"Pandemic Fatigue" Fueled Political Discontent: Evidence From 8 Western Democracies Over 11 Months of the COVID-19 Pandemic (preprint)

Health authorities have highlighted "pandemic fatigue" as a psychological consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic and warned that "fatigue" could demotivate compliance with health advice. Yet, "fatigue" from following the advice of authorities may have consequences far beyond the health domain. Theories from the social sciences have raised that real and perceived costs of policies can also drive sentiments of discontent with the entire political establishment. Integrating theories from the health and social sciences, we ask how "pandemic fatigue" (i.e., perceived inability to "keep up" with restrictions) developed over the pandemic and whether it fueled political discontent. Utilizing longitudinal and panel surveys collected from September 2020 to July 2021 in eight Western democracies (N=49,116), we analyze: (1) "fatigue" over time at the country level, (2) associations between "pandemic fatigue" and discontent, and (3) the effect of "pandemic fatigue" on political discontent using panel data. "Pandemic fatigue" significantly increased with time and the severity of interventions but also decreased with COVID-19 deaths. When triggered, fatigue elicited a broad range of discontent, including protest support and conspiratorial thinking. The results demonstrate the significant societal impact of the pandemic beyond the domain of health and raises concerns about the stability of democratic societies, which were already strained by strife prior to the pandemic.

Did the European Suspension of the AstraZeneca Vaccine Decrease Vaccine Acceptance During the COVID-19 Pandemic? (preprint)

The decision to temporarily suspend the AstraZeneca vaccine against COVID-19 raised debate about the suspension's potential effects on the levels of acceptance of the overall vaccination program against COVID-19. Here, we trace the impact of first the Danish decision and subsequent national decisions on general COVID-19 vaccine acceptance by comparing levels of acceptance on different specific dates in eight countries. Overall, the findings suggest that the Danish decision to suspend the vaccine may have had (at least, short-term) cross-national ripple effects on acceptance of a vaccine against COVID-19. Importantly, these adverse ripple effects were specific for individuals within countries that are most closely tied to the same informational eco-system as Denmark (i.e., other Western European countries). These countries (in particular, Italy) may furthermore have been negatively affected twice following both the Danish and the national suspension decisions. This raises the possibility that the decision to suspend vaccines following adverse events poses a collective action problem and highlights the importance of coordination between national health authorities.

Communicate Hope to Motivate the Public During the COVID-19 Pandemic (preprint)

How should health authorities communicate to motivate the public to comply with health advice during a prolonged health crisis such as a pandemic? During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, for example, people have had to comply with successive restrictions as the world faced multiple races between controlling new waves of the virus and the development and implementation of vaccines. Here, we examine how health authorities and governments most effectively motivate the public by focusing on a specific race: between the Alpha variant and the implementation of the first generation of COVID-19 vaccinations in the winter of 2021. Following prior research on crisis communication, we focus on appeals to fear and hope using communicative aids in the form of visualizations based on epidemiological modelling. Using a population-based experiment conducted in United States (N = 3,022), we demonstrate that a hope-oriented visual communication aid, depicting the competing effects on the epidemic curve of (1) the more infectious variant and (2) vaccinations, motivates public action more effectively than a fear-oriented visual communication, focusing exclusively on the threat of the new variant. The importance of the implementation of such hope-oriented messages is further highlighted by cross-national representative surveys from eight countries (N = 3,995), which demonstrate that feelings of fear towards the Alpha variant alone were insufficient to activate strong compliance in isolation. Overall, these findings provide general insights into the importance of hope as a health communication strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Moralizing the COVID-19 Pandemic: Self-Interest Predicts Moral Condemnation of Other's Compliance, Distancing and Vaccination (preprint)

The emergence of the novel coronavirus has put societies under tremendous pressure to instigate massive and rapid behavior change. Throughout history, an effective strategy to facilitate novel behaviors has been to morally condemn those who do not behave in an appropriate way. Accordingly, here, we investigate if complying with the advice of health authorities---e.g. to physically distance or vaccinate---has emerged as a moralized issue during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Study 1, we rely on data (N = 94K) from quota-sampled rolling cross-sectional online surveys from eight countries (Denmark, Sweden, Germany, France, Italy, Hungary, the UK, and the US). We find that large majorities find it justified to condemn those who do not keep a distance to others in public and around half of respondents blame ordinary citizens for the severity of the pandemic. Furthermore, we identify the most important predictors of condemnation to be behavior change and personal concern, while institutional trust and social distrust also play large but less consistent roles. Study 2 offers a registered replication of our findings on a representative sample of Britons (N = 1.5K). It shows that both moralization and condemnation of both vaccination and general compliance are best predicted by self-interested considerations.

Transparent Communication About COVID-19 Vaccines Is Not Sufficient for Acceptance but It is Necessary for Trust (preprint)

During the rapid development and rolling-out of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2, researchers have called for an approach of "radical transparency", where vaccine information is transparently disclosed to the public, even if negative information can decrease vaccine uptake. Consistent with theories about the psychology of conspiracy beliefs, these calls predict that a lack of transparency may reduce trust in health authorities and facilitate the spread of conspiracy theories, which may limit the long-term capabilities of health authorities during and after the pandemic. On the basis of pre-registered experiments conducted on large, representative samples of Americans and Danes (N > 13,000), the present study contrasts the effects of vague vaccine communication with transparent communication, which discloses either positive or negative vaccine features. The evidence demonstrates that transparent negative communication may indeed harm vaccine acceptance here and now but that it increases trust in health authorities. Furthermore, the alternative of vague, reassuring communication does not increase vaccine acceptance either and leads to both lower trust and higher endorsements of conspiracy theories.

