Date created: | Last Updated:

Category: Project

Description: Objective. Pandemic management of SARS-CoV-2 has involved different temporary freedom restrictions to curb the spread of infection. This study analyses how granting of individuals’ freedom is influenced by risk perceptions and, in the case of tested citizens, to what extent granting of individual freedoms and individual’s test intention is related to an understanding of test performance and implied societal benefits. Methods. Between March and May 2021, when vaccines became more widely available and large-scale rapid-antigen testing was introduced as a means for pandemic management, we conducted a longitudinal study (March to May 2021) with a representative panel of German citizens who are online (COMPASS, N=4,991). We assessed granting of freedoms to participate in various activities (e.g., visiting bars or restaurants, using public transport) depending on health status (negative rapid antigen test, vaccinated, recovered from COVID-19, or neither), and people’s understanding of the performance of rapid antigen tests. In a pre-registered experiment within the same panel (N=1,660, May 2021), we investigated how information from a national health authority on the societal benefit of regular testing and on test performance relate to test comprehension and freedom granting. Results. Freedom granting for tested and vaccinated people was associated with their perceived infectivity. Substantial freedoms were only granted to negatively tested and vaccinated citizens in March and April 2021, until in May 2021 recovered people were roughly put on par with negatively tested and vaccinated people. Restricting activities for other citizens who fulfilled none of these criteria remained highly accepted. Providing evidence-based information improved comprehension of test performance over a control group without information and decreased freedom granting for negatively tested groups. Adding societal benefit information mediated this decrease in freedom granting. Testing intentions were not affected by the provided information. Conclusion. Citizens were uncertain about both infectivity risks and test properties. Presenting them with performance information improved understanding of test performance and affected freedom granting for negatively tested people. Evidence-based information has the potential to inform critical acceptance of targeted granting of freedoms as a regulative measure in times of a pandemic.