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 561. doi:
10.1186/1471-2458-10-561
Glynn, C. J., Ostman, R. E., & McDonald, D. G. (1995). Opinions, perception, and
social reality. Public opinion and the communication of consent, 249-277.
Hall, S. (1980). Encoding/decoding. In C. f. C. C. Studies (Ed.), Culture, Media,
Language: Working Papers in Cultural Studies, 1972-1979. London: Hutchinson.
Harris, K. M., Maurer, J., & Kellermann, A. L. (2010). Influenza vaccine -- safe,
effective, and mistrusted. New England Journal of Medicine, 363(23), 2183-
2185.

126
Harrison, D. A., & Klein, K. J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as
separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. Academy of Management
Review, 32(4), 1199-1228.
Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods.
Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. (Published in digital form at
http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/).
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability
measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77-89.
Hedeker, D. (2008). Multilevel models for ordinal and nominal variables. In J. de
Leeuw & E. Meijer (Eds.), Handbook of multilevel analysis (pp. 237-274). New
York, NY: Springer.
Hogg, M. A., Abrams, D., Otten, S., & Hinkle, S. (2004). The social identity perspective:
Intergroup relations, self-conception, and small groups. Small Group Research,
35(3), 246-276.
Hogg, M. A., & Hains, S. C. (1996). Intergroup relations and group solidarity: Effects of
group identification and social beliefs on depersonalized attraction. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 295-309.
Hornik, R. C. (2002). Public health communication: Evidence for behavior change.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hornik, R., & Yanovitzky, I. (2003). Using theory to design evaluations of
communication campaigns: The case of the National Youth Anti-Drug Media
Campaign. Communication Theory, 13(2), 202-224.
Iyengar, R., Van den Bulte, C. & Valente, T. W. (2010). Opinion leadership and social
contagion in new product diffusion. Marketing Science., ePub ahead of print,
http://mktsci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract/mksc.1100.0566v1.
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health
Education & Behavior, 11(1), 1-47.

127
Janz, N. K., Champion, V. L., & Stretcher, V. J. (2002). The health belief model. In K.
Glanz, B. K. Rimer & F. M. Lewis (Eds.), Health behavior and health education:
Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed., pp. 45-66). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Katz, D., & Allport, F. H. (1931). Student attitudes. Syracuse, NY: Craftsman Press.
Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an
hypothesis. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78.
Kerckhoff, A. C. (1982). Analyzing a case of mass psychogenic illness. In M. J.
Colligan, J. W. Pennebaker & L. R. Murphy (Eds.), Mass psychogenic illness: A
social psychological analysis (pp. 5-19). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006a). Civic engagement from a communication
infrastructure perspective. Communication Theory, 16, 173-197.
Kim, Y. C., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006b). Community storytelling network,
neighborhood context, and civic engagement: A multilevel approach. Human
Communication Research, 32(4), 411-439.
Kim, Y. C., Jung, J. Y., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). "Geo-ethnicity" and neighborhood
engagement: A community infrastructure perspective. Political Communication,
23(4), 421-441.
Kiviniemi, M. T., Ram, P. K., Kozlowski, L. T., & Smith, K. M. (2011). Perceptions of
and willingness to engage in public health precautions to prevent 2009 H1N1
influenza transmission. BMC Public Health, 11(152). doi:10.1186/1471-2458-
11-152
Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis: Sage Publications, Inc.
Krackhardt, D. (1987). Cognitive social structures. Social Networks, 9(2), 109-134.
Lancet. (2010). Pandemic influenza - (some) reasons to be cheerful? (Editorial). The
Lancet, 376(9741), 565.

128
Lapinski, M. K., & Rimal, R. N. (2005). An explication of social norms.
Communication Theory, 15(2), 127-147.
Latkin, C. A., Donnell, D., Celentano, D. D., Aramrattna, A., Liu, T. Y., Vongchak, T., et
al. (2009a). Relationships between social norms, social network characteristics,
and HIV risk behaviors in Thailand and the United States. Health Psychology,
28(3), 323-329.
Latkin, C. A., Kuramoto, S., Davey-Rothwell, M., & Tobin, K. (2009b). Social norms,
social networks, and HIV risk behavior among injection drug users. AIDS and
Behavior, 14(5), 1159-1168.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The nature of personal influence.
In The people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Katz, E. (1955/2005). Between media and mass. In Personal
Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications (pp.
15-30). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Levy, D. A., & Nail, P. R. (1993). Contagion: A theoretical and empirical review and
reconceptualization. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 119,
233-233.
Luke, D. A. (2004). Multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Maddux, J. E., & Rogers, R. W. (1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A
revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 19(5), 469-479.
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the
reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 13(2), 103-123.
McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational
commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 638-642.

129
Medalia, N. Z., & Larsen, O. N. (1958). Diffusion and belief in a collective delusion:
The Seattle windshield pitting epidemic. American Sociological Review, 180-
186.
Monge, P., & Contractor, N. (2003). Theories of communication networks. Oxford, UK:
Oxford University Press.
Morbidity and mortality weekly report (MMWR). (2011). Self-reported influenza-like
illness during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic—United States, September
2009–March 2010. Journal of the American Medical Association, 60, 37-41.
Myers, L., & Goodwin, R. (2011). Determinants of adults' intention to vaccinate against
pandemic swine flu. BMC Public Health, 11, 15. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-15
Neal, J. W. (2008). “Kracking" the missing data problem: Applying Krackhardt's
cognitive social structures to school-based social networks. Sociology of
Education, 81(2), 140-162.
Nikolopoulos, G., & Bonovas, S. (2010). The media: A public health partner or an
unintentional enemy? Public Health, 124(6), 360-361.
Noar, S. M. (2006). A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns:
Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 21-42.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal
of Communication, 24(2), 43–51.
Olkkonen, M. E., & Lipponen, J. (2006). Relationships between organizational justice,
identification with organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100(2), 202-215.
Pennebaker, J. W. (1980). Perceptual and environmental determinants of coughing.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(1), 83-91.

130
Perkins, H. W. (1997). College student misperceptions of alcohol and other drug norms
among peers: Exploring causes, consequences, and implications for prevention
programs. In U.S. Department of Education (Ed.), Designing alcohol and other
drug prevention programs in higher education: Bringing theory into practice (pp.
177-206). Newton, MA: The Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other
Drug Prevention.
Perkins, H. W. (2003). The emergence and evolution of the social norms approach to
substance abuse prevention. In H. W. Perkins (Ed.), The social norms approach
to preventing school and college age substance abuse: A handbook for educators,
counselors, and clinicians (pp. 3–17). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Perkins, H. W., & Berkowitz, A. D. (1986). Perceiving the community norms of alcohol
use among students: Some research implications for campus alcohol education
programming. International Journal of the Addictions, 21(9-10), 961-976.
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus:
Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 64, 243-243.
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2001). Stages of change. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research and Practice, 38(4), 443-448.
Prochaska, J. O., Redding, C. A., & Evers, K. E. (2008). The transtheoretical model and
stages of change. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health
behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 97-
121). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear model: Applications and
data analysis methods (2
nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. (2004). HLM 6 for Windows [Computer
software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R., & du Toit, M. (2004).
HLM 6: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific
Software International.

131
Russell, J. C., Wilson, D. O., & Jenkins, J. F. (1976). Informational properties of
jaywalking models as determinants of imitated jaywalking: An extension to model
sex, race and number. Sociometry, 39(3), 270-273.
Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (2001). Public communication campaigns. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Rice, R. E., & Atkin, C. K. (2002). Communication campaigns: Theory, design,
implementation, and evaluation. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media
effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 427-451). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on
behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(2), 184-203.
Rimal, R. N., & Real, K. (2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms: A
test of the Theory of Normative Social Behavior. Communication Research,
32(3), 389-414.
Roberts, J. K. (2007). Group dependency in the presence of small intraclass correlation
coefficients: An argument in favor of not interpreting the ICC. Paper presented at
the American Educational Research Association.
Rogers, E. M. (1995). Elements of diffusion. In Diffusion of Innovations (5th ed.). New
York: The Free Press.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude
change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
Sabido, M. (2004). The origins of entertainment-education. In A. Singhal, M. Cody, E.
M. Rogers & M. Sabido (Eds.), Entertainment-education and social change:
History, research, and practice (pp. 61-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Publishers.
Sallis, J. F., Owen, N., Fisher, E. B. (2008). Ecological models of health behavior. In K.
Glanz, B. K. Rimer & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health
education: Theory, research, and practice (4
th
ed., pp. 465-487). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.

