Collective remembering and future forecasting during the COVID‑19 pandemic: How the impact of COVID‑19 afected the themes and phenomenology of global and national memories across 15 countries

This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-022-01329-8 Collective remembering and future forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic: How the impact of COVID-19 affected the themes and phenomenology of global and national memories across 15 countries. Sezin Öner1, Lynn Ann Watson2, Zeynep Adıgüzel3, İrem Ergen3, Ezgi Bilgin3, Antonietta Curci4, Scott Cole5, Manuel L. de la Mata6, Steve M. J. Janssen7, Tiziana Lanciano4, Ioanna Markostamou8, Veronika Nourkova9, Andrés Santamaría6, Andrea Taylor10, Krystian Barzykowski11, Miguel Bascón6, Christina Bermeitinger12, Rosario Cubero-Pérez6, Steven Dessenberger13, Maryanne Garry10, Sami Gülgöz3, Ryan Hackländer12, Lucrèce Heux14, Zheng Jin5, María Lojo6, José Antonio Matías-García6, Henry L. Roediger III13 Karl Szpunar16, Eylul Tekin13 Oyku Uner13 1Kadir Has University, Turkey 2Center on Autobiographical Memory Research, Department of Psychology and Behavioural Science, Aarhus University, Denmark 3Koç University, Turkey 4University of Bari, Italy 5York St John University, Unided Kingdom 6Laboratory of Human Activity, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Seville, Spain 7School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Malaysia 8University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom 9Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia 10The University of Waikato, New Zealand 11Applied Memory Research Laboratory, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Poland 12University of Hildesheim, Germany 13Washington University in St. Louis, United States of America Page 2 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 14Laboratoire de Psychologie et NeuroCognition, Université Grenoble-Alpes, France; College of Arts and Humanities, Swansea University, Wales, United Kingdom 15Zhengzhou Normal University, China 16Ryerson University, Canada Author Note *Correspondence should be addressed to: Sezin Öner, email: [email protected] Author Declarations Funding (information that explains whether and by whom the research was supported) Krystian Barzykowski was supported by the French Government Scholarship (‘Campus France’), the National Science Centre, Poland (UMO-2019/35/B/HS6/00528) and the Bekker programme from the Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (no.: PPN/BEK/2019/1/00092/DEC/1). The Washington University in St. Louis collaboration (Dessenberger, Roediger, Tekin, and Uner) was supported by a grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation to HLR. A. Taylor gratefully acknowledges support from The University of Waikato. Conflicts of interest/Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethical approval No animal studies are presented in this manuscript. All procedures performed in our study involving human subjects were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committees and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments Page 3 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 or comparable ethical standards. The study (including the treatment of participants) reported in this article were approved by the Local Ethical Committees of the institutions involved. Consent to participate Our subjects were provided with written information about the study and their rights. They gave informed consent prior to participation. Consent for publication Not applicable - all data were collected anonymously and no potentially identifiable human images or data are presented in the manuscript. Availability of data and materials (data transparency) This study was pre-registered with the Open Science Framework. Further information about the study and the materials used are available via the following link (https://osf.io/m46nq/). Data from this study will be publicly accessible on the same webpage following an embargo period (with the exception of a minority of countries based on country-level ethics and data protection regulations). Code availability (software application or custom code) Not applicable Acknowledgements We thank Isabell Müller (French sample); Svenja Eickemeier, Johanna Murr, and Yannic Seibert (German sample); Maria Stephanaki and Philippos Alexopoulos (Greek sample); Jia Yee Chan and Narmataa Saravana (Malaysian sample); Sarah Wilson (New Zealand sample); Ewa Ilczuk and Alicja Pieprzycka (Polish sample); Alena Gofman (Russian sample), Gülfem Dikici, Page 4 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Defne Yavuz, Dilan Kalabalık and Ece Beyaz (Turkish sample) for their help in participant recruitment and data coding. We are very grateful to PD Dr. Magdalena Abel for translating the questionnaire into German. We thank the MSH-Alpes and the SCREEN platform for providing access and help with the Qualtrics software, allowing us to collect the French data. Page 5 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Running Head: REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC Collective remembering and forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic: How the impact of COVID-19 affected the themes and phenomenology of global and national memories across 15 countries. Page 6 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 2 Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic created a unique set of circumstances to investigate collective memory and future simulations of events reported during the onset of a potentially historic event. Between early April and late June, 2020, we asked over 4000 individuals from 15 countries across four continents to report on remarkable (a) national and (b) global events that (i) had happened since the first cases of COVID-19 were reported, and (ii) they expected to happen in the future. Whereas themes of infections, lockdown, and politics dominated global and national past events in most countries, themes of economy, a second wave, and lockdown dominated future events. The themes and phenomenological characteristics of the events differed based on contextual group factors. First, across all conditions, the event themes differed to a small yet significant degree depending on the severity of the pandemic and stringency of governmental response at the national level. Second, participants reported national events as less negative and more vivid than global events, and group differences in emotional valence were largest for future events. This research demonstrates that even during the early stages of the pandemic, themes relating its onset and course were shared across many countries, thus providing preliminary evidence for the emergence of collective memories of this event as it was occurring. Current findings provide a profile of past and future collective events from the early stages of the ongoing pandemic, and factors accounting for the consistencies and differences in event representations across 15 countries are discussed. Key words: COVID-19, pandemic, collective memory, cross-cultural, future forecasting Page 7 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 3 Collective remembering and forecasting during the COVID-19 pandemic: How the impact of COVID-19 affected the themes and phenomenology of global and national memories across 15 countries. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a truly global phenomenon. Since the first case was identified in Wuhan in early December 2019, over 229 million cases have been recorded and over 4.7 million lives have been lost (Coronavirus Resource Center, 2021, September 22nd). The world has experienced a global recession; world leaders, politicians, and the World Health Organization have addressed global and national communities stating the need for urgent and aggressive action (i.e., World Health Organization, 11th March, 2020). In line with these calls to action, many countries have experienced prolonged periods of government enforced lockdown measures, with social distancing, mask mandates, work from home orders, school closures, and restrictions on both national and international travel (Hiscott et al., 2020; Thomas et al., 2020). Whereas most public events typically affect only a small group of people directly, the COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented in modern times in that it affected nearly everyone. Events related to the COVID-19 pandemic will likely leave their mark on history and become a part of nations’, and the world’s, collective memory—that is, memories that transcend individuals and are shared by a social group, be that cultural, religious, or based on national identity (Wertsch & Roediger, 2008). The pandemic, then, created a unique set of circumstances to investigate factors that shape collective memory and future simulations of events experienced universally by individuals across the globe from both national and global perspectives. Page 8 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 4 Collective Memory for Public Events Since early work by Halbwachs (1992), there has been a steady rise in empirical and conceptual studies focusing on collective memory (e.g., Hirst, Yamashiro, & Coman, 2018; Roediger & Adel, 2015; Wertsch & Roediger, 2008). It is well established that memories for personal and public events are shaped by event-related factors, such as the distinctiveness, consequentiality and emotional intensity of the event (Er, 2003; Finkenauer et al., 1998); individual difference factors, such as the age and cultural background of the individual recalling the event (Koppel, Brown, Stone, Coman, & Hirst, 2013; Meeter, Ochtman, Janssen, & Murre, 2010; Wang, 2009); and the context in which the event is recalled (Stone & Jay, 2019). Importantly, the formation and retrieval of memories for public events experienced by a collective group are influenced by the motivations, goals, and context of the group (Abel et al., 2019; Wang, 2016, 2021). Cross-country similarities in the events reported as part of world history demonstrate how mechanisms of collective remembering operate. Recent events, political revolutions, and wars are identified as events of most historical significance across many countries (Liu et al., 2005; Pennebaker et al., 2006). Events that change or enforce the collective identity of a group are maintained in world history over longer time periods, whereas traumatic or emotionally intense events that have less of an impact on overall collective identity are often lost over two to three generations (Wertsch, 2002). Importantly, striking socio-cultural differences are also evident. In broader representations of world history (Liu et al., 2005) and in relation to specific historical events with global impact, such as World War II (Abel et al., 2019), differences in events reported across countries are shaped by the political, religious, and cultural perspectives dominant within those countries. Page 9 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 11 more closely linked to country related differences in the content and accessibility of pandemicrelated information. We also conducted exploratory analyses on the emotional valence of past and future events and the vividness of past events. Based on previous research, we expected that the events reported by participants would not necessarily be positive in emotional valence (Öner & Gülgöz, 2020; Shrikanth et al., 2018) but differences