How the Stringency of the COVID-19 Restrictions Influences Motivation for Adherence and Well-Being: The Critical Role of Proportionality

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

2 Health Psychology, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

3 Institute for Research in the Psychological Sciences, Université Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

4 Faculty of Psychological Sciences and Education, Université libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium

5 Fund for Scientific Research (FRS-FNRS), Brussels, Belgium

Abstract

Background 
The stringency of the measures taken by governments to combat the COVID-19 pandemic varied considerably across countries and time. In the present study, we examined how the proportionality to the epidemiological situation is related to citizens’ behavior, motivation and mental health.

Methods 
Across 421 days between March 2020 and March 2022, 273 722 Belgian participants (M age = 49.47; 63.9% female; 33% single) completed an online questionnaire. Multiple linear mixed regression modeling was used to examine the interaction between the epidemiological situation, as indicated by the actual hospitalization numbers, and the stringency index to predict day-to-day variation in the variables of interest.

Results 
Systematic evidence emerged showing that disproportional situations, as opposed to proportional situations, were associated with a clear pattern of maladaptive outcomes. Specifically, when either strict or lenient measures were disproportional in relation to the epidemiological situation, people reported lower autonomous motivation, more controlled motivation and amotivation, less adherence to sanitary rules, higher perceived risk of infection, lower need satisfaction, and higher anxiety and depressive symptoms. Perceived risk severity especially covaried with the stringency of the measures. At the absolute level, citizens reported the highest need satisfaction and mental health during days with proportional lenient measures.

Conclusion 
Stringent measures are not per se demotivating or compromising of people’s well-being, nor are lenient measures as such motivating or enhancing well-being. Only proportional measures, that is, measures with a level of stringency that is aligned with the actual epidemiological situation, are associated with the greatest motivational, behavioral, and mental health benefits.