132
Smith, J. R., & Terry, D. J. (2003). Attitude-behaviour consistency: The role of group
norms, attitude accessibility, and mode of behavioural decision-making.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(5), 591-608.
Smith, S. W., Atkin, C. K., Martell, D., Allen, R., & Hembroff, L. (2006). A social
judgment theory approach to conducting formative research in a social norms
campaign. Communication Theory, 16, 141-152.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic
and advanced multilevel modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Southwell, B. G., & Yzer, M. C. (2007). The roles of interpersonal communication in
mass media campaigns. In C. Beck (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 31 (pp. 420-
462). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Southwell, B. G., & Yzer, M. C. (2009). When (and why) interpersonal talk matters for
campaigns. Communication Theory, 19(1), 1-8.
Strang, D., & Tuma, N. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion.
American Journal of Sociology, 99, 614-639.
Stein, R. (2010, April 1). Millions of H1N1 vaccine doses may have to be discarded.
The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2010/03/31/AR2010033104201.html
Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (1996). Group norms and the attitude-behavior relationship:
A role for group identification. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
22(8), 776-793.
Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2000). Attitude-behavior relations: Social
identity and group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes,
behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 67-
93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Uyeki, T. M. (2010). 2009 H1N1 virus transmission and outbreaks. New England
Journal of Medicine, 362(23), 2221-2223.

133
Valente, T. W. (1995). Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press, Inc.
Valente, T. W. (1996). Social network thresholds in the diffusion of innovations. Social
Networks, 18(1), 69-89.
Valente, T. W. (2002). Evaluating health promotion programs. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Valente, T. W. (2005). Models and methods for innovation diffusion. In P. J.
Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.) Models and methods in social
network analysis (pp. 98-116). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Valente, T. W. (2008). Communication network analysis. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater
& L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage Sourcebook of Advanced Data Analysis Methods
for Communication Research (pp. 185–218). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Valente, T. W., Coronges, K. A., Stevens, G. D., & Cousineau, M. R. (2008).
Collaboration and competition in a children’s health initiative coalition: A
network analysis. Evaluation and Program Planning, 31, 392-402.
Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using
opinion leaders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 566, 55-67.
Valente, T. W., Poppe, P. R., & Merritt, A. P. (1996). Mass-media-generated
interpersonal communication as sources of information about family planning.
Journal of Health Communication, 1(3), 247-266.
Valente, T. W., & Saba, W. P. (1998). Mass media and interpersonal influence in a
reproductive health communication campaign in Bolivia. Communication
Research, 25(1), 96.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

134
Wellen, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1998). Group norms and attitude–behavior
consistency: The role of group salience and mood. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 2(1), 48-56.
Wilkin, H. A., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (2006). Reaching at risk groups: The importance of
health storytelling in Los Angeles Latino media. Journalism, 7(3), 299-320.
Wilkins, K. G., & Mody, B. (2001). Redeveloping development communication:
Developing communication and communicating development. Communication
Theory, 11(4), 385-396.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The Extended Parallel Process
Model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
Witte, K. (1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the Extended Parallel
Process Model (EPPM). Communication Monographs, 61, 113-134.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for
effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615.
Witte, K., Meyer, G., & Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages: A step-by-
step guide: Sage Publications Inc.
Writing Committee of the WHO Consultation on Clinical Aspects of Pandemic (H1N1)
2009 Influenza (WHO Writing Committee). (2010). Clinical aspects of pandemic
2009 Influenza A (H1N1) virus infection. New England Journal of Medicine,
362(18), 1708-1719.
World Health Organization (WHO). (2010, January 22). Statement of the World Health
Organization on allegations of conflict of interest and 'fake' pandemic. Retrieved
from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2010/h1n1_pandemic_2010012
2/en/index.html
World Health Organization (WHO). (2010, August 10). H1N1 in post-pandemic period.
Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2010/h1n1_vpc_20100810/en/i
ndex.html

135
Appendix A: Survey Instrument
Introduction
This survey, which is part of a dissertation at the Annenberg School for
Communication and Journalism at USC, looks at how people who work together deal or
do not deal with events that might impact the workplace. I am not interested in corporate
policy but rather on how relatively small work groups themselves dealt with the recent
outbreak of H1N1 or swine flu.
All of your responses are completely confidential and will not be shared with any
of your coworkers or anyone else in your company. In addition, the final write up will
include 20 small groups, and your group will never be identified. These safeguards are
designed to ensure confidentiality and encourage your honest opinions.
At the same time, it is important that you fill out this survey without consulting or
talking to any of your coworkers about your answers. Thank you in advance for your
participation. To begin the survey, please click the button marked "Next."

Survey Questions
Thinking about the past year, how much have you looked for information about H1N1
swine flu from each of the following sources?

A lot Some A little
Not at
all
Other members of your work group
Television
Newspapers
Radio
General magazines
Special health magazines or newsletters
The Internet
Family and friends
Your doctor or other health care
professional

136
On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means nothing at all and 10 mean a great deal, how
much do you know about H1N1 swine flu?
1 Nothing at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

For each of the dimensions below, please mark the space that best matches how you feel
about getting an H1N1 swine flu vaccination.
Favorable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Unfavorable
Risky ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Safe
Bad ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Good
Responsible ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Irresponsible

For each of the dimensions below, please mark the space that best matches how you feel
about staying home from work if you were sick with H1N1 swine flu.
Favorable ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Unfavorable
Risky ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Safe
Bad ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Good
Responsible ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ Irresponsible

Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with the following statements.
I feel able to get an H1N1 swine flu vaccination.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

137
I feel able to stay home from work if sick with H1N1 swine flu.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

[The following questions are asked for each other member of the group.]
Before we ask specific questions about how you and your coworkers dealt with the H1N1
flu, we need to know a little bit about your normal communication patterns. On a scale
from 1 to 10, where 1 means not at all and 10 means a great deal, please indicate how
much you talk to each of the following people in general.
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means nothing at all and 10 means a great deal, how
much do you think each of the following people knows about H1N1 swine flu?
(Remember please do not ask them directly -- we are interested in your estimates).
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

138
On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not at all and 10 means a great deal, how much
did you talk to each of the following people about H1N1 swine flu vaccinations?
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is not at all and 10 is a great deal, how much do you
think each of the following people wanted you to be vaccinated for H1N1 swine flu.
[List includes group members, family, other friends, and doctors]
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

Please indicate how much each of these people’s opinion of whether you should be
vaccinated for H1N1 swine flu matters to you.
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

139
Pretend that you were talking to each of the following people about the H1N1 swine flu.
Which of the following best describes the feeling during the conversation toward H1N1
vaccination?
1 Not at all supportive of vaccination
2 Not very supportive of vaccination
3 Somewhat supportive of vaccination
4 Supportive of vaccination

Similarly, now imagine a conversation about the H1N1 swine flu took place between
pairs of other members of your group. Which of the following best describes the feeling
during the conversation toward H1N1 vaccination?
1 Not at all supportive of vaccination
2 Not very supportive of vaccination
3 Somewhat supportive of vaccination
4 Supportive of vaccination

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 means not at all and 10 means a great deal, how much
did you talk to each of the following people about staying home if you were sick with
H1N1 swine flu?
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

140
On a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is not at all and 10 is a great deal, how much do you
think each of the following people would want you to stay home from work if you were
sick with H1N1 swine flu? [List includes group members, family, other friends, and
doctors]
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

Please indicate how much each of these people’s opinion of whether you should stay
home from work if you were sick matters to you.
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

Pretend that you were talking to each of the following people about the H1N1 swine flu.
Which of the following best describes the feeling during the conversation toward staying
home from work when sick with H1N1 swine flu?
1 Not at all supportive of staying home
2 Not very supportive of staying home
3 Somewhat supportive of staying home
4 Supportive of staying home

141
Similarly, now imagine a conversation about the H1N1 swine flu took place between
pairs of other members of your group. Which of the following best describes the feeling
during the conversation toward staying home from work when sick with H1N1 swine flu?
1 Not at all supportive of staying home
2 Not very supportive of staying home
3 Somewhat supportive of staying home
4 Supportive of staying home

Think of your work group as a unit. Your work group's "health identity" is a description
which tells how your group deals with health issues. For example, consider how your
group thinks about health and how it perceives preventive measures to keep you healthy.
Please type what you consider your group's health identity to be.