may be observed, such that future events are more positive, or less negative, than past events (Topcu & Hirst, 2020), although this effect has not been observed consistently (Öner & Gülgöz, 2020). We also expected that individuals would demonstrate a group bias for national events (Cyr & Hirst, 2019), such that these events may be rated as more positive (or less negative) than global events, and that national events would also be more vivid in memory. Method Multi-country design The study is an international collaboration between memory researchers from universities across 15 countries (i.e., Canada, China, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Spain, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America). Initially, an expression of interest in a research collaboration was posted within a memory research interest group (March 24, 2020). Additional countries were then targeted to ensure that the countries participating in the study were fairly representative of global variations in the nature of the COVID-19 outbreak (i.e., severity of the situation) and pandemic regulation strategies implemented at the national level (i.e., lockdown regulations). Table 1 and Supplementary Figure 1 outline the severity of COVID-19 parameters across the countries included in the study relative to worldwide statistics from the same period. Supplementary Figure Page 16 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 12 2 presents a world map with countries categorized by their severity and stringency, and Supplementary Figure 3 shows a scatterplot of stringency and severity across countries. The study was pre-registered during the period of data collection and all collaborators consented to the registered study design and protocols. A master survey was first constructed in English as a result of a “crude and effective” process with the aim of collecting comparable data from different countries. Researchers located in each specific country were responsible for translating the master survey into the primary language in their country and obtaining IRB/ethical approval in line with local standards. Using a thematic coding scheme, written descriptions of the collective events were also coded at country-specific sites in the original language. The master survey, study aims, procedures for data collection, and coding manuals can be accessed here (https://osf.io/m46nq/)1. Participants Over 100 individuals from each country participated in the study between the 11th of April - 28th of June 2020. The length of the data collection period within this timeframe differed across countries. We included only participants who completed at least one group of memory questions (i.e., past global, future global) as well as the demographic information in the survey. Final analyses were conducted with 3983 participants (68.8% female, Mage = 33.54, SD = 13.84). Participant demographic information for each country is presented in Table 2. To maximize recruitment, strategies differed across countries. In the majority of countries, participants were recruited through social media outlets and undergraduate subject pools. In addition, other platforms (e.g., MTurk in the USA and Wjx in China) were used when possible. Procedure Page 17 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 13 The survey was developed and distributed anonymously using Qualtrics. On accessing the Qualtrics survey link, participants were informed about the aims of the study and their rights as participants. Informed consent was then obtained. The survey covered general demographic information, the personal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, six key memory phenomena which were flashbulb events, past global, future global, past national, and future national events, involuntary past and future thinking, and the potential future consequences of the pandemic (see https://osf.io/m46nq/). At the end of the study, participants had the option of providing their email address for participation in possible future studies. Any email addresses obtained are held in accordance with ethical regulations at country-specific sites. Materials Past and future collective events. The survey sections focusing on past collective events (global and country-specific) and future collective events (global and country-specific) are of relevance to the research questions under investigation. Within these four collective event categories, participants were asked to report three events for each category, regardless of event content. Specific instructions for these collective event categories were as follows: ●Past global: “Please indicate three remarkable events that have happened in the world (not in your own country, but in other countries) since the disease first appeared in Wuhan.” ●Past national: “Please indicate three remarkable events that have happened in your country after you first heard about the first case in the world.” ●Future global: “Please indicate three remarkable events that you expect to occur in the world.” Page 18 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 14 ●Future national: “Please indicate three remarkable events that you expect to occur in your country.” Individuals reported the events in the same order, first reporting past global and national, then future global and national events. Participants were asked to rely on their memory and not to check details of reported events using other sources. Seven percent of the participants indicated they looked up either content or date information for the past collective events. We did not exclude these participants, because the number of participants who searched for the events were similar country-wise. The instructions did not ask participants to write