In the month of June, the Netherlands has continued its singular trajectory in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. After the “intelligent lockdown” in March (a unique, less restrictive combination of stay-at-home and social distancing measures that allowed citizens considerable freedom of movement while appealing to their own responsibility and self-discipline), the Netherlands transitioned into the “1.5 meter society” in May – by re-opening many public facilities and places, while maintaining social distancing measures. During the month of June, COVID-19 infections continued to fall, and further relaxations of the prior measures were implemented – including the reopening of secondary schools, the catering business, and cultural institutions (albeit with restrictions). However, to prevent a resurge of the virus, authorities maintained rules mandating people to keep a safe distance from each other.. How have these developments impacted compliance with COVID-19 mitigation measures? Have Dutch citizens continued to observe safe-distance measures, despite the increasing opportunities to get in close proximity with others? And which processes explain whether they do so (or not)? To study these questions, we conducted two additional surveys (June 8-11 and June 22-26), supplementing our previous surveys during the month of May. In this blogpost, we outline the results.

 The May surveys indicated that Dutch citizens continued to display relatively high levels of (self-reported) compliance with safe-distance measures. They also revealed several factors that explained why they complied. Citizens reported more compliance if they substantively supported the measures, were practically able to comply with them, when they think compliance is normal (i.e., descriptive social norms), when they have good impulse control, and when they see a general duty to obey legal rules in general. The results also provided indications that levels of compliance among Dutch citizens were gradually eroding, however, as were many of the resources that sustain it. Here, we explore how these processes have evolved during the month of June, where infection rates further receded, and mitigation measures were further repealed.

Evolution of compliance in the month of June

We conducted two surveys in representative samples of Dutch citizens, collected via the research panel StemPunt.nu. The first survey (N = 1041) was conducted between June 8-11, the second (N = 1033) between June 22-26. Survey participants were asked to what extent they kept a safe distance (1.5 meters or more) from others (1 = “never”, 7 = “always”) in various situations (e.g., in interactions with people from outside of their household, from colleagues at work, when walking or exercising, while grocery shopping, etc.). We compared reported compliance across these situations from early May to late June.

From early May to late June, a significant decline in the degree of self-reported compliance was observed. This was the case in all seven situations, as well as for compliance in general (i.e., averaged across all seven situations). Dutch citizens therefore reported a lower degree of compliance during the month of June than in May – although in relative terms, their reported degree of compliance remains relatively high.

It is important to note, however, that even people who comply to a considerable degree are effectively violating the measures, as these require people to always keep a safe distance from others outside of their household. As such, compliance among Dutch citizens can also be studied by counting how frequently they report fully complying (7 = “always”) with mitigation measures in each of the seven situations. When doing so, the decline in compliance from early May to late June is even more marked: by the end of June, they report being fully compliant in only about 2 (out of 7) situations on average. In percentages, the number of people who indicate that they always comply declined from an average of 46.7% (across all seven situations) to 30.3%; indeed, when considering the number of persons who always complied in all seven situations, this declined from 15.3% to 7.2%.

Development of resources for compliance, early May-late June

Our previous surveys revealed several resources that enabled Dutch citizens to comply more with COVID-19 mitigation measures. To begin with, people complied more if they had greater practical capacity to keep at a safe distance from others, and when they perceived that others in their social environment engaged in social distancing. Also, there were some indications that they complied more when they regarded the measures as more clear, and were presented with fewer opportunities for violating them. How have these resources evolved from May to June?

Relative to May, Dutch citizens’ practical capacity to comply was significantly lower in June. Also, their perceptions of the clarity of mitigation measures declined relative to May. And moreover, relative to May, they reported that fewer others in their social environment complied with such measures. Taken together, it seems that the capacity of Dutch citizens to comply with COVID-19 mitigation measures has eroded relative to early May, as have perceived social norms to comply. At the same time, their perceived opportunities to violate safe-distance measures seem to have increased relative to the beginning of May.

Furthermore, the results of the May surveys indicated that people who agreed more with safe-distance measures complied more, as did people who generally comply more with legal rules. How did these resources evolve from May to June?

Relative to May, Dutch citizens reported significantly lower moral alignment with safe-distancing measures. Furthermore, their, reported normative obligation to (unquestioningly) obey the authorities handling the Coronavirus declined in June. Even their reported tendency to obey legal rules in general (rule orientation) seems to have declined in June. Taken together, these findings suggest that substantive support among Dutch citizens for COVID-19 mitigation measures is declining.

 The May surveys also indicated that perceptions of the benefits of complying with safe-distance measures influenced compliance, whereas costs of complying, or enforcement of the measures, did not. How did these resources develop during the month of June? 

Relative to May, perceptions of the health threat of COVID-19 declined significantly among Dutch citizens. The costs of complying with mitigation measures also declined, as did perceptions of the certainty of being punished for violating the rules. Taken together, these findings suggest that the perceived costs, but also the perceived benefits of complying with safe-distance measures declined during the month of June.

The May survey finally indicated that citizens’ capacity to control impulses predicted their compliance with safe-distance rules. There were no indications that Dutch citizens became more impulsive during the month of June. However, they did report experiencing significantly less negative emotions as a result of COVID-19 than did participants in May. 

Understanding compliance in the 1.5 meter society: what sustained compliance in June?

In sum, our findings suggest that relative to May, compliance with safe-distance measures has continued to erode gradually during the month of June, as have some of the key processes that sustain this (e.g., capacity to comply with safe-distance measures, substantive support for such measures, perceived threat of the virus, perceived norms in favor of compliance). Which resources explain if Dutch citizens (nevertheless) complied during this period? To answer this question, we conducted linear regression analyses, in which these measures were used to predict participants’ compliance with social distancing measures. To illustrate how these processes have evolved during this month, we contrast them with those that explained compliance in May. This comparison illuminates whether the processes that explain compliance have changed now that COVID-19 infections have receded, and the scope of the mitigation measures has been reduced.