To what extent do you think your group's health identity accurately describes you?
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

On a scale from 1 to 10, where 1 is not at all and 10 is a great deal…
As a unit, does your work group think members should be vaccinated for H1N1 swine
flu?
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

142
As a unit, does your work group think members should stay at home from work if sick
with H1N1 swine flu?
1 Not at all
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 A great deal

Please indicate whether you agree with the following statements.
I do not feel a strong sense of belonging to my work group.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

I do not feel "emotionally attached" to this work group.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

This work group has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

143
I do not feel like "part of the family" at this work group.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with this work group.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

I enjoy discussing my work group with people outside it.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

I really feel as if this work group’s problems are my own.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

144
I think I could easily become as attached to another work group as I am to this one.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

When someone criticizes my work group, it feels like a personal insult.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

I am very interested in what others think about my work group.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

When I talk about my work group, I usually say 'we' rather than 'they'.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

145
The successes of my work group are my successes.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

When someone praises my work group, it feels like a personal compliment.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

If a story in the media criticized my work group, I would feel embarrassed.
1 Strongly disagree
2 Disagree
3 Slightly disagree
4 Neither agree nor disagree
5 Slightly agree
6 Agree
7 Strongly agree

In your estimation, what percent of people your age were vaccinated for H1N1 swine flu?

In your estimation, what percent of people your age would stay home from work if they
were sick with H1N1 swine flu?

Did you get sick with H1N1 swine flu?
Yes
No
I’m not sure

146
Did you get the vaccine for H1N1 swine flu?
Yes
[If yes,] When did you get the vaccine for H1N1 swine flu?

Tried, but was unsuccessful
[If tried,] When did you try to get the vaccine for H1N1 swine flu?

No
[If not yes,] How likely are you to get the vaccine for H1N1 swine flu?

What is the longest amount of time that you would be willing to stay home if you were
sick with H1N1 swine flu? Please type the number of days.
____ Days

The final questions ask for some basic information about you.

What is your gender?
Male
Female

What year were you born?

Which best describes your race?
White/Caucasian
Black/African American
Hispanic
Asian
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other

What is the highest level of education you have completed?
Less than high school
High School/GED
Some college
2-year college degree
4-year college degree
Master’s degree
Doctoral degree
Professional degree (e.g. JD, MD)

147
Do you have a chronic medical condition?
Yes
No

Were you pregnant at any point between July 2009 and December 2009? [Only asked of
women]
Yes
No

Are you caring for a child under 1 year of age?
Yes
No

Do you have any children under 18 years old?
Yes
No

Does your employer provide you with health insurance?
Yes
No

Do you have paid sick leave from work?
Yes
No

Do you have a regular health care provider?
Yes
No

If you have any additional comments that you would like to share about your work group
or about H1N1 swine flu, please do so in the space below.

148
Appendix B: Group Health Identity Coding Dictionary
Q22. Think of your work group as a unit. Your work group's "health identity" is a
description which tells how your group deals with health issues. For example, consider
how your group thinks about health and how it perceives preventive measures to keep
you healthy. Please type what you consider your group's health identity to be.

Mention Vaccine – whether the prototype mentions vaccines
0 = no, 1 = yes
Valence Vaccine – the valence of mention of vaccine, whether the group supports getting
vaccinated
-1 = negative/not supportive, 0 = neutral/mixed, 1 = positive/supportive
99 if vaccine not mentioned
Mention Home – whether the prototype mentions staying home when sick
0 = no, 1 = yes
Valence Home – the valence of staying home when sick, whether the group supports
staying home
-1 = negative/not supportive, 0 = neutral/mixed, 1 = positive/supportive
99 if staying home not mentioned
Number of Words – the number of words used in the prototype
Literally count the number of words, can range from 0 up
Mention Specific – whether the prototype mentions a specific group member
0 = no, 1 = yes
First Person – how many times the author uses 1
st
person singular pronouns (such as I or
my)
Literally count the number of words, can range from 0 up
First Plural – how many times the author uses 1
st
person plural pronouns (such as us or
we)
Literally count the number of words, can range from 0 up
Second Person – how many times the author uses 2
nd
person pronouns (such as you)
Literally count the number of words, can range from 0 up
Third Person – how many times the author uses 3
rd
person pronouns (such as they or
them)
Literally count the number of words, can range from 0 up
Prevention – how much the overall group prototype values prevention of disease
1 = not at all (mentions don’t care or don’t discuss prevention or includes anti-
prevention activities like working through disease)
2 = a little (default if nothing prevention related mentioned)
3 = somewhat (try not to get sick, mention prevention important, mention 1
specific activity)

149
4 = a lot (strong importance on prevention, or mentions multiple specific
activities)
Health – how much the overall group prototype values health
1 = not at all (mentions not important or don’t discuss health)
2 = a little (default)
3 = a lot (strongly emphasizes importance of health to group)

Note: If no prototype was written (the field is completely blank), then type 0 for number
of words, and 99 for all other fields.
If instead of typing a prototype, the participant merely typed that they didn’t understand
the question or did not have an answer, type the correct number for number of words and
99 for all other fields. However, if the answer is that their group does not have a
cohesive identity, then fill in each category using the dictionary above.
If there is even one word typed that tries to give a feeling of the prototype, then fill in
each category using the dictionary above.

150
Appendix C: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Work group Identification

ACS is the Affective Commitment Scale (McGee & Ford, 1987).
M&A is Mael and Ashforth’s (1992) six item organizational identification scale.

Affective
M&A 1
Cognitive
M&A 2
M&A 3
M&A 4
ACS 8
M&A 5
M&A 6
ACS 5
ACS 6
ACS 7
ACS 2
ACS 3
ACS 4
ACS 1
* p < 0.05
1.00
1.38*
0.98
1.89*
1.00
0.66*
0.62*
0.96*
1.16*
0.49
0.55
0.42*
2.68*
1.34*
0.34
0.17
0.23
0.30
1.46
1.10
1.18
0.45
0.54
1.61
1.48
0.43
2.40
1.82
1.00
0.45

151
Appendix D: Network Data
Group 1 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 9 10 6 7 5 10
3 10 10 8 8 9 10
4 6 5 7 8 9 5
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 8 8 8 8 8 8
7 9 10 10 9 9 9

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 7 7 7 7 7
2 7 10 7 7 7 10
3 1 7 1 1 1 7
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 1 5 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 6 6 6 6 6 6
4 4 3 3 3 3 3
5 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 6 10 6 6 6 10
3 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 6 2 3 2 7 3
5 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 8 6 7 6 6 7
2 9 9 9 8 8 9
3 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 9 8 7 6 8 9
7 5 5 5 5 5 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 2
3 3 3 1 1 1 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 9 8 8 9
3 9 9 9 9 9 9
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 5 6 5 5 5 8
3 7 9 7 7 7 7
4 10 5 5 5 5 5
5 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

152
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 4 4 4 3 4
3 3 4 4 4 3 4
4 3 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 4 4 3
7 3 4 4 4 4 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 4 2
2 3 3 3 2 2 3
3 3 3 3 3 4 2
4 3 3 3 4 4 3
5 3 2 3 4 4 1
6 4 2 4 4 4 2
7 2 3 2 3 1 2

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 4 3
2 3 3 3 4 3 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3
4 3 3 3 4 3 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 3
7 3 3 3 4 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

153
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 4 4 3 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 4 4 4 4
7 3 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 4 4 4 3 3 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 3 4 4 4 2
6 4 3 4 4 4 3
7 3 4 2 4 2 3

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

154
Group 2 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 5 8 8 6 6
2 8 7 7 9 9 8
3 5 5 8 8 8 8
4 8 7 7 9 10 10
5 9 6 9 10 10 10
6 8 5 5 9 8 8
7 4 4 8 8 8 8

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 7 9 8 7 9
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 6 6 6 8 8 9
5 6 6 6 8 8 8
6 1 1 1 5 5 1
7 1 1 5 7 6 6

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 4 6 6 5 5
2 5 5 7 7 5 5
3 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 2 2 2 9 5 8
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 5 5 6 5 5

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 6 6 6 6 6 6
3 2 2 3 2 2 2
4 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 3 3 3 7 3 3
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 5 5 5 5 5
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 7 7 7 7 7 7
3 3 4 4 4 3 4
4 7 6 6 7 7 8
5 6 10 5 10 7 8
6 5 5 5 10 8 5
7 5 5 5 8 6 6

