See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/341551699

Effects of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on Social Behaviours: From a

Social Dilemma Perspective

Preprint · May 2020

DOI: 10.31235/osf.io/8duvx

CITATIONS READS

5 552

2 authors, including:

Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling

University of Technology Malaysia
96 PUBLICATIONS 776 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling on 03 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Effects of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic on Social
Behaviours: From a Social Dilemma Perspective
Gabriel Hoh Teck Ling
Senior Lecturer (PhD), Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Faculty of Built
Environment and Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
[email protected]

Christina Mee Chyong Ho

Independent researcher
[email protected]

Abstract. The health crisis of the COVID-19 outbreak has global impacts on humanity and the
economy. Such pandemic effects are believed to have influenced human behaviour; issues of
panic buying (overbuying) and noncompliance with government orders and law among
individuals are evident. However, the underlying understanding on such behaviours due to the
pandemic remains unclear. Therefore, this perspective paper adopts the social dilemma theory
and microeconomics concepts to analyse and explain the effects of COVID-19 on social
behavioural reactions. It attempts to address the questions of what and why are the behaviours
of individuals shown during the coronavirus pandemic and showcase how the theory is
associated with the current social phenomena. Real scenarios based on media reporting from the
sociodemographic context of Malaysia, concerning the following issues; (i) competition over
daily essentials; (ii) self-honesty of individuals; and (iii) adherence to government policies and
measures enforcement (governance) were discussed. A conceptual framework was developed to
illustrate interrelationships between social dilemma concepts and the phenomena. In essence,
due to fear, uncertainty and greed, self-interest and opportunistic (defective/unethical)
behaviours of most individuals prevailing over societal collective interest amid the pandemic
have been prevalently observed in the above instances, although a cooperative choice can
eventually result in a better outcome for everyone. Not only do these non-cooperative behaviours
of individuals create inconveniences, dissatisfactions and other forms of negative externalities,
they also incentivise others to act selfishly, if no restrictions are imposed, that may eventually
cause government interventions failures. This paper demonstrates the relevancy of the social
dilemmas theory in better understanding fundamental human behavioural reactions amid the
health crisis and the importance of incorporating the findings into government policymaking.
These sociopsychological considerations help the government formulate holistic measures,
namely stringent sanctions and monitoring enforcement, as well as incentivising cooperative and
compliant behaviours of the public, which then contribute to curbing the COVID-19 pandemic
more effectively.

Keywords. Effects of COVID-19, Malaysia, Pandemic, Self-Interest and Opportunism, Social

Behaviours, Social Dilemma.

