Who Develops Pandemic Fatigue?

Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), pandemic fatigue during the current COVID-19 crisis is a global problem that “poses a serious threat to efforts to control the spread of the virus” (p. 6) (1). The cardinal feature of pandemic fatigue is a progressive decline in adherence to government guidelines for social distancing (SDIS), arising in the weeks or months in which SDIS and other pandemic-mitigation restrictions are in place. The decline in adherence is hypothesized to be associated with pandemic-related burnout (1), which involves cynical or negative attitudes about the nature and origins of COVID-19 (e.g., belief that the threat of COVID-19 is exaggerated or a hoax), and pessimism, apathy, or hopelessness about methods for reducing the pandemic, such as SDIS. Pandemic fatigue is a chronic stress reaction in which the response to the stressor (i.e., decline in adherence to SDIS) perpetuates the stressor (i.e., facilitates the spread of pandemic infection) (2). As pandemic fatigue sets in, people become increasingly lax about staying safe from infection; specifically, they increasingly disregard SDIS guidelines and may defy public health guidelines by holding covert social gatherings or taking clandestine trips abroad (1-4).

A 2020 survey of over 7,000 American adults during the COVID-19 pandemic found that pandemic fatigue was characterized by progressively worsening adherence to the following SDIS guidelines: (a) remaining in residence except for essential activities or exercise, (b) having no close contact with non-household members, (c) not having visitors over to one’s home, and (d) avoiding eating at restaurants (5). Adherence to mask wearing showed little or no decline over time (5), possibly because masks were mandated in many public places (e.g., stores, public transit), whereas it was more difficult for authorities to regulate social activities such as having visitors to one’s home. Other studies have reported similar findings in numerous countries (6), although it is unclear whether some individuals are more prone to pandemic fatigue than other people. Pandemic fatigue is not unique to COVID-19. Similar phenomena have been described in past pandemics. For example, during the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic, public cooperation with SDIS mandates deteriorated with successive waves of infection (7). During both COVID-19 and the Spanish flu, people in many communities objected to widespread closures and wanted to lift restrictions and resume normal life, despite active, widespread infection (8-10).

Declining motivation to adhere to SDIS may be due to range of psychological and other factors, including decreases in perceived risk as people become habituated to their changed lifestyles during the COVID-19 pandemic. Other factors potentially contributing to pandemic fatigue include accumulating costs or hardships, such as growing economic losses, difficulties working or studying from home, and social isolation arising from business closures, stay-at-home orders, and other social and occupational restrictions associated with SDIS mandates (1). Previous studies during the COVID-19 pandemic found that non-adherence to lockdown was associated with the perception that lockdown is unnecessary and ineffective (11), with younger age (12-15), greater perceived personal affluence (16), and lower trust in government (16). Gender findings have been mixed, with some studies finding that non-adherence is more prevalent in men (12, 16) and others reporting greater prevalence in women (17).

Much remains to be learned about the nature of pandemic fatigue. It is unclear whether the decline in SDIS is unifactorial; that is, do all forms of SDIS progressively decline over time or are some forms of SDIS more likely to be adhered to than others? If non-adherence to SDIS is unifactorial, then the question arises as to whether this factor has a dimensional or categorical structure; that is, pandemic fatigue might be a matter of degree or, alternatively, there might be distinct types of people, such as those who generally adhere to SDIS versus those who progressively become increasingly non-adherent. Also, little is known about correlates of declining adherence to SDIS. Although declining adherence may be correlated with burnout, it may also be correlated with a range of variables such as anxiety, depression, and loneliness due to SDIS. The relationship between declining adherence and personality traits also remains to be investigated. Identifying the correlates of declining adherence can provide insights as who is most likely to develop pandemic fatigue. Identifying at-risk groups for non-adherence can help to guide efforts at reinvigorating communities to follow SDIS protocols (1).

The aims of the present study were to (a) investigate the structure and correlates of declining adherence to pandemic-related SDIS guidelines, based on data collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, (b) to identify the demographic, cognitive, affective, and personality characteristics of people most likely to become progressively non-adherent, and (c) to investigate the reasons why other people adhered to SDIS guidelines. At the time of conducting the study, social distancing was in place along with closures or restricted operations of restaurants, and restrictions against travel and against large social gatherings.

In the present study, cognitive and affective characteristics of COVID-19-related burnout were assessed broadly, including COVID-19-related burnout and associated features such as apathy, pessimism, blame, distrust in government efforts to stem the pandemic, along with beliefs that the COVID-19 threat is exaggerated and conspiratorial beliefs that COVID-19 is a hoax. People who disregard SDIS are also more likely to have been infected with the coronavirus causing COVID-19, and they may experience only mild symptoms, as commonly occurs in COVID-19 (18), which can reinforce beliefs that the COVID-19 threat is exaggerated, thereby amplifying non-adherence. Accordingly, we assessed whether respondents believed that they had acquired COVID-19. Belief that one had been infected, rather than objective evidence of infection, is important because beliefs drive behaviors. Anxiety, depression, stressors, and coping strategies were also assessed, as stressors and distress are thought to exacerbate non-adherence to SDIS (1). People who are especially distressed may be most likely to violate SDIS guidelines in pursuit of socially rewarding activities, such as attending social gatherings. To investigate the relationship between pandemic fatigue and personality, broad and narrow personality traits were assessed. Broad traits consisted of the Big 5 (i.e., agreeableness, conscientiousness, negative emotionality, extraversion, and openness to experience) (19). Adherence to SDIS requires that people put the well-being of the community ahead of personal self-interests. Accordingly, people who score highly on personality traits such as narcissism or self-entitlement might be most likely to be non-adherent to SDIS, particularly when SDIS guidelines are personally inconvenient (e.g., refraining from socializing).

