Self-restraint behavior under COVID-19 through stigma: Theory and evidence based on mobility data

This study conducts both theoretical and empirical analyses of how the non-legally-binding policies originating from COVID-19 affect people's going-out behavior. The theoretical analysis assumes that under a declared state of emergency, the individual going out suffers psychological costs arising from both the risk of infection and the stigma of going out. Thus, a hypothesis is derived that under a declared state of emergency, going out entails a strong psychological cost, and thus people refrain from going out. In the empirical analysis, this study estimates the model using a set of panel data from regional mobility data and from emergency declarations at the prefectural level to analyze self-restraint behavior under a non-legally binding emergency declaration. The results reveal that, compared with the pre-declaration of the state of emergency, going-out behavior under and after lifting of the state of emergency was suppressed even when the going-out behavior did not result in penalties, which is consistent with the theoretical analysis.