Keywords

References

  1. Bruggeman H, Smith P, Berete F, et al. Anxiety and depression in Belgium during the first 15 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal study. Behav Sci (Basel). 2022;12(5):141. doi:3390/bs12050141
  2. Belgium COVID-19 Studies - Sciensano. Looker Studio. http://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/7e11980c-3350-4ee3-8291-3065cc4e90c2/page/ykUGC?feature=opengraph. Accessed June 28, 2023.
  3. Saez M, Tobias A, Varga D, Barceló MA. Effectiveness of the measures to flatten the epidemic curve of COVID-19. The case of Spain. Sci Total Environ. 2020;727:138761. doi:1016/j.scitotenv.2020.138761
  4. Talic S, Shah S, Wild H, et al. Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and COVID-19 mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021;375:e068302. doi:1136/bmj-2021-068302
  5. Hale T, Angrist N, Hale AJ, et al. Government responses and COVID-19 deaths: global evidence across multiple pandemic waves. PLoS One. 2021;16(7):e0253116. doi:1371/journal.pone.0253116
  6. Park MB, Ranabhat CL. COVID-19 trends, public restrictions policies and vaccination status by economic ranking of countries: a longitudinal study from 110 countries. Arch Public Health. 2022;80(1):197. doi:1186/s13690-022-00936-w
  7. Bajra UQ, Aliu F, Aver B, Čadež S. COVID-19 pandemic–related policy stringency and economic decline: was it really inevitable? Econ Res Ekon Istraz. 2023;36(1):499-515. doi:1080/1331677x.2022.2077792
  8. Keeling MJ, Hill EM, Gorsich EE, et al. Predictions of COVID-19 dynamics in the UK: short-term forecasting and analysis of potential exit strategies. PLoS Comput Biol. 2021;17(1):e1008619. doi:1371/journal.pcbi.1008619
  9. Saeed N, Bader A, Al-Naffouri TY, Alouini MS. When wireless communication responds to COVID-19: combating the pandemic and saving the economy. Front Comms Net. 2020;1:566853. doi:3389/frcmn.2020.566853
  10. Jalloh MF, Zeebari Z, Nur SA, et al. Drivers of COVID-19 policy stringency in 175 countries and territories: COVID-19 cases and deaths, gross domestic products per capita, and health expenditures. medRxiv [Preprint]. July 7, 2022. Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.07.05.22277269v1.
  11. Kaye AD, Okeagu CN, Pham AD, et al. Economic impact of COVID-19 pandemic on healthcare facilities and systems: international perspectives. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2021;35(3):293-306. doi:1016/j.bpa.2020.11.009
  12. Rieger MO, Wang M. Trust in government actions during the COVID-19 crisis. Soc Indic Res. 2022;159(3):967-989. doi:1007/s11205-021-02772-x
  13. Ismangil M, Lee M. Protests in Hong Kong during the COVID-19 pandemic. Crime Media Cult. 2021;17(1):17-20. doi:1177/1741659020946229
  14. Atalan A. Is the lockdown important to prevent the COVID-19 pandemic? Effects on psychology, environment and economy-perspective. Ann Med Surg (Lond). 2020;56:38-42. doi:1016/j.amsu.2020.06.010
  15. Zhao J, Lee M, Ghader S, et al. Quarantine fatigue: first-ever decrease in social distancing measures after the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak before reopening United States. arXiv [Preprint]. June 5, 2020. Available from: https://arxiv.org/abs/2006.03716.
  16. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Publications; 2017.
  17. Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM, Soenens B. Basic psychological need theory: advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motiv Emot. 2020;44(1):1-31. doi:1007/s11031-019-09818-1
  18. Rettie H, Daniels J. Coping and tolerance of uncertainty: predictors and mediators of mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am Psychol. 2021;76(3):427-437. doi:1037/amp0000710
  19. Martínez-González N, Atienza FL, Tomás I, Duda JL, Balaguer I. The impact of coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown on athletes' subjective vitality: the protective role of resilience and autonomous goal motives. Front Psychol. 2020;11:612825. doi:3389/fpsyg.2020.612825
  20. Rogowska AM, Kuśnierz C, Ochnik D. Changes in stress, coping styles, and life satisfaction between the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal cross-lagged study in a sample of university students. J Clin Med. 2021;10(17):4025. doi:3390/jcm10174025
  21. Gollwitzer M, Platzer C, Zwarg C, Göritz AS. Public acceptance of COVID-19 lockdown scenarios. Int J Psychol. 2021;56(4):551-565. doi:1002/ijop.12721
  22. García-Cremades S, Morales-García J, Hernández-Sanjaime R, et al. Improving prediction of COVID-19 evolution by fusing epidemiological and mobility data. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15173. doi:1038/s41598-021-94696-2
  23. Tugade MM, Fredrickson BL. Resilient individuals use positive emotions to bounce back from negative emotional experiences. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004;86(2):320-333. doi:1037/0022-3514.86.2.320
  24. García-Prado A, González P, Rebollo-Sanz YF. Lockdown strictness and mental health effects among older populations in Europe. Econ Hum Biol. 2022;45:101116. doi:1016/j.ehb.2022.101116
  25. Tyler TR. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57(1):375-400. doi:1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
  26. Van Petegem S, Trinkner R, van der Kaap-Deeder J, Antonietti JP, Vansteenkiste M. Police procedural justice and adolescents’ internalization of the law: integrating self-determination theory into legal socialization research. J Soc Issues. 2021;77(2):336-366. doi:1111/josi.12425
  27. Lonsdale C, Hodge K, Rose EA. The behavioral regulation in sport questionnaire (BRSQ): instrument development and initial validity evidence. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30(3):323-355. doi:1123/jsep.30.3.323
  28. Wolff K, Larsen S, Øgaard T. How to define and measure risk perceptions. Ann Tour Res. 2019;79:102759. doi:1016/j.annals.2019.102759
  29. Chen B, Vansteenkiste M, Beyers W, et al. Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motiv Emot. 2015;39(2):216-236. doi:1007/s11031-014-9450-1