1. Introduction
The global health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic has unprecedented social and economic
impacts [1]. Positive confirmed cases and death toll are increasing daily, spanning over 200
countries, where both numbers, as of 20 April 2020, have surpassed 2 million and 100,000
cases, respectively [2]. The global economy has hit a recession, leading to the financial crisis.
In efforts to curb the pandemic, numerous scientific clinical trials and medical research have
been undertaken, aiming to develop vaccines to treat the disease, as well as government
interventions (e.g., social distancing policies, self-isolation/quarantines, movement control
orders, travel restrictions, and lockdowns) and reliefs (financial incentives and supports) are in
place to ‘flatten the curve’ and ameliorate the economic situation. Meanwhile, the pandemic is
also believed to have impacts on the behaviours of individuals, where issues of panic buying
(overbuying), hoarding, and noncompliance with government orders among individuals are
evident. Implicationally, these have led, and can lead, to severe social issues and other negative
externalities (e.g., more COVID-19 infected cases). However, the underlying understanding
and research on such human behavioural reactions as a result of the pandemic are lacking.
As such, rested on microeconomics and psychology disciplines, this perspective paper
attempts to employ social dilemma theories and concepts to analyse and explain the effects of
COVID-19 on social attitudes and behaviours. Based on the brief literature review, the above
symptomatic behavioural reactions of individuals can be associated with the aforesaid social
dilemmas theories and concepts, focusing on conscious or unconscious self-interest and
opportunistic behaviours [3][4]. These sociopsychological considerations are important to
address the questions of what and why are the behaviours of individuals shown during the
coronavirus crisis and the measures imposed and showcase how the social dilemma theories
above are associated with the current social phenomena (behaviours).
Therefore, to test the above theory’s significance and validity, the study area is set within
the sociodemographic context of Malaysia, in which background pertaining to COVID-19
situations and governments measures taken are to be first described. Malaysia had the highest
tally of COVID-19 infections in Southeast Asia [5]; with an average increase of over 100 cases
daily, since early March 2020, Malaysia’s COVID-19 cases crossed the 5000 mark [6].
Reported cases remained relatively low and mainly confined to imported cases, until a few local
clusters linking to a Tablighi Jamaat religious congregation held in Kuala Lumpur (a national
capital) emerged in March, which ensue in a large increase in local cases [7], i.e., about 1700
cases have been traced as of 10 April 2020, contributing to about 40% of the total COVID-19
cases. As of 9 April 2020, there were 4,338 confirmed cases in the country, with 67 deaths
reported. The total positive confirmed cases contribute less than 1% from an estimated
population of 32 million (over 90% are citizens and about 10% are non-citizens) [8] and the
fatality rate was 1.56%, which is relatively lower than the Philippines and Indonesia, but is
more severe than Brunei, Singapore and Thailand.
Although the numbers may appear insignificant, the viral transmission can be rapid and
hence the number of cases and death toll may increase significantly, as shown by some
European countries, e.g., Italy and France, and the United States, if effective measures are not
in place nor are they strictly observed by the public. In response to containing the widespread
of the coronavirus, the Malaysian government announced the Movement Control Order (MCO)
(a form of partial lockdown) from 18 March to 31 March and urged the public to exercise social
distancing. The government then extended the Enhanced Movement Control Order (EMCO)
twice from 1 April to 14 April 2020 and it continued from 15 April to 28 April 2020, in an
attempt to curtail the further rise in cases, since the World Health Organisation (WHO) had a
projection that the number of cases in Malaysia is expected to peak in mid-April [9]. During
the lockdown period where activities involving mass gathering are closed down, only the
essential services are allowed to operate, according to the Federal Gazette - Prevention and
Control of Infectious Diseases (Measures within Infected Local Areas) (No.2) Regulations
2020, involving food, water, energy, telecommunications, healthcare, security and others [10].
The remainder of the viewpoint is structured as follows: First, discussion, which begins with
analysing real social phenomena based on national and international media reporting using the
social dilemmas theory [3][4], mainly involving the concepts of self-interest, self-rationality,
collective interest, opportunism, negative externalities, overexploitation, the game theory and
the tragedy of the commons [11]. Next, a conceptual framework was formulated to show the
interrelationships between the concepts and the phenomena. Lastly, conclusion comprising the
summary of findings, recommendations, and policy implications and significance.