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 2 2 7 5 5 5
4 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 1 1 1 2 1 1
6 1 1 1 3 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 8 8 6 9 7 8
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 5 8 5 7 7 8
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 8 8 9 9 9 9

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 1 1 6 3 1 1
4 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 7 7 7 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 4 4 4 7 4 4

155
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 3 4 3 2 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 4
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 2 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 4 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 4 3 3 3
2 3 3 4 3 3 3
3 3 3 4 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 3 3 4 3 3
6 3 3 3 4 3 3
7 3 3 3 4 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

156
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 4 3 3
2 3 4 4 3 3 3
3 3 4 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 2
5 4 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 2 3 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 2 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 2 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 2 2 2
5 3 3 3 2 3 3
6 3 3 3 2 3 3
7 3 4 3 2 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

157
Group 3 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 5 9 10 9 10 10
2
3 3 3 9 5 3 5 3
4 3 3 10 10 10 10 7
5 7 6 7 9 10 10 9
6 5 2 2 7 9 10 5
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 6 5 3 6 10 7 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 3 6 3 9 9 9 8
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 1 1 1 4 8 8 7
7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
8 2 1 1 4 8 6 8

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 9 8 8 8 8 10 10
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
8 5 2 2 4 7 5 8

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 8 8 8 8 10 8 10
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
2
3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 6 8 5 8 9 8 8
5 7 6 6 7 7 7 7
6 4 4 5 6 7 7 5
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
8 7 9 8 9 9 9 9

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 4 4 4 4 4 4
2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 2 2 2 1
5 10 7 7 10 10 10 10
6 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 8
2
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
3 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 8 5 5 10 9 9
5 7 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 9 9 9 9 9 9
7 9 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 7 4 2 4 10 7

158
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 3 4 4 4 4 4
8 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 2 3 3 3 3 4
2 3 2 2 3 3 3 3
3 2 2 4 3 3 3 4
4 3 2 4 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 4 3 4
8 4 3 4 3 4 3 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 3 3 2 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
3 3 2 3 3 2 3 3
4 3 2 3 3 1 3 3
5 3 2 3 3 2 3 3
6 2 1 2 1 2 2 2
7 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
8 3 2 3 3 3 2 3

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
2 3 3 2 3 2 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
4 3 2 3 3 3 4 4
5 3 3 3 3 3 4 4
6 3 2 3 3 3 4 3
7 4 3 3 4 4 4 4
8 3 4 4 4 4 3 4
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 4 3 4 3
2 3 3 3 4 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 4 4
7 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
8 3 3 3 3 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 4 4 3 4 3
2 3 3 4 4 3 4 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 4 4 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 4 4 4 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 3 3 3 3 4 3 4

159
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 3 3 3 4 4 4 4
3 4 3 3 4 4 4 4
4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

160
Group 4 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 7 7 8 8 8 6
2 10 6 8 10 8 7 5
3 8 8 5 10 6 6 6
4
5 7 7 10 10 7 7 7
6 7 8 5 6 9 9 9
7 10 9 7 10 10 10 10
8 9 9

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 3 1 1 3 4 1
2 7 6 6 6 8 10 8
3 8 8 4 6 8 8 8
4
5 5 4 9 4 5 5 5
6 7 7 1 1 1 8 8
7 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
8 1 1 1 1 1 2 2

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 9 8 7 8 9 9 7
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4
5 4 4 4 8 4 4 4
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
8 8 8 7 7 6 6 6

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 1 1 1 1 1 7 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
5 6 10 6 10 9 9 9
6 3 3 2 2 3 3
7 1 1 1 1 1 5 5
8 5 5 5 5 6 6 6
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 8 5 5 8 8 8
2 8 8 6 7 8 10 8
3 9 9 6 9 9 9 9
4
5 5 4 10 4 6 6 6
6 6 6 6 6 6 8 7
7 6 4 10 4 1 4 6
8 5 6 7 6 6 5 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 8 1 5 8 8 9 8
3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 8 9 1 1 1 10 10
7 5 3 1 1 1 10 10
8 2 3 1 1 3 3 3

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 8 8 8 9 8 8 8
3 5 5 5 10 5 5 5
4
5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 5 6 4 4 10 9 9

161
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 4 3 4 3 4
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 4 3 3 3 4
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
8 3 3 4 3 3 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 2 4 4 4 3
2 4 3 2 2 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 3 4 4 3
4 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
5 4 2 3 2 4 4 3
6 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
8 3 4 3 3 3 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 4 2 1 4 1 1
2 1 3 3 3 3 1 1
3 4 3 4 4 4 4 3
4 2 3 4 4 1 1 1
5 1 3 4 4 4 1 1
6 4 3 4 1 4 1 3
7 1 1 4 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 3 1 1 3 1
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
3 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 1 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 1 2 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
8 2 2 2 2 1 1 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 2 1 2 3 3
2 2 4 1 3 3 4 4
3 3 4 3 1 2 4 3
4 2 1 3 1 2 2 2
5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
6 2 3 2 2 1 3 2
7 3 4 4 2 1 3 3
8 3 4 3 2 1 2 3

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 4 4 4 2
2 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 4 4 3 4 4 2
4 3 3 4 4 3 3 2
5 4 3 3 4 4 3 2
6 4 3 4 3 4 3 3
7 4 4 4 3 3 3 4
8 2 3 2 2 2 3 4

162
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

163
Group 5 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 10 2 5 1 5
2 6 7 9 6 9 6
3 10 9 6 9 8 10
4 2 10 5 2 10 7
5 3 2 5 2 8 2
6 10 8 5 8 10 3
7 7 8 10 8 3 1

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 6 2 8 6 5
2 1 1 9 1 9 1
3 1 1 1 8 7 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 4 1 4 1 7 1
6 7 7 2 4 7 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 2 5 10 5 5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 6 3
6 6 10 6 2 10 6
7 5 5 5 5 0 5

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 3 1 3 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 1 1 1 3 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 8 8 8 10 5 7
2 6 7 7 9 9 6
3 8 8 8 8 10 8
4 6 8 7 9 10 7
5 4 5 5 4 8 3
6 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 5 5 5 5 5 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 7 2 9 1 5
2 1 1 9 1 9 1
3 4 4 4 4 8 4
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 3 2 3 1 7 2
6 6 6 1 4 6 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 5 1
7 10 10 10 10 10 1

164
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 2 2 4 3 2
2 3 2 2 4 3 2
3 2 2 2 4 3 2
4 2 2 2 4 3 2
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 3
7 2 2 2 2 4 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 2 2 3 2
3 2 2 2 2 3 2
4 2 2 2 2 3 2
5 2 2 2 2 3 2
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 2 2 2 2 2 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 3 2 3 3 3
2 4 4 3 4 4 3
3 3 4 2 3 3 3
4 2 3 2 3 3 2
5 3 4 3 3 3 3
6 3 4 3 3 3 2
7 3 3 3 2 3 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

165
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 3 3 4 3 3
2 1 1 1 3 3 1
3 3 1 3 4 3 2
4 3 1 3 4 3 2
5 4 3 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 3
7 3 1 2 2 4 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

166
Group 6 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 6 8 8 6 3 9 10
2 5 9 10 9 9 7 9
3
4 6 10 8 8 6 6 7
5 7 10 10 10 9 7 7
6 5 9 9 9 9 6 9
7 8 10 8 9 6 10 10
8 10 10 7 10 7 10 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 5 4 4 4 9 9 6
3
4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 1 5 5 5 5 1 5
7 1 2 1 2 1 6 2
8 7 9 2 9 2 10 7

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 7 7 7 7 10 10 7
3
4 5 1 4 5 7 6 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 8 8 9 5 9 8
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 5 4 1
3
4 1 2 2 2 3 3 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
8 3 5 3 3 3 7 3
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 4 3 4 3 5 3
2 8 6 6 7 10 10 8
3
4 5 7 6 7 9 8 6
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 6 6 5 7 3 9 8
8 6 6 6 6 6 8 6

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
2 1 4 9 2 10 4 9
3
4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 3 3 3 3 2 6 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 3 6 8 5 10 9 9
3
4 8 10 10 10 10 10 8
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 8 9 7 9 5 10 8
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 1 10 7
2 2 2 7 7 10 9 8
3
4 2 6 5 4 4 5 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 1 3 2 2 1 7 3
8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