the specific details of events but rather to provide the name of the event or a short label for it. Participants were also informed that the order in which the three events were reported within each category was not important. Additional information about the estimated dates and phenomenological characteristics of the events was also obtained. For the purposes of the present study emotional valence (“ How did/will this event affect you?”, 5-point Likert: 1=Very negative, 5=Very positive) and vividness (only for past events, “How vivid is your memory of this event?”, 5-point Likert: 1=Not vivid at all, 5=Extremely vivid) were recorded. Thematic coding. To determine the proportion of reported events related to the COVID- 19 pandemic and the events’ themes, a thematic coding scheme was developed specifically for this study. The same coding scheme was used across all four collective event categories (i.e., global past, national past, global future, and national future). A bottom-up data-driven approach was employed for the development of the thematic coding scheme. The thematic coding scheme was based on the coding scheme used by Topcu and Hirst (2020) and adapted to consider additional pandemic relevant themes. The coding scheme was organized using the following hierarchical structure: first, events were coded as COVID-19 related or non-COVID-19 related. COVID-19 related events were then categorized into 20 main Page 19 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 15 thematic categories (e.g., lockdowns, deaths, infections, economy, travel, culture, politics and pandemic management, health, social solidarity, media). Nine of these 20 main COVID-19- related categories included thematic subcategories that reflected a higher event specificity (e.g., the main thematic category lockdown included five subcategories, such as lockdown in Wuhan, lockdown in Italy, or lifting of lockdown). The thematic subcategories will not be considered further in this study. Events identified as non-COVID-19-related were categorized into six separate thematic categories (e.g., environment, politics, economy). Finally, reported events that did not correspond with the specific task instructions (6.7% for global past events, 3.1% for national past events, 2.1% for future global events, 1.2% for future national events) were coded in four separate categories (e.g., autobiographical events, listing multiple events). This thematic coding system allowed us to quantitatively inspect the broad range of event themes reported by the participants and examine cross-country overlaps and discrepancies. Using the thematic coding scheme, all events were initially categorized at each countryspecific site in the original language. Coders from each country categorized 10% of the events reported by participants from their country, compared codes, and resolved any disagreements through discussion. The coders then categorized the remaining events. Interrater reliability was computed among raters in each country and the agreement between the raters was found to be moderate to high2. Country-specific data along with their associated thematic codes were subsequently collated in a large multi-country dataset. The coding scheme with all the thematic categories and subcategories, along with some exemplar events representative of different thematic categories, can be found on the project’s Open Science Framework page (https://osf.io/m46nq/). Country-specific COVID-19 severity and stringency parameters. Two parameters were used in the present study to examine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across the 15 Page 20 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 16 countries represented: (1) total confirmed cases of COVID-19 per million at the last day of data collection3 in each country which considered as the severity and (2) the governmental stringency index. The total confirmed cases of COVID-19 per million was used as a severity index of the spread of the disease within each country. The stringency index was used as a measure of the governmental response to the pandemic at the national level. The governmental stringency index was developed by the University of Oxford and consists of a composite score across a number of indicators including travel bans and school and workplace closures. The index is recorded as a score from 0-100 with 100 indexing the strictest form of governmental response (Hale, Petherick, Phillips, & Webster, 2020). The data for these measures was extracted for each country site from the coronavirus pandemic dataset available at the website run by Our World in Data (2020). Since the pandemic began, governmental restrictions have varied within countries. For that reason, to calculate each country’s stringency index, we extracted the data from the very beginning of the pandemic to the last day of data collection in each country and then computed the average level of stringency between these dates. A bivariate Pearson’s correlation between the severity and stringency parameters demonstrated a moderate negative correlation (r = -.34, p < .01), suggesting that although related, these two parameters represent separate underlying constructs. We divided the countries into three categories (low, medium and high) in terms of both COVID-19 severity and governmental stringency. To create these groups, we calculated the mean and standard deviation of each index, and assigned countries to a group on the basis of where they fell in relation to these metrics. More specifically, countries 1 SD or more below the mean score of each index were assigned to the “low” severity or stringency group; countries 1 SD or more above the mean score of each index were assigned to the “high” severity or