  30. Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychol Assess. 1993;5(2):164-172. doi:1037/1040-3590.5.2.164
  31. Brenning K, Waterschoot J, Dieleman L, et al. The role of emotion regulation in mental health during the COVID-19 outbreak: a 10-wave longitudinal study. Stress Health. 2023;39(3):562-575. doi:1002/smi.3204
  32. Ryan RM, Frederick C. On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J Pers. 1997;65(3):529-565. doi:1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00326.x
  33. Allen MS, Iliescu D, Greiff S. Single item measures in psychological science. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2022;38(1):1-5. doi:1027/1015-5759/a000699
  34. Cheung F, Lucas RE. Assessing the validity of single-item life satisfaction measures: results from three large samples. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(10):2809-2818. doi:1007/s11136-014-0726-4
  35. Van Hiel A, Vansteenkiste M. Ambitions fulfilled? The effects of intrinsic and extrinsic goal attainment on older adults' ego-integrity and death attitudes. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2009;68(1):27-51. doi:2190/AG.68.1.b
  36. Radloff LS. The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas. 1977;1(3):385-401. doi:1177/014662167700100306
  37. Marteau TM, Bekker H. The development of a six-item short-form of the state scale of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Br J Clin Psychol. 1992;31(3):301-306. doi:1111/j.2044-8260.1992.tb00997.x
  38. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2022. https://www.R-project.org/.
  39. Musca SC, Kamiejski R, Nugier A, Méot A, Er-Rafiy A, Brauer M. Data with hierarchical structure: impact of intraclass correlation and sample size on type-I error. Front Psychol. 2011;2:74. doi:3389/fpsyg.2011.00074
  40. Yzerbyt VY, Muller D, Judd CM. Adjusting researchers’ approach to adjustment: On the use of covariates when testing interactions. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2004;40(3):424-431. doi:1016/j.jesp.2003.10.001
  41. Levine TR, Hullett CR. Eta squared, partial eta squared, and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Hum Commun Res. 2002;28(4):612-625. doi:1111/j.1468-2958.2002.tb00828.x
  42. Johnson PO, Fay LC. The Johnson-Neyman technique, its theory and application. Psychometrika. 1950;15(4):349-367. doi:1007/bf02288864
  43. Pieh C, Budimir S, Probst T. The effect of age, gender, income, work, and physical activity on mental health during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) lockdown in Austria. J Psychosom Res. 2020;136:110186. doi:1016/j.jpsychores.2020.110186
  44. Schmits E, Dekeyser S, Klein O, Luminet O, Yzerbyt V, Glowacz F. Psychological distress among students in higher education: one year after the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(14):7445. doi:3390/ijerph18147445
  45. Vansteenkiste M, Ryan RM. On psychological growth and vulnerability: basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. J Psychother Integr. 2013;23(3):263-280. doi:1037/a0032359
  46. Morbée S, Vermote B, Waterschoot J, et al. Adherence to COVID-19 measures: the critical role of autonomous motivation on a short-and long-term basis. Motiv Sci. 2021;7(4):487-496. doi:1037/mot0000250
  47. Gangire Y, Da Veiga A, Herselman M. A conceptual model of information security compliant behaviour based on the self-determination theory. In: 2019 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS). 2019; Durban, South Africa. p. 1-6. doi:1109/ictas.2019.8703629
  48. Wise T, Zbozinek TD, Michelini G, Hagan CC, Mobbs D. Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7(9):200742. doi:1098/rsos.200742
  49. Mouratidis A, Lens W, Vansteenkiste M. How you provide corrective feedback makes a difference: the motivating role of communicating in an autonomy-supporting way. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2010;32(5):619-637. doi:1123/jsep.32.5.619
  50. Aelterman N, Vansteenkiste M, Van Keer H, Haerens L. Changing teachers' beliefs regarding autonomy support and structure: the role of experienced psychological need satisfaction in teacher training. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2016;23:64-72. doi:1016/j.psychsport.2015.10.007
  51. Schmitz M, Luminet O, Klein O, et al. Predicting vaccine uptake during COVID-19 crisis: a motivational approach. Vaccine. 2022;40(2):288-297. doi:1016/j.vaccine.2021.11.068
  52. Petherick A, Goldszmidt R, Andrade EB, et al. A worldwide assessment of changes in adherence to COVID-19 protective behaviours and hypothesized pandemic fatigue. Nat Hum Behav. 2021;5(9):1145-1160. doi:1038/s41562-021-01181-x
  53. The Brussels Times. Belgium’s Coronavirus Barometer: How Does it Work? https://www.brusselstimes.com/203129/belgiums-coronavirus-barometer-how-does-it-work. Accessed June 28, 2023.
  54. Martela F, Hankonen N, Ryan RM, Vansteenkiste M. Motivating voluntary compliance to behavioural restrictions: self-determination theory-based checklist of principles for COVID-19 and other emergency communications. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2021;32(2):305-347. doi:1080/10463283.2020.1857082
  55. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M. Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. J Exp Criminol. 2013;9(3):245-274. doi:1007/s11292-013-9175-2
  56. Nix J, Wolfe SE, Rojek J, Kaminski RJ. Trust in the police: the influence of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy. Crime Delinq. 2015;61(4):610-640. doi:1177/0011128714530548
  57. Van Oost P, Yzerbyt V, Schmitz M, et al. The relation between conspiracism, government trust, and COVID-19 vaccination intentions: the key role of motivation. Soc Sci Med. 2022;301:114926. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2022.114926
  58. Tyler TR. Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:375-400. doi:1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 11 March 2023
  • Revise Date: 30 June 2023
  • Accept Date: 23 September 2023
  • First Publish Date: 25 September 2023

Share

How to cite

Statistics