167
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 4 3 4 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 4 3 4
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 4 3 4 3 3 4
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 4 3 4 3 4 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 1 3 3 3 1
2 2 2 3 3 4 4 1
3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3
4 1 3 2 4 3 4 3
5 3 3 3 4 4 3 3
6 3 4 3 3 4 4 3
7 3 4 3 4 3 4 3
8 1 1 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 2 3 3 4 3 3
2 3 1 1 3 1 2 1
3 2 1 3 2 3 3 3
4 3 1 3 3 3 3 2
5 3 3 2 3 3 2 2
6 4 1 3 3 3 2 3
7 3 2 3 3 2 2 2
8 3 1 3 2 2 3 2

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3
2 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 4 4
5 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 4 3 4 3
7 4
8 3 3 3 4 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 2 3 4 3
2 3 3 4 2 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4
5 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
6 3 4 3 4 2 4 4
7 4 4 3 4 3 4 4
8 3 4 3 4 2 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

168
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 2 3 2 4 3 3
2 1 3 2 1 3 3 3
3 2 3 3 2 4 3 4
4 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
5 2 1 2 2 4 3 4
6 4 3 4 3 4 4 4
7 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
8 3 3 4 3 4 4 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 4 2 3 4 4
2 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
3 3 4 4 3 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3
5 2 4 3 3 4 3 3
6 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
7 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
8 4 3 3 3 3 3 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 2 4 3 3
2 3 3 4 2 4 4 4
3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3
4 3 4 3 2 4 3 4
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 4 4 4 4 2 4 4
7 3 4 3 3 2 4 4
8 3 4 3 4 2 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

169
Group 7 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 4 7 5 1 7 10 10 10 10 10
2 4 7 4 5 6 3 7 6 7 6
3 10 4 10 10 5 7 3 6 3 7
4 5 7 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 2 5 10 10 4 1 1 1 1 2
6 10 6 9 6 4 10 5 6 10 10
7
8 3 8 3 3 2 2 4 10 10 9
9 5 3 5 5 3 3 10 10 10 10
10 7 5 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7
11 8 3 4 4 4 7 9 9 9 9

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 10 7 10 5 10 6 8 6 8 6
2 8 8 6 5 9 5 8 8 7 8
3 7 4 4 4 4 8 4 8 4 4
4 8 8 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 8
5 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 10 10 10 5 5 10 10 10 10 10
7
8 3 9 3 3 3 3 5 2 3 3
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 4 1 1 1 1 6 1 4 1
3 5 2 5 5 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 3 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 3
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 6 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 6 5
7
8 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 6 4 4
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 5 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

170
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 3 10 10 2 3 2 3 1 3
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 1 1 10 10 1 1 1 1 1 1
6
7
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7
8 3 9 3 3 2 2 3 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5
6
7
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10
11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

171
Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 9 9 9 8 2 8 2 8 9 9
7
8 1 9 2 2 2 2 6 1 6 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
11 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 10 10 10 10 3 10 3 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5
6
7
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10
11 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

172
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
8 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
9 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
10 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
11 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
11 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 2 2
3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3
4 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
6 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 2
7 1 2 1 1 3 1 1
8 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
9 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1
10 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1
11 1 2 2 1 2 2 1 1

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 3 2
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3

173
Person 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

174
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 2 2 3
2 3 3 2 3 3 3 4 3 2 2
3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 2 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 2 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 4 3 2
10 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 4 3 3
11 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 2 3

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
11 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

175
Person 11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1
0 1
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
11 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

176
Group 8 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 9 5 10 10 10
2 4 5 5 3 4 5
3 6 6 3 2 6 6
4 7 10 8 7 7 7
5 9 6 4 4 6 6
6 10 8 9 6 8 8
7 10 4 4 2 2 4

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 1 2 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 10 3 3 3 3 3

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 5 5 5
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 2 1 1 1 2 1
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 5 9 7 9 7
2 5 5 5 6 7 7
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 7 10 10 7 7 7
5 3 6 6 5 6 3
6 7 7 7 7 7 7
7 9 8 7 5 5 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 2 2 2 6 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 4 1 1 1 1 3
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 5 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 9 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 5 5 8 9 10
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 5 1
4 8 10 9 8 8 8
5 6 5 5 5 5 5
6 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 8 7 2 2 3

177
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 3 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 3 4 4
4 4 4 3 3 4 4
5 4 4 3 3 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 3 3 4 3
3 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 3 3 3 3 3
5 4 3 3 3 4 3
6 4 4 4 3 4 4
7 4 3 3 3 3 4

178
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 3 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 3 3 4 4
4 4 4 3 4 4 4
5 4 4 3 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 3 4 4
4 4 4 3 3 4 3
5 4 4 3 3 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 3 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 3 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 3 3 4 4 4
5 4 3 3 4 4 4
6 4 3 3 4 4 4
7 4 4 3 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 3 3 4 4
3 4 3 3 3 4 4
4 4 3 3 3 4 4
5 4 3 3 3 3
6 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 3 4

179
Group 9 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 10 8 8 8 8
2 2 3 3 10 10 10
3 10 5 10 8 10 5
4 10 2 10 4 8 3
5 1 5 1 1 1 6
6 10 7 10 8 9 10
7 10 5 5 5 10 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 3 2 1 1 1
2 1 1 5 5 5
3 9 1 9 1 1 1
4 10 1 10 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 4
6 7 1 7 1 4 7
7 1 1 1 1 3 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 5 5 9 9 5 5
4 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 8 4 5 4 7 8
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 4 1 4 1 3
2 1 1 1 10 10
3 7 4 4 7 7 7
4 7 1 7 6 3 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 6 6 9 3 6
2 3 3 3 9 7 5
3 10 3 10 9 4 9
4 7 5 7 7 3 7
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 9 8 9 7 10 9
7 1 1 1 1 4 1

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 4 4 2 1 1
2 1 1 10 10 10 10
3 10 1 10 8 10 5
4 8 4 9 7 7 7
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 9 3 10 7 10 10
7 1 1 1 1 3 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 10 10 10 7 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 7 10 10 7 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 4 10 7 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 10 9 10 9 9
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 7 7 10 7 7 7
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 10 3 10 8 10 10
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

180
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 3 3 4 4 1
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 4 3 3 3 3
6 3 4 3 3 3 3
7 3 1 3 3 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 4 4 3 3
2 3 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 4 4 4 4 4
7 3 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 3 2 2 2
2 2 2 3 2 3 3
3 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 3 3 2 2 3 3
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 3 2 3 2 3
7 2 3 2 3 2 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 3 4 4 4
2 4 4 3 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 4 4 4 3 4 4
6 4 4 4 3 4 4
7 4 4 4 3 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 2 2 3 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 2 3 3 2 3
5 3 2 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 2 3 2
7 3 2 3 3 3 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 4 2 4 2 2
2 1 3 3 3 3 2
3 4 3 4 4 4 2
4 2 3 4 4 3 2
5 4 3 4 4 3 4
6 2 3 4 3 3 2
7 2 2 2 2 4 2

181
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 4 4 4 3 4
2 3 3 3 3 2 3
3 4 3 4 4 3 4
4 4 3 4 4 3 4
5 4 3 4 4 3 4
6 3 2 3 3 3 3
7 4 3 4 4 4 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 3 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 3 4
6 4 3 4 4 3 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 4 3 3 3
3 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 3 4 4 4 4
6 4 3 4 4 4 4
7 4 3 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

182
Group 10 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 7 9 6 5 5 9 9
2 4 8 8 1 2 7 7
3 10 10 8 2 3 3 5
4 6 9 6 10 10 6 6
5 1 2 1 8 10 2 3
6 5 4 2 8 9 3 4
7 10 10 7 8 6 7 10
8 6 10 6 4 3 4 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
2 1 8 6 1 2 1 5
3 1 8 2 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 10 3 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 4 3 2 4 3 3 4
7 9 10 8 9 8 8 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 8 10 7 8 7 7 9
8 3 10 3 3 3 3 3
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
3 10 9 10 8 9 9 9
4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
7 4 8 7 7 8 9 7
8 5 5 3 5 5 5 3

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 1 9 9 1 1 1 3
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 5 2 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 5 5 5 7 9 5 5
6 9 10 10 8 10 9 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
6 6 10 6 8 7 6 8
7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
8 1 10 1 1 1 1 1