stringency group; and the remaining countries were assigned to the “medium” severity or stringency group. Page 21 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 17 Table 1 shows the exact numbers of total cases and deaths per country, along with the countries and their categorization. Results Data analytic strategy The results are organized into three sections in which we address our primary aims. First, we summarized the types of events reported across the 15 countries and compared these events between countries. For these analyses, we focused only on the COVID-19-related themes which appeared at least in 4% of the reported events. Although there are studies using a higher value (e.g., 10%; Topcu & Hirst, 2020) or relying on the number of participants (Tekcan, Boduroğlu, Mutlutürk, & Aktan-Erciyes, 2017), we set a lower minimum value of 4% in an effort to be relatively representative of the different event themes reported across countries. Second, we compared the frequency of the themes evident in the reported events across the three levels of severity and stringency to examine if the themes reported were related to country-specific COVID-19 factors (see Table 1 for the severity and stringency categories of countries). Finally, we investigated whether the phenomenological properties of global and national events differed across past and future orientations. COVID-19 related event themes To determine the frequency and content of COVID-19 related event themes, we calculated the mean percentage of participants across the 15 countries who reported events corresponding to the various themes. As Tables 3-6 show, the majority of reported events across all event categories were COVID-19-related events (81.4% of global past events, 87.5% of national past events, 85.4% of global future events, and 85.2% of national future events). Page 22 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 18 For past events, infections (14.8% and 10.3%) and lockdown (9.2% and 20.1%) were the most commonly reported themes across the majority of countries in both global and national events, respectively. Infections in global and national events and lockdown in national events were reported by at least 4% of participants across 14 of the 15 countries, whereas lockdown in national events was reported by at least 4% of participants across 10 of the 15 countries. In addition, politics (7.1% and 6.3%) and impact on health systems (4.1% and 5.0%) were also reported frequently. Politics was reported by at least 4% of participants across 10 countries and impact on health systems was reported by at least 4% of participants across 7 countries for global events and 4 countries for national events. For global events specifically, deaths (5.7%, > 4% across 11 countries), cultural events (4.9%, > 4% across 6 countries), travel limitations (4.2%, > 4% across 7 countries), and media-related themes (4.0%, > 4% across 4 countries) were reported frequently. Whereas for past national events, events related to mass closures (8.9%, > 4% across 7 countries), hygiene and social behavior (6.1%, > 4% across 12 countries), and to a lesser degree social solidarity (4.6%, > 4% across 2 countries) were reported by >4% of participants. Economy (22.4% and 26.8%) and a second-wave of the pandemic (6.4% and 4.4%) were listed by the majority of countries in global and national events, respectively. The economy was reported by more than 4% of participants across 14 countries for both event types and a second wave was reported by more than 4% of participants across 13 countries for global events and 11 countries for national events. Whereas developments in health science (8.9%, < 4% across 12 countries), politics (5.0%, < 4% across 11 countries), and travel (4.8%, < 4% across 8 countries) were common themes in global future events, lockdown related events (12.4%, < 4% across 10 countries) were mentioned by the majority of countries for future national events. Thematic differences based on severity and stringency measures. Page 23 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 19 We then investigated the relationship between COVID-19 related event themes and the impact of COVID-19 within each country. Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate that, for each event category (past global, past national, future global, and future national), the frequency of reported events varied significantly, with a small effect size, depending on the severity and stringency of the pandemic within the country in which participants were living. The themes of past events differed significantly across levels of severity (for global events, χ2(14) = 414.46, p < .01 Cramer’s V = .221; for national events, χ2(10) = 535.83, p < .01, V = .240) and stringency (for global events, χ2(14) = 531.16, p < .01, V = .250; for national events, χ2(10) = 393.92, p < .01, V = .206). For past global events (see Figures 1a and b), individuals in countries where pandemic severity was medium and high reported significantly more events across almost all themes, with the exception of infections and politics-related themes. An opposite pattern was observed for stringency, where individuals from high-stringency countries reported more political and infection-related events. In addition, low-stringency countries reported more events related to travel, culture, lockdown, and health. This difference was more robust for deaths, such that high-stringency countries reported 6 to 9 times fewer deathrelated events than low- and medium-stringency countries (see Figure 1b). For past national events, the theme of lockdown was reported frequently regardless of pandemic severity and stringency. Events related to infections and hygiene were reported more frequently