Public Acceptance of COVID-19 Vaccines: Cross-National Evidence on Levels and Individual-Level Predictors Using Observational Data (preprint)

ObjectivesThe management of the COVID-19 pandemic hinges on the approval of safe and effective vaccines but, equally importantly, on high vaccine acceptance among people. To facilitate vaccination acceptance via effective health communication, it is key to understand levels of vaccine skepticism and the demographic, psychological and political predictors. To this end, we examine the levels and predictors of acceptance of an approved COVID-19 vaccine.Design, setting and participantsWe examine the levels and predictors of acceptance of an approved COVID-19 vaccine in large online surveys from eight Western democracies that differ in terms of the severity of the pandemic and their response: Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Sweden, Italy, United Kingdom, and United States (total N = 18,231). Survey respondents were quota sampled to match the population margins on age, gender, and geographic location for each country. The study was conducted from September 2020 to February 2021, allowing us to assess changes in acceptance and predictors as COVID-19 vaccine programs were rolled out. Outcome measureThe outcome of the study is self-reported acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine approved and recommended by health authorities. ResultsThe data reveal large variations in vaccine acceptance that ranges from 82 % in Denmark to 52 % in Hungary. Lack of vaccine acceptance is associated with lack of trust in authorities and scientists, conspiratorial thinking, and a lack of concern about COVID-19. ConclusionMost national levels of vaccine acceptance fall below estimates of the required threshold for herd immunity. The results emphasize the long-term importance of building trust in preparations for health emergencies such as the current pandemic. For health communication, the results emphasize the importance of focusing on personal consequences of infections and debunking of myths to guide communication strategies.

Support for Border Security During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Evidence on Levels and Predictors from Eight Western Democracies in 2020 (preprint)

One of the unprecedented measures to contain the spread of COVID-19 during the first wave of the pandemic was to close borders across the world. In Europe, the closing of national borders was perceived as particularly controversial because of the emphasis on the free movement of labor and citizens across borders within the European Union. Here, we examine the level of support for border closings among citizens from eight Western democracies, how support developed over time, and how particular COVID-19-related concerns and considerations predict individual differences in support. Specifically, we collected data on support for tightened border security from 9 April 2020 until 19 December 2020 in quota-sampled online surveys in Denmark, Sweden, United States, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Hungary. Eight Western democracies that differ in their response to and the impact of COVID-19 (N = 67,679). Overall, the data show moderate to high levels of support for tightened border security across all observed countries, with substantial within-country variation. Furthermore, the analyses show that support for border security relates to both usual predictors of anti-immigration views and corona-specific considerations, in particular, personal concerns about the adverse effects of COVID-19 and attributions of blame to international actors such as China and WHO.

Public Support for Government Responses Against COVID-19: Assessing Levels and Predictors in Eight Western Democracies During 2020 (preprint)

To halt the spread of COVID-19 governments have engaged in policies that are both economically costly and involve infringements of individual rights. In democratic countries, these policy responses have elicited significant debate but we know little about the extent to which the responses are supported or opposed by the broader public. This manuscript investigates how citizens across eight Western democracies evaluate the specific policies imposed by their governments to contain the COVID-19 pandemic. We rely on large-scale, longitudinal surveys that are reflective of the national populations (total N = 124,062). On this basis, we investigate how pandemic-specific and broader political attitudes correlate with support for government responses during a significant part of 2020, a period marked by pandemic restrictions in all the countries. We find medium to high levels of support for the government's responses in all eight countries. Beyond the regular voters of the government, support is driven by individuals high in interpersonal trust and self-assessed knowledge about COVID-19. This suggests that halting the spread of COVID-19 is viewed as a collective action problem and mobilizes support from those knowing how to act and trusting others to act similarly.

Does face mask use elicit risk-compensation? Quasi-experimental evidence from Denmark during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (preprint)

Background: Public use of face masks has been widely adopted to halter the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic but a key concern has been whether the effectiveness of face mask use is limited due to the elicitation of false feelings of security that decrease the observance of other protective behaviors, so-called risk-compensation. Methods: We exploit quasi-experimental variation, prompted by three major changes in policy, to assess whether public use of face masks elicit risk-compensation by increasing the number of close contacts or decreasing attention to distancing and hygiene measured in daily nationally representative surveys (N = 106,880). Results: Number of close contacts: Face mask use prompted by the policy changes decrease the number of contacts in two of the three interventions. In the remaining intervention, it has no effect. Attention to hygiene: Across the changes face masks use does not affect people's attention to hygiene. Attention to distancing: In two of three interventions, face mask use increase attention to distancing. In the remaining intervention, we see a decrease in attention. Conclusions: Overall, face mask may occasionally elicit a narrow form of risk-compensation; specifically, reducing engagement in physical distancing. However, such narrow forms of risk-compensation are limited: The results do not reveal any effects on the actual number of physical contacts, only on the psychological attention to distancing advice. Moreover, the negative effect only appears for one of three interventions. The other two interventions suggest that face mask use increases attention to physical distancing.