183
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4
5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 4 3 4 3 4
2 3 3 4 3 4 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4
5 3 3 3 3 2 3 3
6 4 4 3 4 2 3 4
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
8 4 3 3 4 3 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 3 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
4 3 4 3 3 3 4 4
5 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
6 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
7 3 4 3 4 3 3 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

184
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 3 3 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 3 3 4
4 3 4 4 3 4 3 3
5 3 4 4 3 4 4 4
6 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
7 4 3 3 4 3 4
8 4 4 4 3 4 3 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 3 3 4 3 3
2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 2 3 3 4 3 3
6 4 2 3 3 4 4 3
7 3 2 3 3 3 4 3
8 3 2 3 3 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 4 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
3 3 4 3 3 4 3 4
4 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
5 3 4 3 3 3 3 4
6 3 4 4 3 3 4 4
7 4 3 3 3 3 4 4
8 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

185
Group 11 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 8 10 10 3 5
2 10 10 8 7 5
3 10 6 8 3 6
4 10 3 7 3 5
5 1 5 7 3 10
6 3 1 8 6 9

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 8 8 1 1
2 2 2 1 1 1
3 8 4 8 1 1
4 5 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 4 1 5
6 1 1 3 1 7

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 1 1
2 9 9 9 9 9
3 8 7 7 5 5
4 5 5 8 2 2
5 6 5 7 7 8
6 3 3 5 3 5

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 1 1 1 1
2 8 9 7 7 7
3 5 5 8 3 5
4 1 1 1 1 1
5 5 5 7 6 8
6 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 8 8 8 8 8
2 8 9 9 8 8
3 7 7 9 4 5
4 7 7 8 7 7
5 5 7 8 8 8
6 4 4 7 8 7

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 1 10 10 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1
3 9 9 9 4 4
4 8 1 8 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 3 1 7

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 9 10 10 9 9
2 9 9 9 8 5
3 8 8 9 5 5
4 1 1 5 1 1
5 5 6 8 8 8
6 1 1 4 2 6

186
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 4 4 3 3
2 3 4 4 3 3
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 3 4 4 3
6 3 3 4 4 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 4 3 2 3
2 3 4 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 3 3
4 3 3 4 3 3
5 2 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 3 3
2 4 4 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 3 3
4 4 3 4 4 3
5 3 3 3 4 3
6 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 4 3 3 3
2 3 4 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 3 3
4 3 3 4 2 2
5 3 3 3 2 3
6 3 3 3 2 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4
6 3 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 4 3
4 3 3 3 4 3
5 3 3 4 4 3
6 3 3 3 3 3

187
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 4 4 4
6 3 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4

188
Group 12 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 8 7 6 8 7 6 9 8
2
3 6 10 9 2 5 7 9 2
4 4 4 7 4 8 8 8 4
5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 6 7 6 10 7 7 10 5
7 5 8 8 10 5 6 9 3
8 10 10 10 10 7 10 10 7
9 8 8 5 4 3 4 7 9

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 6 5 6 7 5 6 7 6
2
3 5 7 6 2 1 3 7 1
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
6 10 7 7 8 7 7 8 7
7 7 3 4 3 2 3 3 4
8 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
9 3 3 3 5 3 3 6 4

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 2 3 1 1 4 2
2
3 3 6 5 1 1 4 5 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
7 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

189
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 1 4 1 1 4 3
2
3 5 7 6 2 2 4 5 1
4 1 1 1 5 6 1 2 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
6 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 7 7 6 8 5 7 6 7
2
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 3 5 4 3 2 2 2 2
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 9 9 9 8 9 9 9
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 7 6 5 6 2 5 7 6
2
3 3 6 5 1 1 3 5 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

190
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

191
Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 9 9 8 8 5 8 10 9
2
3 7 9 8 2 5 6 10 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 5 1
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 4 4 4 7 3 4 10 3
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7

192
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 3 3 4 2 3 2 3
2 4 3 4 4 2 3 2 4
3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
4 3 4 3 4 2 3 2 3
5 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 4
6 2 2 2 2 3 2 1 2
7 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3
8 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 2
9 3 4 3 3 4 2 3 2

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3
5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
7 3 3 3 4 4 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
9 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
2 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
3 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1
4 3 1 1 1 1 1 2 1
5 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
6 4 2 2 1 2 2 3 3
7 3 2 1 1 2 2 2 1
8 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2
9 3 2 1 1 2 3 1 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 3
2 2 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
3 2 3 2 1 2 2 1 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
5 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2
6 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 2
7 3 3 2 2 1 2 1 2
8 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

193
Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

194
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3
2 4 4 4 4 3 3 4 3
3 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 3
5 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
7 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

195
Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

196
Group 13 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 8 7 8 7 8 7
2 9 9 10 10 9 10 10
3 3 8 8 7 5 10
4 10 10 8 10 7 7 7
5 8 10 9 10 8 10
6 9 7 6 4 4 8
7 7 7 10 5 6 3 3
8 8 8 5 5 4 9 6

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 6 7 9 7 6 9 9
3 1 5 1 1 1 5
4 10 10 7 10 8 7 7
5 2 7 7 7 2 6
6 5 5 6 6 5 5
7 1 1 5 1 3 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 5 9 5 5 5 10
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5
6 5 6 6 6 5 5
7 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
8 3 9 8 4 6 4 8

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 6 6 6 6 6 6
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 6 3 3 3 8
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 5 5 6 6 5 7
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 5 7 5 7 5 5
8 5 8 3 5 3 7 8
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 8 8 7 7 8 8
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 5 7 4 7 5 5
4 8 7 8 10 10 8 9
5 6 6 8 7 7 7
6 7 6 6 6 6 6
7 9 7 7 4 8 5 5
8 4 7 8 7 7 6 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 1 2 1 2 1 1
6 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 1 6 8 5 3 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 6 10 8 8 6 9
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 6 10 10 8 8 6 6
8 3 10 10 7 8 6 8

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 2 10 7 5 4 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 8 9 9 9 8 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 2
7 7 9 10 7 9 7 7
8 6 5 3 5 3 7 7

197
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3
5 3 4 3 3 3 3
6 3 4 3 3 3 4
7 3 4 3 3 3 4
8

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
4 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 1 2 2 2 2 2
8 2 1 2 2 2 2 2

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 3 3 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 3 4
4 3 4 4 3 3 4
5 3 4 4 3 3 4
6 3 4 3 3 3 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
8

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
5 4 4 3 4 4 4 3
6 4 4 3 3 4 3 3
7 3 4 4 3 4 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 2 3 2 2 2 3
2 2 4 1 2 2 3
3 3 4 3 4 3 4
4 2 1 3 2 2 3
5 2 2 4 2 3 4
6 2 2 3 2 3 4
7 3 3 4 3 4 4
8

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 3 4
2 4 4 4 4 3 4
3 4 4 4 4 3 4
4 4 4 4 4 3 4
5 4 4 4 4 3 4
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 3
8

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 3 2 2 2 2
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 2 3 2
5 2 4 3 3 2 2 2
6 2 4 3 2 2 2 2
7 2 4 3 3 2 2 2
8 2 4 3 2 2 2 2

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 3 2 2 2 3 2
2 4 4 3 4 4 4 3
3 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
4 2 3 3 2 2 3 2
5 2 4 3 2 2 3 2
6 2 4 3 2 2 3 1
7 3 4 4 3 3 3 3
8 2 3 3 2 2 1 3

198
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 3 3 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 3 3 3 3
5 3 4 3 3 3 3
6 3 4 3 3 3 3
7 3 4 3 3 3 3
8

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 3 3 3 4
2 4 4 4 4 3 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 4 4 3 4
5 3 4 4 4 4 4
6 3 3 4 3 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
8

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
8

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
8

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 3 3 1 2 2 3 2
2 3 4 3 3 3 4 3
3 3 4 3 3 2 3 3
4 1 3 3 2 2 3 2
5 2 3 3 2 2 3 2
6 2 3 2 2 2 2 1
7 3 4 3 3 3 2 2
8 2 3 3 2 2 1 2

199
Group 14 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 10 10 8 8 6 4 4 4
2 10 10 6 3 2 7 3 3
3 6 10 8 8 4 6 4 7
4 10 10 10 7 5 5 9 8
5 6 8 8 8 5 7 1 7
6 6 6 6 3 6 3 1 2
7 8 9 9 3 7 4 3 6
8 8 8 8 6 1 1 3 3
9 5 2 10 8 8 2 3 1