in high-severity (see Figure 1c) or low-stringency countries (see Figure 1d), whereas health and social solidarity-related issues were reported more frequently in low-severity or highstringency countries. Thematic differences in future events as a function of pandemic severity and stringency are shown in Figure 2. Similar to past events, for future events, themes differed significantly across levels of severity (for global events, χ2(10) = 237.75, p < .01, V = .172; for national events, Page 24 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 20 χ2(6) = 127.24, p < .01, V = .232) and stringency (for global events, χ2(10) = 263.36, p < .01, V = .181; for national events, χ2(4) = 215.57, p < .01, V = .271). Although the economy was a frequent theme across future global and national events, Figures 2a and b indicate that people living in low-severity or high-stringency countries brought to mind more future thoughts about global events related to the economy relative to other severity/stringency groups whereas people living in either high-severity or low stringency countries brought to mind more future thoughts related to lockdown. Whereas events related to the developments in health science were comparable across different levels of severity, this theme was more common in individuals from countries where stringency was low compared to countries with higher stringency levels. For future national events, the pattern was similar to the pattern for future global events. Participants in countries with low severity and high governmental stringency brought to mind a greater proportion of future thoughts related to the economy relative to individuals from countries with high severity and low governmental stringency levels, whereas participants in low severity and high stringency countries brought to mind more future thoughts about lockdowns. Phenomenological properties of reported events To examine the emotional valence of global and national events for the past memories and future simulations, we conducted a two-way within-subjects ANOVA with time (past-future) and event type (global-national) as the within-subject factors and valence as the dependent variable. The main effects of time, F(1, 2997) = 1120.40, MSE = 2159.60, p < .01, η2 = .27, and event type, F(1, 2997) = 110.85, MSE = 120.68, p < .01, η2= .06, were significant, indicating that individuals reported past memories (M = 2.45, SD = 0.73) as more negative than future simulations (M = 3.31, SD = 1.36), and global events as slightly more negative (M = 2.76, SD = 0.75) than national events (M = 2.99, SD = 1.18). Page 25 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 27 Individual Level Analysis: Phenomenology of Reported Events Research on personal events has demonstrated that reports of future events tend to be more positive but less vivid compared to past events (D’Argembeau & Van der Linden, 2006; Shao, Yao, Ceci, & Wang, 2010). Although there has been less evidence for the phenomenology of collective events, existing evidence suggests considerable consistency in the valence and vividness of past and future collective events. In line with personal events, the collective future is perceived more positively than the collective past (Topcu & Hirst, 2020), which may reflect individuals’ willingness to create a more positive future for their collective group. In the context of national events, the country that individuals are living in represents a collective in-group with which individuals have a shared context and culture. In contrast, global events could be perceived as occurring within a wider collective group (i.e., humans on earth) or, as occurring for an outgroup (i.e., our nation vs. other nations), and both of these global perspectives may make global event representations less relevant to individuals relative to national events. For this reason, we expected differences in the phenomenology of the global and national events reported for the past and the future. We found a positivity bias for the future events. Consistent with previous findings (e.g., Cole, Staugaard, & Berntsen, 2016), future events were perceived as less negative than past events and this difference was more salient for national events compared to global events. When thinking about their nation (i.e., the social group of greater relatedness), individuals tend to envisage a more positive future. On the other hand, although we expected a more positive national past, we found that individuals reported relatively more negative past events that had happened in their own country, by which comparisons of their nation with other countries preserves a less favorable view of their national collective. One reason could be that the pandemic as the source of the reported events is ongoing. It could be more functional to hold Page 32 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 28 even the negative event representations salient so that they could have a directive function for the national collective and this might prevent the adaptive utilization of the self-regulatory or selfenhancement function of remembering. It is also important to point out that the pattern of the phenomenology of reported events persisted, even when we controlled for severity and stringency. Specifically, although contextual factors of the pandemic influence what is reported at a global and national level, the way these events are recalled could have a universal function for these individuals that serves them to adaptively represent the closer and more distant collectives. The only exception was that preventive measures explain why national events were perceived more negatively than global events. Governmental policies represent a national response to the pandemic, and