2. Discussion
Social dilemma theory has been widely used in order to understand sociopsychological thoughts
and behaviours of individuals (i.e., how does one behave?), given an interdependent decision-
making situation in which the individuals’ personal interest is in conflict with collective interest
[12] [13]. Under this condition (i.e., inner conflict), the theory argues the dominant strategy will
be that individuals tend to maximise self-interest by behaving selfishly (rationally) and/or
opportunistically (making a defecting/unethical choice) [14], rather than making a cooperative
choice, which is a less preferred strategy, to prioritise the advantage of the collective/public
interest, as the former always receives a higher return, at least in the short run. However, if all
individuals involved make a defecting decision (act selfishly and rationally), all will suffer
eventually. By definition, self-interest (selfishness), whether it is defective or enlightened one
in which the former is emphasised in this paper, refers to individuals necessarily behaving
rationally to maximise their advantages (welfare and utility), regardless of others, whether
intentionally (e.g., greed) [15] or unintentionally (e.g., due to worries, fear and anxiety) [14].
While, opportunism, building on self-rationality/selfishness, is that people may look after
their interests while trying to break the rules/promises or norms of behaviour. Specifically,
Williamson defines opportunism as the “lack of candor or honesty in transactions, to include
self-interest seeking with guile” [16]. He further referred opportunism to as “the incomplete or
distorted revelation of information, especially ‘guile’ to calculated efforts to mislead, distort,
disguise, obfuscate, or otherwise confuse” [17]. In short, guile here involves dishonesty,
deception, cheating, and lying which are associated with unethical behaviours [14].
Consequently, both defective self-interest and opportunistic behaviours result in negative
externalities or social costs. Negative externality means a decision/activity made by an
individual inflicting costs on, and causing harmful effects to, a third party (i.e., collective
interest), e.g., creating inconveniences and dissatisfaction among individuals [18]. These social
costs are often intangible and non-quantifiable. Therefore, as posited by Kollock [4]
“individually reasonable behaviour leads to a situation in which everyone is worse off than they
might have been otherwise”.
The above theory can be clearly illustrated using a game theoretic model/prisoner’s dilemma
analogy [19]. The model is useful to analyse why individuals might not cooperate, even it
appears that it is in their best interests to do so for better long-term outcomes. In this game,
greed and fear offer two distinct incentives to defect. Based on this prisoner’s dilemma (see
Table 1 below), with two prisoners detained separately, there are four possibilities as follows:
 Table 1: Prisoner’s Dilemma [19]

Prisoner B stays silent Prisoner B betrays

(cooperates) (defects)
Prisoner A: three years
Prisoner A stays silent Each serves one year
Prisoner B: goes free
(cooperates) (I)
(II)
Prisoner A: three years
Prisoner A betrays Each serves two years
Prisoner B: goes free
(defects) (IV)
(III)