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 8 8 6 6 6 8 8 4
2 8 7 5 4 4 7 8 3
3 8 8 7 5 8 8 8 6
4 7 7 7 6 8 7 8 5
5 10 10 8 7 9 9 10 7
6 8 8 8 5 5 5 8 5
7 9 8 8 7 7 6 9 6
8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1
2 6 6 4 1 1 5 6 1
3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
4 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

200
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 4
3 6 6 1 1 1 1 1 6
4 8 8 8 1 1 1 1 2
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 8 7 7 10 10 7
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 6 6 6 4 4 6 6 4
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 5 6 3 2 2 2 5 2
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 6 6 6 6 1 1 5 2
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

201
Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 9 9 8 5 5 8 8 4
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 7 7 7 1 1 2 3 3
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
8 9 9 9 9 7 7 8 8
9 8 10 10 8 8 6 10 6

202
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
2 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 2
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
5 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
6 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
7 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
9 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 3 4 3 3 4
5 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 4 4 3 4 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
9 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4

203

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 2
2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 2
3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
4 3 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 3 3 2 2 2
8 3 2 3 2 2 2 2
9 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2

204
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

205
Group 15 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 6 2 2 2 3 2 5
2 9 5 6 7 10 5 4 4
3 10 8 8 8 5 8 5 10
4 6 9 9 10 8 10 8 8
5 3 8 4 5 3 2 6 5
6 3 9 3 3 3 5 5 4
7 3 4 3 8 4 3 8 4
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 8 6 9 5 7 6 5 6

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 5
2 5 7 9 4 5 2 2 2
3 6 8 7 7 7 6 5 6
4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 3 3 3 5 5 3 1 2
6 6 9 9 6 9 4 2 4
7 6 8 6 8 6 6 3 4
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 5 6 7 4 4 4 4 4

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 5 4 5 1 1 1
3 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1

206
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 4 1 5 1 1 1 1 1

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 5 7 5 7 5 7 7 5
7 3 5 5 5 4 5 4 4
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 9 6 10 6 10 10 2 8
3 10 10 10 10 8 9 8 9
4 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 9 10 9 10 9 10 10 9
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 6 4 7 5 4 4 4 4

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 5 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1
3 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4
6 3 7 3 7 3 4 4 3
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 3 2 3 3 3 2 2 2

207
Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 5 8 8 5 5 5 5 5
2 1 1 10 9 10 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1
6 4 9 6 9 8 3 6 4
7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 6 4 7 6 5 4 4 4

208
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 4 2 3 4 4 4
2 3 2 4 1 3 4 4 4
3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2
4 4 4 2 2 3 4 4 4
5 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
7 4 4 2 4 2 3 4 3
8 4 4 3 4 2 3 4 3
9 4 4 2 4 2 3 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
3 4 4 4 3 3 4 3 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
8 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 3
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3
2 3
3 3 3
4
5 3 3
6
7
8
9
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 2 2 1 1 2 1 2
4 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 1 3 3 2 1 2
6 2 2 1 2 3 1 1 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 2
8 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 2
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
8 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
9 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 3
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

209
Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3

210
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 3
3 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 3 4 2 4
8 4 3 4 2 4 4 2 4
9 4 3 3 4 3 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 3 4 3 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
6 4 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
8 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
4 3 4 3 3 3 4 3 3
5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

211
Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
6 4 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
7 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3
8 4 3 4 3 4 3 3 3
9 4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3

212
Group 16 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 6 3 8 8 8 8
2 1 10 10 10 10 10
3 8 9 7 10 7 9
4 9 9 8 8 7 5
5
6 10 6 2 6 2 9
7

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 1 0 1 1 1 1 1
3 3 1 1 0 1 1 1 1
4 4 1 1 1 0 1 1 1
5 5
6 6 1 1 1 1 1 0 1
7 7

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 7 7 7 7 7
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 7 10 7 10
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5
6 2 1 1 1 1 2
7
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 4 8 4 4 7
2 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 7 7 7 2 2 7
4 9 9 8 9 6 10
5
6 3 3 2 2 3 8
7

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 7 7 8 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 8 8 8 10 8 10
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5
6 7 6 2 2 3 8
7

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 7 7 7 7 7
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 5 5 5 5 5 5
5
6 8 8 8 8 8 8
7

213
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 4 2 2 4 4
2 3 4 4 3 4 4
3 4 4 2 3 3 3
4 2 4 2 3 3 3
5 2 3 3 3 3 3
6 4 4 3 3 3 4
7 4 4 3 3 3 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 3 2 2 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 3
3 2 2 2 2 2 3
4 3 2 2 2 3 3
5 2 2 2 2 2 3
6 2 2 2 3 2 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 3 2 2 2 3
2 2 2 3 2 2 4
3 3 2 2 3 2 3
4 2 3 2 3 2 3
5 2 2 3 3 3 2
6 2 2 2 2 3 3
7 3 4 3 3 2 3

214
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4

215
Group 17 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 6 7 6 5 5 8
2 5 3 9 9 8 10
3 9 9 8 3 8 8
4 5 10 5 10 10 10
5 8 10 7 10 7 10
6 5 8 5 10 5 9
7 10 10 7 10 10 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 6 6 6 4 6 6
2 1 1 9 3 7 6
3 6 7 7 5 6 7
4 2 10 4 10 10 8
5 1 10 5 10 2 8
6 3 4 3 6 3 5
7 3 8 1 10 8 3

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 1 10 7 2 8
3 2 9 5 5 5
4 4 2 2 5 5 5
5 1 5 5 9 5 5
6 1 1 1 6 1 1
7 1 5 5 10 5 5

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 5 5 5 5 5 5
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 2 2 2 2 2 5
4 4 6 4 6 6 6
5 5 10 5 10 5 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 8 8 8 8 8 8
2 3 5 10 8 5 8
3 5 5 9 5 5 5
4 5 3 5 5 5 8
5 8 10 10 10 10 10
6 5 8 5 10 6 8
7 5 10 5 10 7 7

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 7 5 8 8 7
5 2 10 8 10 8 10
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 8 1 10 8 5

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 8 8 7 7 8 8
3 10 9 10 9 10 10
4 8 10 6 8 8 8
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 1 1 2 2 1 4
3 7 7 7 7 7 7
4 7 8 7 8 8 8
5 8 10 8 10 8 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 1 1 1 1 1 1

216
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 4 3 3 3
2 3 3 4 4 4 3
3 3 3 4 3 3 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 3 4 4 3
6 3 4 3 4 4 3
7 3 3 3 4 3 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
2
3 3
4 4 3 4
5 4 3
6 3
7 3 4 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 2 3 3 3 3
3 3 2 4 3 3 3
4 3 3 4 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 2 2 2 3
2 1 1 1 2 1 3
3 1 1 2 1 1 2
4 2 1 2 3 1 4
5 2 2 1 3 1 3
6 2 1 1 1 1 3
7 3 3 2 4 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 3 4 3 3 4
3 2 3 3 3 3 3
4 2 4 3 4 3 4
5 2 3 3 4 3 4
6 2 3 3 3 3 3
7 2 4 3 4 4 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 2 3 2 2 2
2 2 2 3 2 2 2
3 2 2 3 2 2 2
4 3 3 3 3 2 3
5 2 2 2 3 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 3 2 2

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 2 2 1 1
2 1 3 4 3 3 4
3 1 3 4 3 3 3
4 2 4 4 4 3 4
5 2 3 3 4 3 4
6 1 3 3 3 3 3
7 1 4 3 4 4 3

217
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 3 3 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 3 4 4 4 4
5 4 3 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 4 4 3 3 4
2 3 3 3 3 3 4
3 4 3 4 3 3 4
4 4 3 4 4 4 4
5 3 3 3 4 3 3
6 3 3 3 4 3 4
7 4 4 4 4 3 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 3 4 4
4 3 4 4 4 4 4
5 3 4 3 4 3 4
6 3 4 4 4 3 4
7 3 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

218
Group 18 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 8 4 4 10 9 10 10 10
2 4 4 5 10 8 4 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 7 9 9 10 9 8 7 7
5 8 9 8 8 9 10 6 4
6 7 8 6 6 9 6 4 4
7 9 4 4 2 10 8 2 2
8 6 3 1 1 6 3 3 10
9 8 5 3 1 7 6 5 10