Factors predicting compliance with mitigation measures, early May – late June.

	Early May	Late May	Early June	Late June
Independent variables
Capacity to comply
Practical capacity to comply	+	+	+	+
Knowledge of measures				+
Clarity of measures	+
Impulsivity	–	–	–	–
Opportunity to violate		–		–
Substantive support
Moral alignment	+	+	+	+
Authority response	–			–
Negative emotions				+
Obligation to obey the law
Normative obligation		+	+	+
Non-normative obligation
Rule orientation	+	+	+	+
Costs and benefits
Costs of compliance	+
Perceived health threat	+	+	+	+
Deterrence
Punishment certainty				+
Punishment severity
Procedural justice of enforcement				+
Descriptive social norms	+	+	+	+
Control variables
Age	+	+	+	+
Gender	+	+	+	+
Education	+		+	+
Care professionally for COVID patients	–	–		–
Health issues placing oneself at risk				+
Trust in science
Trust in media (control variable in June surveys only)
Political orientation (control variable in May surveys only)

The findings show that the resources that fueled compliance in May for the most continue to do so in June. Dutch citizens complied more with COVID-19 mitigation measures if they had greater practical capacity to keep at a safe distance from others. Also, people who regarded the COVID-19 pandemic as more threatening complied more, as did people who agreed more with the measures, experienced a stronger normative obligation to obey them, or a stronger tendency toward obeying legal rules in general (i.e., rule orientation). Moreover, people also complied more if they perceived that others in their social environment engaged in social distancing (i.e., social norms). Impulsive persons, on the other hand, were less inclined to comply with COVID-19 mitigation measures. There were also some factors that inconsistently predicted compliance. Compliance was lower among people who perceived more opportunities to violate the measures – but only significantly so in late May and late June. Compliance was lower among people who evaluated the authority’s response to the virus as more sufficient – but only significantly so in early May and late June. Furthermore, some factors only became significant predictors of compliance at the end of June: perceptions of the certainty of punishment and the procedural fairness of enforcement, for example, and negative emotions, all of which predicted greater compliance. These findings may indicate that towards the end of June, enforcement became more influential for people’s decisions to comply. Whether this indeed is the case will become clear in subsequent surveys.

Keeping COVID-19 at bay in an unrestricted society

During the month of June, the Netherlands has further loosened COVID-19 mitigation measures, while continuing to rely on citizens’ own responsibility and sense of self-discipline to keep a safe distance from others. To prevent such liberties from resulting in a resurge of the virus, it is essential that citizens comply with safe-distance measures. The findings from our June surveys indicate, however, that compliance with safe-distance measures is declining, as are many of the key resources that sustain it. Evidently, maintaining compliance, and the resources that sustain it, becomes more challenging as infection rates recede, and mitigation measures are loosened. How can we increase compliance in an unrestricted society?

Our findings suggest that the resources that previously sustained compliance remain influential: citizens’ practical capacities for complying; their stance toward the pandemic, the measures, and legal rules in general; social norms that support compliance; and control of one’s impulses. Accordingly, to preserve compliance, it is essential that the government continues to sustain the practical capacity of citizens to comply, highlights the continued threat of the virus, cultivates norms of compliance, and convinces citizens of the legitimacy and effectiveness of safe-distance measures. The challenge is how to do so within an environment where the risks of the virus appear to recede, environments are more crowded, and norms toward compliance are waning (or even reversing). The Dutch government has relied on persuasive messages that appeal to citizenship, social norms, and solidarity with vulnerable others – an approach that targets substantive support, and perceived social norms. According to our findings, these both are important predictors of compliance – their approach, therefore, is at least targeting viable mechanisms. To retain compliance, retaining substantive support among citizens, and cultivating social norms for compliance are both essential. Whether the Dutch government’s efforts are sufficient to do so is not yet clear, however.

In addition to substantive support and social norms, our findings underline the importance of interventions that target capacity and opportunity. Interventions that increase the capacity of citizens to comply with safe-distance measures (e.g., social distancing applications; distance work, e-learning) can contribute to their awareness of the measures, or fundamentally decrease the frequency that they come into close contact with others. This also applies for interventions that remove opportunities to violate (e.g., contact-minimizing layouts), which make it physically impossible (or more difficult) to come close to others. The downside of such measures, of course, is that they go at the expense of individual choice and freedom.

In addition to these resources, our findings also highlight the importance of threat perceptions. Interventions that highlight the continued threat of the virus may increase perceptions of threat, and thereby may also increase compliance. Additionally, the findings from late June imply that enforcement may become more important as infection rates and compliance recede. If this is indeed the case, then enforcement of high-risk transgressions may become more important, as may doing so in a fair and consistent manner. More research is needed to find out if this is indeed the case.

If such interventions are insufficient to convince citizens to comply, then governments may have no choice but to target a different kind of opportunity: not opportunity to violate, but opportunity to infect vulnerable others. This would mean tailored measures to prevent contact with vulnerable others, while adopting less restrictive measures for the wider society. In light of the extensive social costs of such a policy for vulnerable citizens, it is to be hoped that the resources that we have identified in the present research can effectively be mobilized.

At the time of writing, COVID-19 infections in the Netherlands again are on the rise. Further research therefore is needed to understand how the processes that we have discussed in this blogpost have developed beyond the month of June. For this reason, we have continued to monitor these processes in further surveys. A future blogpost will explore how these processes unfolded in July, where mitigation measures continued to be loosened, while infection rates ceased to decline.