(a) If A and B each betray the other simultaneously (everyone is being selfish/rational), each of
them serves two years in prison (see scenario IV); (b) If A selfishly betrays B but B remains
silent (being cooperative), A will be set free and B will serve three years in prison (and vice
versa) (see scenarios II and III); and (c) If A and B both remain silent (being cooperative), both
of them will only serve one-year in prison (see scenario I).
Despite the possible options (i.e., no matter what the other decides), under the social-
dilemma (temptation of high payoff (incentives) circumstances, the probable outcome of this
game is that the prisoner (either A or B) tends to behave self-interestedly/opportunistically by
betraying his partner in order for him to be safely released, although collective cooperation can
yield a better result (i.e., 1-year imprisonment each). Due to fear and communication is not
possible (with high transaction costs), each prisoner fears that, if their cooperativeness is not
reciprocated by the other one; hence, it is more reasonable for them to betray. In addition to
that, because of greed, none of the prisoners is willing to be jailed (i.e., receives punishment
even the slightest one); both of them want to be freed, therefore, the former defective behaviour
is further substantiated. In fact, little did they realise, if both (e.g., everyone or the entire public)
choose to be rational/selfish or greedy continuously and concurrently, all will suffer eventually
(see scenario IV- also known as collective irrationality), and the consequences as a result of the
defective behaviours will be worsened. One key takeaway of this game is that, although
rationality is required as an important component in most decision making for optimal
outcomes, short-sighted self-rationality leading to collective irrationality infers otherwise, i.e.,
the ultimate outcome either for the prisoners, for bystanders, or for both, may not be desirable.
Contextualising the theory into the current situation of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyse
and explain Malaysia’s public behavioural reactions amid the crisis, it is revealed that the
pandemic indeed leads to a social dilemma (situation). During the pandemic outbreak, most
individuals, generally, are inclined to behave selfishly (rationally) and opportunistically
(unethically) to maximise their personal interest/gain while compromising others’. The
following three real phenomena, particularly happening in Malaysia are used as examples for
the discussion, which cover: (i) competition over daily essentials; (ii) self-honesty of
individuals, and (iii) adherence to existing government policies and measures enforcement.
During the crisis where the situation becomes more critical and lockdown measures have
been imposed, similar to other parts of the world, such as Italy, Australia, the US, the UK, and
Singapore, many people of Malaysia started panic buying and hoarding daily essentials,
including groceries (e.g., food and toilet papers), health and medical necessaries (e.g., face
masks, hand sanitisers and other cleaning/hygiene products). Consequently, these result in
competition/conflict among individuals and shortage of supply. Worse still, apart from the issue
of price gouging of which unscrupulous, self-interested individuals taking this opportunity to
unethically inflate the price of the goods for resale, there are individuals and medical front liners
providing essential services, who are at high risks to the infectious disease, have no access to
those health and medical necessaries.
To explain why those finite essential products are highly exhaustible, although they are not
free of costs, justifications should be offered from the lens of the types of economic goods [20].
Those supplies of necessities at the supermarkets and any stores are publically open to all (i.e.,
public domain) and are normally adequate to cater for consumers’ demands. These
resources/necessities with the economic attributes of excludability1 and non-rivalry2 are
considered as club goods, which are believed to be more efficient and sustainable, as they are
less congested, as long as the quantity provision and demands of consumers are well governed
and controlled [21]. However, without any regulatory system to control and manage, no matter
the existing nominal costs involved, due to the overbuying and stockpiling behaviours of most
individuals, especially in times of the pandemic, where demands overwhelm the supply, such
club-good products get severely scarce.
In other words, those products have essentially collapsed and transitioned into another type
of economic good, which is an opposite of club goods, i.e., commons/common pool resources
(CPR) (or congestible public goods) with non-excludability and high rivalry characteristics
[21]. The CPR-based daily essentials are highly susceptible to overexploitation and hence
resource depletion; Ellickson asserted such open-access/public-domain daily goods become
“classic sites for tragedy” [22]. This phenomenon is best exemplified in the seminal Tragedy
of the commons metaphor [11]. Hardin argued that “…freedom in commons brings ruins to
all… Therein, lies the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase
his herd without limit—in a world that is limited” [11]. Regarding the overbuying and hoarding
issues, with no cost-effective mechanism to manage and control individuals’ consumption
behaviours, those self-interested individuals are granted with freedom in terms of unrestricted
consumption and access rights to the rivalrous CPR-based products/resources. Therefore,
learning lessons from this, some supermarkets have implemented measures, e.g., quota policy,
to limit individuals’ prevailing overconsumption behaviours, ensuring the essential staples are
equally accessed by all.
Sometimes, the above behaviours can be rationalised as self-protective modes, but
inadvertently, they are likened to the prisoner’s dilemma (see IV in Table 1), nevertheless, in
which the public subjecting themselves to the two prisoners’ situation are likely to behave self-
interestedly focusing narrowly on their own basic needs. As asserted by Kochaki and Desai, the