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 9 9 9 5 5 5 8 8
2 4 9 5 9 9 8 5 5
3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 4 8 8 6 4 6 7 2
6 6 8 8 7 9 9 4 4
7 6 9 9 7 10 7 5 5
8 4 8 8 8 9 6 4 3
9 7 7 7 7 10 6 8 7

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
3 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1
4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 2 4 9 7 7 4 2 1
6 1 6 1 1 6 1 1 1
7 3 3 4 2 4 2 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

219
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1
3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 6 6 6 4 4 4 5 5
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
8 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
9 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 2 4 3 4 4 4
2 5 8 5 8 5 9 4 4
3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
5 8 8 8 8 7 7 10 3
6 1 7 1 1 7 1 1 1
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 5 3 1 1 2 2 1 8
9 8 7 7 7 8 8 7 9

220
Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 5 8 8 10 5 9 1 1
3 3 3 3 3 3
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 8 9 9 9 9 8 10 3
6 6 9 6 6 9 4 4 4
7 6 6 6 4 7 6 3 3
8 7 7 4 4 5 4 3 9
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

221
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 4 3 3 3 4
3 3 4 3 4 3 3 4 4
4 3 3 4 3 3 3 4
5 3 4 4 4 2 3 3 4
6 3 3 3 3 2 4 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 2
8 3 3 4 3 3 3 4 4
9 3 4 4 4 4 3 2 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 2 3 3 3 2 2
2 2 4 2 4 4 3 3 2
3 3 4 3 4 4 4 3 3
4 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 2
5 3 4 4 3 4 4 3 3
6 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3
7 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 2
8 2 3 3 2 3 3 3 2
9 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 2

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 3 4 4 4 3 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 1
2 3 1 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3 1
4 2 3 3 2 3 2 3 3
5 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 1 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 1 3 1 3 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 2 3 3 3 3
2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2
3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
4 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3
5 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
6 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

222

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3
3 2 3 2 4 3 4 3 3
4 2 3 2 3 3 4 4 3
5 3 3 4 3 3 4 3 3
6 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

223
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 3 4 4 4 4 3 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
8 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4
9 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 4

224
Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

225
Group 19 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 5 6 7 3 7
2 4 3 3 8 6 10
3 6 5 8 10 7 7
4 10 9 10 10 9 9
5 10 10 10 9 10 10
6 3 3 5 3 10 10
7 10 10 3 4 10 10

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 1 1 3 4 1 4
2 1 1 1 1 1 4
3 1 1 1 4 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 9 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 8 1 1 2 3

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 7 7 5 3 3 3
2 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 1 2 1 1 1 1

Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 1 2 5 2 5
2 3 1 3 5 3 3
3 1 1 1 3 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 1 1 1 1 10 10
7 3 5 1 3 3 5
Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 9 8 5 9 6 5
2 5 5 5 5 5 5
3 5 5 5 8 5 5
4 8 8 8 8 8 8
5 8 10 10 10 10 8
6 5 8 8 8 10 10
7 6 10 2 6 8 5

Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 1 2 2 1 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 2 2 2 10 2 2
4 9 1 9 6 1 1
5 2 2 10 2 2 2
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 5 9 1 1 4 8

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 2 3 5 3 5
2 5 1 1 7 7 7
3 6 5 6 10 6 6
4 10 10 10 10 10 10
5 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1
7 7 10 1 2 10 10

226
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 3 3 3 3
2 4 2 3 3 3 3
3 4 2 3 2 2 2
4 3 3 3 3 3 2
5 3 3 2 3 3 3
6 3 3 2 3 3 3
7 3 3 2 2 3 3

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 2 3 3
2 3 2 2 3 3 3
3 3 2 1 2 2 3
4 3 2 1 3 3 2
5 2 3 2 3 3 3
6 3 3 2 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 2 3 3

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 2 1 2 2 2
2 2 1 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 2 2 1 2 2 2
5 1 2 2 2
6 2 2 1 2 2 2
7 2 2 1 2 2 2

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 3 4 2 3
2 3 3 4 3 4
3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 4 3 3
5 4 4 3 4 4 4
6 2 3 3 3 4 4
7 3 4 3 3 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 3 2 3 3 3 2
2 3 3 2 4 3 4
3 2 3 2 3 2 1
4 3 2 2 3 2 2
5 3 4 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 2 2 3 3
7 2 4 1 2 3 3

227
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4
Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4

228
Group 20 Network Matrices
Communication
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 8 9 8 9 8 8 8 10 10
2 3 10 10 7 3 10 3 7 3
3 10 10 10 10 3 10 2 10 5
4
5 8 7 6 9 7 10 5 10 6
6 4 3 3 4 4 3 10 4 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 2 3 2 5 3 9 3 4 8
9 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 6 9
10 8 3 5 3 7 10 3 10 7

Knowledge
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 9 9
2 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
3 4 3 2 3 3 2 5 3 5
4
5 5 5 5 5 8 3 5 5 5
6 4 3 3 3 4 3 3 4 4
7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
8 8 5 8 3 3 4 3 6 6
9 9 9 8 8 6 8 6 8 9
10 5 5 7 5 5 7 5 7 7

Talk about Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 3
9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

229
Talk about Staying Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 3
7 10
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
10 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 8 8

Normative Beliefs Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
9 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 3
10 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Normative Beliefs Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 10 10 8 10 10 6 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
4
5 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

230
Motivations to Comply Vaccine
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4
5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2
9 7 4 7 4 4 7 4 7
10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Motivations to Comply Home
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
3 9 8 6 5 1 6 1 10 5
4
5 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
6 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
7 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
8 10 5 6 5 7 10 7 10 10
9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

231
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Vaccination

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
9 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
10 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 2 2 3 3 2 3 2 3
3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
4 3 2 3 3 3 2 3 2 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3
7 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 4
9 3 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 3

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4
2 4 4
3 4
4 4
5 4
6 4
7 1
8
9 1 4
10 4

232
Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 4 3 4 3 2 4 4 4
2 3 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 2
3 4 3 3 2 3 3 3 2 3
4 3 2 3 3 3 3 4 3 2
5 4 2 2 3 3 3 4 3 2
6 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 4
7 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
8 4 2 3 4 4 3 3 3 2
9 4 3 2 3 3 2 3 3 3
10 4 2 3 2 2 4 2 2 3

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3 3
2 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 2 3
3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3
4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
5 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 2 2
6 3 3 3 2 3 2 3 3 3
7 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3
9 3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3
10 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 3 3

Person 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
4 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
7 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
10 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

233
Cognitive Social Norm Structure: Staying Home

Person 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4
2 4 4
3 4 4
4 4
5 4
6 4
7 4
8
9 4 4
10 4

234
Person 8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Person 10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
0
1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
7 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
9 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
10 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Understanding normative influence of neighborhoods: a multilevel approach to promoting Latinas’ cervical cancer prevention behaviors in urban ethnic communities

PDF

Developing and testing a heuristic-systematic model of health decision making: the role of affect, trust, confidence and media influence

PDF

The social groups approach to quitting smoking: An examination of smoking cessation online and offline through the influence of social norms, social identification, social capital and social support

PDF

Social media and health: social support and social capital on pregnancy-related social networking sites

PDF

The formation and influence of online health social networks on social support, self-tracking behavior and weight loss outcomes

PDF

Benefits of social networking in online social support groups

PDF

Rediscovering the communication engine of neighborhood effects: how the interaction of residents and community institutions impacts health literacy and how it can be leveraged to improve health c...

PDF

Immigrant health in context: a communication ecology approach to understanding health behavior

PDF

The role of social control in promoting healthy eating behavior among Chinese immigrants: an ecological approach

PDF

Social selection and influence of alcohol & marijuana implicit cognitions and behaviors: a longitudinal investigation of peer social network dynamics

PDF

Network influences in health initiatives: multimedia games for youth in Peru

PDF

Social network influences on depressive symptoms among Chinese adolescents

PDF

Social network norms and HIV risk behaviors among homeless youth in Los Angeles, California

PDF

The evolution of multilevel organizational networks in an online gaming community

PDF

A network analysis of online and offline social influence processes in relation to adolescent smoking and alcohol use

PDF

The role of social identity in adolescent smoking behavior

PDF

Building personal wellness communities: meaningful play in the everyday life of a network society

PDF

Mobile self-tracking for health: validating predictors, effects, mediator, moderator, and social influence

PDF

Understanding alliance building and communication across multiple technology platforms among California's immigrant-serving NGOs

PDF

Intermedia agenda setting in an era of fragmentation: applications of network science in the study of mass communication