AI Insight
This longitudinal study examined how people evaluated COVID-19 measures at the pandemic's beginning (March-April 2020) and one year later (January-March 2021), surveying 663 and 577 participants respectively. Results showed that people's expectations remained stable over time, consistently prioritizing protection from the virus and practicability over social expectations, with hygiene tips receiving the highest ratings but overall quality perceptions declining. Qualitative analysis revealed that people prefer crisis measures that have clear objectives, practical applicability, scientific evidence, and transparent communication.
Why it matters
The findings provide evidence-based guidance for designing public health interventions during future crises, suggesting that effective measures should prioritize simplicity, clear benefits, and scientific grounding over complex solutions. Understanding how public perception of crisis measures evolves over time can help policymakers maintain compliance and public trust during extended emergencies.
Understand the Science
The COVID-19 pandemic represents an unprecedented health crisis in modern times. The pandemic itself and governmental counter-measures severely affected the individual and social lives of people around the globe. Against this backdrop, we examined how people evaluated the main anti-corona measures — restrictions on outdoor activities, tips for hygiene, and tips for mental health — with regard to the elements of the Theory of Planned Behavior (attitude, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) and four social spheres (close family, wider family and friends, colleagues at work, and society in general). The main objective of this research was to establish how these evaluations changed over the course of the pandemic. Additionally, we examined the evaluation of vaccinations introduced at a later stage and aimed to identify the subjective reasons for people’s evaluations of these measures. Accordingly, we compared evaluations of early anti-corona measures at the beginning of the pandemic (March–April 2020; n = 663) with evaluations roughly 1 year later (January–March 2021; n = 577). Vaccination was examined in the second measurement period. The methodological basis of our measurements is the Means-End Theory of Complex Cognitive Structures, through which we determined the perceived relevance and quality of the measures with regard to the social spheres and elements of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Furthermore, we qualitatively examined subjective reasons for positive and negative evaluations through open questions. Results reveal that people’s expectations (subjective relevance) did not substantially change over time. Protection from the coronavirus and its consequences (attitude) was regarded as more important than practicability (perceived behavioral control), which in turn outweighed willingness to fulfill others’ expectations (subjective norm). People attributed higher relevance to their close families than to other social spheres. Regarding perceived quality, hygiene tips received the highest ratings, followed by restrictions on outdoor activities and vaccination, while mental health tips were rated lowest. All quality perceptions declined during the pandemic. Overall, results suggest that crisis measures should have clear objectives with substantial benefits, practicability in daily life, a basis in scientific evidence, and clear explanation. In summary, people prefer simple (though not necessarily easy) solutions to severe crises.