pandemic outbreak is deemed as a severe threat, causing uncertainty, worries, anxiety, and fear
among individuals as to whether there will be enough supply of necessities to sustain their
livelihood and how long the pandemic will last; thus, people are motivated to behave selfishly
(panic/over buying) and even engage in self-interested unethical acts so as to self-protect and
restore the threatened self [14].
1
Not everyone can get or access to the products without paying any costs; consumers may need to pay for the
distance and/or pricing costs to obtain them. The exclusion can also be in a physical or institutional form.
2
Any one person’s consumption of the goods does not reduce/subtract the amount of the goods (quantity and
quality) available to others. This could probably be due to the exclusionary attribute of the goods via a payment
system.
 Aside from the abovementioned externalities causing dissatisfactions and social conflicts,
due to the panic buying issue, people lining up and flocking at the supermarkets for groceries
have in fact created mass gatherings/crowds which consequently ensue in a boomerang effects,
a situation in which something has the opposite consequence, usually an adverse one, from the
one an individual intended. As mentioned earlier, the Malaysian government has urged its
people to avoid any mass gatherings events (including religious, sport and social activities) and
exercise social distancing in order to curb the viral transmission, but due to panic buying for
personal gains, which is of selfish behaviour, it compromises the collective interest because the
coronavirus turns out to spread more easily and quickly and thence positive cases of COVID-
19 may increase.
Next, in an effort to effectively contain and reduce the COVID-19 cases, via an accurate
identification of next potential or high-risk infected targets and places, one of the strategies
adopted by the Malaysian government is contact tracing. It attempts to find each sick/infected
person and then figure out where they have been to and who they recently interacted with. The
process, however, is not easy. It requires individuals to cooperate by honestly self-declaring
and disclosing their health conditions, whether they have recently or closely been exposed to
any coronavirus positive cases, and their travel history, especially those returning from COVID-
19 high-risk countries/hotspots. There are cases, in which, to avoid screening and self-
quarantine, some infected/symptomatic individuals did not fully reveal, or lied, about that
information, subsequently leading to infecting more people [23] [24]. Besides, as noted earlier,
Malaysia recently held one of the largest Islamic congregations (i.e., Tablighi Jamaat) at the Sri
Petaling mosque, attended by approximately 16,000 participants including 1500 foreigners. Of
the figure, the authorities have only been able to screen 10,533 attendees [25].
Despite various approaches which had been undertaken by the public authorities, the
remaining estimated 4,000 are yet to be identified; they refused and were reluctant to come
forward to undergoing COVID-19 screening because of fears of being detained for immigration
offences (for foreigners) and such exposure will have smeared their reputations [24]. The above
scenarios are exactly associated with self-interested unethical and opportunistic behaviours
(i.e., being deceitful and misleading) [16], which ultimately put collective interest at stake. As
explained by Kouchaki and Desai, under the above perceived threats, in order to maintain
positive self-image, people tend to focus solely on their interest and needs, which interfere with
adherence to moral principles and encourage unethical acts [14].
During the lockdown period, the policy is clear that people are ordered to stay at home, most
social and economic activities are temporarily prohibited, and travels are only allowed for few
limited purposes, e.g., providing essential services, obtaining daily necessities, and other
possible emergencies. Despite actions such as warnings, roadblocks, arrest, and fines taken by
authorities, non-compliance cases still occur and increase; some irresponsible and selfish
individuals do not strictly adhere to the order by going out, wandering, and gathering
unnecessarily. Also, some non-essential sectors are found operating illegally; it is truly
understandable that, owing to the pandemic, the economy and financial conditions are adversely
affected where many businesses closed down and some have gone bankrupt.
Hence, to survive through the critical time, for the sake of their economic interest as well as
better financial security, and/or due to fear of losing jobs (as workers), some chose to defy the
law. This part is related to the aforesaid anxiety and fear, incentivising individuals to behave
self-interestedly and unethically (irresponsibly) [14]. As posited by Kochaki and Desai …
“threat makes one focus more on survival and become unmindful of moral principles and
accumulate resources (e.g., money) as a way of dealing with threat” [14]. More interestingly,
such non-compliance behaviour can likewise be explained from the perspective of greed. Some
opportunistic and selfish individuals take this golden advantage to operate their non-essential
businesses, since the supply of certain goods is limited (low competition) due to the lockdown.
Although there is fear of being caught or sanctioned as well as risks of losing businesses, due
to greediness for more profits, people are tempted to break the law potentially causing more
infections. This behaviour is confirmed by scholars via numerous experimentations that greed
rather than fear will be the main motivation. As Wang and Murhigan [15] suggested “greed has
consistently driven decisions more than fear as people are influenced by desires for personal
gain more than they are by desires to avoid loss”.
Based on the above theoretical underpinning and discussions, a conceptual framework is
developed to showcase interrelationships between the health pandemic of COVID-19, social
dilemmas, and negative externalities (see Figure 1).

