Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33972837›Full record

ArticleRoyal Society open science2021

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic: relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey.

Andreas Lieberoth, Shiang-Yi Lin, Sabrina Stöckli, Hyemin Han, Marta Kowal, Rebekah Gelpi, Stavroula Chrona, Thao Phuong Tran, Alma Jeftić, Jesper Rasmussen and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Royal Society open science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
19.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 144 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. War-related stress scale.BMC psychology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 20 institutions in 41 countries.

Andreas LieberothSchool of Culture and Society (Interacting Minds Center), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0214-5791
Shiang-Yi LinHong Kong Institute of Education, Education University of Hong Kong, New Territories, Hong Kong.
Sabrina StöckliUniversity of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-8322-2906
Hyemin HanEducational Psychology Program, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7181-2565
Marta KowalWroclaw University Institute of Psychology, Wroclaw 50-527, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9050-1471
Rebekah GelpiDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6899-0520
Stavroula ChronaDepartment of European and International Studies, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0914-4938
Thao Phuong TranDepartment of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4038-8471
Alma JeftićPeace Research Institute, International Christian University, Mitaka, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-9285-2061
Jesper RasmussenDepartment of Political Science, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0248-7065
Huseyin CakalSchool of Psychology, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6227-9698
Taciano L MilfontSchool of Psychology, University of Waikato, Wellington, New Zealand.
COVIDiSTRESS global survey consortium
Aarhus University · DKConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · ARSofia University "St. Kliment Ohridski" · BGKing's College London · GBMendel University in Brno · CZMichigan State University · USPontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro · BRUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversidad Veracruzana · MXUniversity of Pavol Jozef Šafárik · SKBahria University · PKCatholic University of Croatia · HRColorado State University · USEducation University of Hong Kong · HKInternational Christian University · JPKeele University · GBKyushu University · JPLeibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien · DEOpen University of the Netherlands · NLSefako Makgatho Health Sciences University · ZA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.

Indexed as

compliance behaviourCOVID-19social psychologystresstrustworry

Identifiers

PMID33972837
PMCPMC8074580
OpenAlexW3127847951

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.