Narcissism and psychological entitlement are related but distinguishable constructs. Entitlement refers to a stable and pervasive sense that one deserves more compared to other people (34). Narcissism is a broader construct involving self-absorption, grandiosity, arrogance, and a sense of entitlement (53). Thus, entitlement can be a component of narcissism but high levels of entitlement can also occur in the absence of narcissism; that is, a person can feel entitled to special treatment without necessarily having an inflated sense of self-worth. A sense of relative deprivation is one way in a person might feel entitled without necessarily being grandiose; for example, “I was deprived of my grad party last year because of lockdown, so I deserve to be having fun with my friends this year.”

Materials and Methods

Results

Exploratory factor analysis of the SDIS items indicated a single-factor solution with only the first Eigen value being greater than 1.00. The first 5 Eigen values were 3.98, 0.98, 0.80, 0.74, and 0.69. Factor loadings are shown in Table 2, indicating that all loadings were salient (>0.30). The SDIS scale, representing the sum of the 10 SDIS items, had a high internal consistency (Table 1). The total score was used as the input variable for the Latent Class Analyses. The results, shown in Table 4, indicated that the best fitting model consisted of two classes; Class 1 (92% of sample, n=5,326), Class 2 (8%, n=486). The results show that the majority of participants were adherent to SDIS; but, a sizeable minority (8%) reported a deterioration in SDIS, indicative of pandemic fatigue.

Table 5 shows the comparisons between classes on a range of personality, affective, and COVID-19-related variables. Statistical power to detect small effect sizes at α=0.01 was 0.95 for these analyses. Accordingly, the study was sufficiently powered to detect even small differences between classes. To facilitate the interpretation of the results, a Discriminant Function Analysis was conducted to determine which variables best distinguished the two classes. Input variables for this analysis were those having small, medium, or large effects in Table 5. The table shows the loadings of the variables on the discriminant function. Salient (>0.30) loadings are in bold. Taking both the effect sizes and discriminant loadings into consideration, Table 5 shows that people in Class 2, compared to Class 1, reported a greater current disregard for SDIS. In other words, for Class 2 there was a progressive past-year deterioration in SDIS as well as a current low level of adherence.

People in Class 2, compared to those in Class 1, tended to be younger and perceived themselves as being more affluent (Table 5). There were more Americans in Class 2 (77%) than in Class 1 (49%); that is, more Americans than Canadians tended to be non-adherent to SDIS. People in Class 2 were more likely to believe that the COVID-19 threat was a hoax or exaggerated, even though these individuals were more likely to have reportedly contracted the SARSCOV2 virus. The latter finding is consistent with reports that SARSCOV2 often produces mild illness, particularly among young and healthy individuals (18). People in Class 2 reported greater stressors related to COVID-19 and also reported greater efforts at attempting to cope with those stressors.

Discussion

Pandemic fatigue is an important problem for managing COVID-19 (1) and likely to be a salient obstacle in mitigating future pandemics. The present study, conducted during the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, found that past-year decline in adherence to SDIS had a categorical latent structure, consisting of an SDIS adherent group (Class 1: 92% of the sample) and a group reporting a progressive decline in adherence to SDIS (Class 2: 8% of the sample). Class 2 had features indicative of pandemic fatigue; specifically, in addition to reporting a decline in adherence to SDIS, this group had various features consistent with pandemic-related burnout. Compared to Class 1, Class 2 had greater levels of emotional burnout, pessimism, apathy, and cynical or negative beliefs about the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., believing COVID-19 to be a hoax). The present study confirmed previous findings that pandemic fatigue is associated with the perception that lockdown is unnecessary and ineffective (11), younger age (12-15), greater perceived personal affluence (16), and lower trust in government (16). People in Class 2, compared to Class 1, tended to be more narcissistic, entitled, and gregarious, and were more likely to report having been infected with SARSCOV2, which they regarded as an exaggerated threat. In other words, pandemic fatigue was associated with heightened self-interest to the expense of community needs.

People in Class 2 also reported higher levels of pandemic-related stress, anxiety, and depression, and described making active efforts at coping with SDIS restrictions that they perceived as unnecessary and stressful. People in Class 1 generally reported that they engaged in SDIS for the benefit of themselves and their community, although 35% also feared they would be publicly shamed if they did not comply with SDIS guidelines. The findings suggest that pandemic fatigue affects a substantial minority of people and, importantly, that many SDIS-adherent people also experience emotionally adverse effects (i.e., fear of being shamed) related to SDIS.