Social Dilemma
Self-interest/
Opportunistic
COVID-19 Behaviours
pandemic Conflict between Negative
personal and - Panic buying Externalities
As a threat causing collective interests (overbuying)
- Uncertainty People tend to act - Tragedy of the
Commons - Social conflict and
- Anxiety selfishly and/or
dissatisfaction
- Fear opportunistically, - Non-compliance
compromising with the laws & - Rise in positive
- Opportunity others' interests government policies cases (COVID-19)
(greed)
- Unethical/honesty
issues (lying)

Figure 1: A conceptual framework illustrating interrelationships between COVID-19,

social dilemma, and negative externalities

3. Conclusion
Succinctly, this paper has analysed and explained the effects of COVID-19 on social
behavioural reactions. It is found that the COVID-19 pandemic, which is deemed as a threat,
causes fear, anxiety, uncertainty, and possibly opportunity (greed). These then lead to a social
dilemma (conflicting individual-collective interests) situation, in which most myopically
rational individuals tend to behave selfishly and opportunistically (unethically) to maximise
their private interests at least for the short-term higher returns and benefits, while compromising
others’ (collective interest). Such self-rationality resulting in collective irrationality contributes
to exacerbating existing negative externalities (i.e., more social conflicts, dissatisfactions and
inconveniences, extension of the lockdown periods, and positive COVID cases may escalate).
 As such, a few suggestions dealing with governing and controlling the self-interested social
behaviours of individuals are proposed to address the social costs incurred. Among others, (i)
more stringent laws should be enforced, i.e., violators should be sanctioned according to the
gravity of offences. Fear via a penalty as a consequence can restrict their self-interested
behaviour; (ii) governments’ incentives/subsidy and financial supports are necessary to
alleviate individuals or household’s temporarily financial burden caused by the health pandemic
so that they may not defy the lockdown order for their economic reasons; (iii) proper
communication and awareness raising via social media and technological assistance to convey
and obtain accurate information, messages, and knowledge pertaining to the pandemic are
crucial to ensure people may not be in the state of anxiety and fear, subsequently leading to
panic/over buying and other defective behaviours; and lastly (iv) community surveillance and
monitoring using the principle of self-organising (collective action) [20] can be helpful since
government interventions alone are not sufficient to stop the invisible enemy. This global threat
affects the whole society; mentality with so-called “this is your problem, not mine” is not valid
to justify individuals’ non-compliance and non-cooperativeness. Governments should urge
people to become their monitors (eyes and ears) keeping informal surveillance on other
individuals who may break the law or behave selfishly and unethically; individuals who have
been under surveillance may not likely to behave defectively because their actions will be
noticed and can be held liable. Aside from demonstrating, in a priori manner, the relevancy of
the social dilemmas theory in understanding fundamental human behaviour and its changes
amid the health crisis, the paper bridges the lacuna in theoretical consensus about human
behaviours, facing multiple social dilemma scenarios under an adversarial pandemic. These
findings and analyses are generalisable to other geographical settings and definitely warrant
empirical studies. Furthermore, as highlighted in the Imperial College report predicting that,
under no policy measures or behavioural changes, there will be 510,000 deaths in the UK, 2.2
million in the US [26].
We certainly hope the situation will not arrive at this alarming figures; therefore, this paper
provides a different insight that it is important to incorporate the study’s findings and
suggestions into government policymaking, although the behavioural effects contributing to
curbing the overall pandemic are rather intangible and indirect. They can, at least, help enhance
the effectiveness of governments’ existing lockdown policy measures enforcement by
governing and controlling individuals’ attitudes and behaviours, in response to the viral
infection in a more holistic, integrated manner. Last but not least, every individual should be
made aware that, in times of the pandemic threat, collective cooperation (pro-sociality) is a way
out and should prevail over self-interest (competitive) behaviour.