Knowledge alone is not enough to overcome pandemic fatigue, as previous surveys have demonstrated that most people are knowledgeable about COVID-19 protective behaviors (1). Consistent with previous surveys (1), we found that the majority of respondents were adherent to SDIS guidelines. During the COVID-19 pandemic, community leaders expressed frustration and dismay at people violating social distancing guidelines, using pejoratives such as “Covidiot” to label these individuals (40). Although public shaming has long played a role in the regulation of societies and can effectively inhibit some forms of socially disruptive behavior (41), public shaming during a pandemic adds a layer of stress on an already distressed public. The burden of accumulated adversity—the piling up of stressors on an individual—is a risk factor for stress-related disorders such as posttraumatic stress disorder (42). Accordingly, shaming people who are already pandemic fatigued—experiencing dysphoria, anxiety, and irritability about COVID-19—is likely to worsen their mental health. Community leaders and others in positions of authority are advised to use caution when considering shaming people who are not complying with SDIS or other pandemic mitigation guidelines.

The present study had various strengths and limitations. In terms of strengths, the sample size was large, robust statistical methods were used, and the assessment period was timely, given that pandemic-related restrictions had been in place for over a year. Regarding limitations, the assessment of SDIS was retrospective, based on self-report, and the generalizability of the results across different demographic and geographic groups remains to be investigated. Retrospective and prospective assessments each have their strengths and limitations, and ideally both would be conducted; but, this was not possible for logistic reasons. Research suggests that behavioral and self-report measures of SDIS produce broadly similar results (6).

Participants were asked to report on their socially undesirable behaviors (i.e., non-adherence to SDIS) and the question arises as to whether the results were affected by a social desirability bias; that is, the tendency to give socially desirable answers to the assessment battery. It might be argued that Class 2 simply represents a group of people who are more willing to admit to socially undesirable attitudes or acts, such as non-adherence to SDIS. This explanation is unlikely for two reasons. First, responding was anonymous. Second, our previous COVID-19 research found that social desirability was unrelated to a range of behavioral, attitudinal, and affective variables (20). Social desirability, as assessed by the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale Short Form (43), was uncorrelated (i.e., effect sizes below the threshold for “small”) with scores on various pandemic-related attitudes and behaviors, including disregard for SDIS (r=0.03), self-reported violation of pandemic lockdown (i.e., remain-at-home orders) during early 2020 (r=0.02), belief that the COVID-19 threat is exaggerated (r=-0.01), belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories (r=-0.04), and anti-vaccination attitudes in general (r=-0.03) (Ns ranged from 3,314 to 6,854) (23). Thus, it is unlikely that social desirability affected the results of the present study.

Whether the results of the present study generalize to more protracted, highly restrictive SDIS programs, such as stay-at-home mandates imposed over extended periods of time, remains to be investigated. Under such conditions, the structure of pandemic fatigue, as identified in the present study, may be altered. Non-adherence (as in Class 2) is likely to be found under conditions of more severe lockdowns, unless there are efforts to offset the problem. Pandemic fatigue may also start to appear in people who have been generally adherent (as in Class 1). Future research is also needed to investigate potentially relevant variables that were not examined in the present study. For example, boredom proneness is a trait characterized by the tendency to readily become bored in a wide range of situations (44). This trait was associated with non-adherence to SDIS early in the COVID-19 pandemic and may play a role in pandemic fatigue (45).

Finally, additional research is needed to identify strategies for easing the mental health burden imposed by SDIS. Several studies have found that SDIS harms mental health, with protracted SDIS being correlated with substantial increases in anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and other psychological problems (2). Humans are inherently social creatures, and SDIS involves thwarting this natural urge to socialize. Moreover, research suggests that narcissism (a feature of Class 2 in the present study) is becoming more prevalent in Western societies, likely due to a range of sociocultural factors (46). This raises concerns about the future of pandemic mitigation methods such as SDIS, which require people to work for the collective good rather than focusing on individuals needs or desires.

The WHO described a number of methods intended to reinvigorate people to follow SDIS guidelines (see refs. 1 and 47-49). The efficacy of such methods remains to be established. Encouraging or “nudging” people to follow the guidelines may have greater impact on people who are already amendable to following SDIS guidelines (i.e., Class 1). For people who are narcissistic and distressed, and who see the pandemic restrictions as unnecessary, nudges may be ineffective. Indeed, during the 1918 Spanish flu and during COVID-19, governments responded to non-adherent individuals by becoming increasingly punitive, such as imposing fines or even arresting people who do not comply with SDIS mandates (2, 45). Alternatives to SDIS have been considered, such as the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, which advocates that only the elderly and medically compromised should be subject to stay-at-home orders during COVID-19 (50). This proposal has been widely criticized as discriminatory and likely to result in greater morbidity and mortality than existing SDIS measures (51, 52). During COVID-19, communities experimented with alternatives such as short-term “circuit breaker” lockdowns, in which lockdown and sometimes curfews were imposed for short periods (e.g., two weeks) to attempt to disrupt the spread of infection. The tolerability and efficacy of this and other alternative methods of SDIS that may have less of an impact on mental health remain to be investigated.