References
[1] P. SURICO, A. GALEOTTI: The economics of a pandemic: the case of Covid-19.
Wheeler Institute for Business and Development, LBS. London: London Business
School. 2020 Mar 14.
[2] WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION (WHO): Coronavirus Disease Pandemic. 2020
[cited 2020 April 20]. Available from:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019.
[3] A. RAPOPORT, A. M. CHAMMAH: Sex differences in factors contributing to the level
of cooperation in the Prisoner's Dilemma game. Journal of personality and Social
 Psychology, Dec 2 (6), 831 (1965).
[4] P. KOLLOCK: Social dilemmas: The anatomy of cooperation. Annual review of
sociology, Aug 24 (1),183-214 (1998).
[5] NEW STRAITS TIMES: Covid-19: Malaysia reports 7 more deaths, 150 new cases. 2020
[cited 2020 April 2]. Available from:
https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2020/03/579279/covid-19-malaysia-reports-7-
more-deaths-150-new-cases.
[6] THE STAR: Covid-19: Cases breach 5,000-mark, but fewest new cases since March 14.
2020 [cited 2020 April 16]. Available from:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/04/15/covid-19-cases-breach-5000-
mark-but-fewest-new-cases-since-march-14.
[7] REUTERS: Malaysia expects coronavirus cases to spike as more worshippers traced.
2020 [cited 2020 April 3]. Available from: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-
coronavirus-malaysia/malaysia-expects-coronavirus-cases-to-spike-as-more-
worshippers-traced-idUSKBN2180BW.
[8] DEPARTMENT OF STATISTICS MALAYSIA: Population and Demography. 2019
[cited 2020 March 25]. Available from:
https://www.dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/ctwoByCat&parent_id=115&me
nu_id=L0pheU43NWJwRWVSZklWdzQ4TlhUUT09.
[9] CHANNEL NEWS ASIA: WHO expects Malaysia's COVID-19 cases to peak mid-April.
2020 [cited 2020 April 5]. Available from:
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/malaysia-coronavirus-covid-19-cases-
peak-mid-april-12601814.
[10] FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAZETTE: Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases
(Measures within Infected Local Areas) (No.2) Regulations 2020. Available from:
http://www.federalgazette.agc.gov.my/outputp/pua_20200318_PUA91_2020.pdf.
[11] G. HARDIN: The tragedy of the commons. Science, Dec 13, 162 (3859),1243-8 (1968).
[12] A. RAPOPORT: Decision theory and decision behaviour. Springer, Jan 27 (1998).
[13] R. M. DAWES: Social dilemmas. Annual review of psychology, Feb 31(1),169-93 (1980).
[14] M. KOUCHAKI, S. D. DESAI: Anxious, threatened, and also unethical: How anxiety
makes individuals feel threatened and commit unethical acts. Journal of Applied
Psychology. Mar 100 (2), 360 (2015).
[15] L. WANG, J. K. MURNIGHAN: On Greed. The Academy of Management Annals, 5 (1),
279-316 (2011).
[16] O. E. WILLIAMSON: Markets and hierarchies. New York, Free Press, 1975.
[17] O. E. WILLIAMSON: Opportunism and its critics. Managerial and decision economics,
Mar 14 (2), 97-107 (1993).
[18] G. H. T. LING, P. C. LENG, C. S. HO: Effects of Diverse Property Rights on Rural
Neighbourhood Public Open Space (POS) Governance: Evidence from Sabah,
Malaysia. Economies, Jun 7 (2), 61 (2019).
[19] W. POUNDSTONE: Prisoner's Dilemma/John von Neumann, Game Theory and the
Puzzle of the Bomb. Anchor, 1993.
[20] E. OSTROM: Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge university press; Nov 30, 1990.
[21] C. WEBSTER: Property rights, public space and urban design. Town Planning Review,
Jan 1 78 (1), 81-101 (2007).
 [22] R. C. ELLICKSON: Controlling chronic misconduct in city spaces: of panhandlers, skid
rows, and public-space zoning. Yale Law Journal, Mar 1, 1165-248 (1996).
[23] THE STAR: Doctors face difficult time. 2020 [cited 2020 March 30]. Available from:
https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2020/03/21/doctors-face-difficult-time.
[24] THE RAKYAT POST: Patient Lied About Covid-19 Link, Affected Doctor Speak Up.
2020 [cited 2020 April 3]. Available from:
https://www.therakyatpost.com/2020/03/22/patient-lied-about-covid-19-link-
affected-doctor-speaks-up/
[25] BENAR NEWS MALAYSIA: COVID-19 Puts Scrutiny on Tablighi Jamaat. 2020 [cited
2020 April 10]. Available from:
https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/malaysian/conservative-group-
03202020181010.html.
[26] N. M. FERGUSON, D. LAYDON, G. NEDJATI-GILANI: Report 9: Impact of non-
pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare
demand. Imperial College London. 16 Mar 2020.

View publication stats