when more strict regulations are implemented, it is likely that individuals experience more direct and concrete consequences of the pandemic, which might account for the differences in the emotional valence of global and national events. In addition to valence, we asked participants about the vividness of past events and compared the richness of global and national event memories. We found national events were recalled more vividly than global events and the stringency or severity of the pandemic had no influence on these vividness ratings. The source of information for global events is likely media outlets, thus although the information is detailed, paired with vivid images, it may be less personally relevant. On the other hand, for national events, although the events may not be directly experienced and also learned of through media, individuals may have experienced the consequences of the events at a more personal level. In addition, frequent exposure to information may be less likely for global events, whereas for national events, exposure through media as well as social sharing of event-related information within the collective may serve as Page 33 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 29 additional forms of rehearsal, thus facilitating consolidation of memories of the event and contributing to the saliency of event representations. This pattern could also be explained by the self-relevance effect, making memories more salient (i.e., Bluck, 2003; Conway, 2005). Individuals are part of the national collective, and other than the shared goals and the history, the shared context of living binds these group of individuals (Hirst et al., 2009), As such, these events are perceived as more self-relevant, which in turn activates a more organized, highly elaborated knowledge of the nation group as a collective (Johnson et al., 2002). Thus, reference to the national collective at the time of recall may enhance the accessibility of the positive information, favoring the group and aiding the retrieval of vivid representations of these national events. Future research could serve to examine the relationship between self-relevance and the phenomenological characteristics of collective past and future thought. In a world where globalization is increasing and issues, such as COVID-19 and climate change, are likely to have worldwide impact, these findings also highlight the need for further research investigating how different features of collective memories, beliefs, and worldviews are shaped by conceptualisations of global identity and how national and global identities are formed and relate to one another. Theoretical Implications The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world’s agenda. Individuals’ memory representations have become aligned with these changes as evidenced by the overrepresentation of COVID-19-related events in both the national and global events. These findings support the view that shared concerns are represented through consistent recall across individuals at different levels of the collective (Hirst & Manier, 2008). We found overlap in reports of global and national events about critical information related to the spread and minimization of the COVID- Page 34 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 30 19 pandemic. However, the situation in each country was unique, resulting in small differences in reports of national and global collective events. Also, in line with previous findings (Abel et al., 2019), the events countries recalled differed depending on the country-specific factors. The contextual dynamics of stringency and severity in each country characterized the situation of the pandemic, which also informed members of the collective about which events were more remarkable. These two measures are especially important, because severity of the pandemic represents the degree of pandemic threat within each country, potentially influencing both the individuals’ emotional responses to the pandemic and the general affective climate in the society (e.g., frequent media exposure to infections, deaths). Similarly, stringency represents a preventive collective action, a collective goal, shared by the members of the social group. Thus, from the bottom-up, these measures characterize the shared features of the pandemic in a particular context and provide objective sources of information about the context in which individuals begin to form mental representations of collective events. Accordingly, high degree of overlap in countries where the contextual factors were similar indicated unique collective concerns and event representations for the smaller national and larger global collective. Importantly, these findings build on previous research by demonstrating that shared representations of world events emerge within global and national collective memory during ongoing events which have worldwide impact and are likely to be of historical significance (Hirst et al., 2018). In line with studies of collective event representations of events which occurred decades previously (Abel et al., 2019; Pennebaker et al., 2006), these event representations for ongoing world events are also influenced by country-specific contextual factors. It is important to note that other contextual group factors may also play a role at the national level, such as the size of the nation, the economic and welfare systems in place, and Page 35 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 31 previous experience with epidemic or pandemic diseases (e.g., SARS). These contextual group factors warrant further investigation in future research. Because there are many unknowns regarding the long-term effects of COVID-19, future simulations are likely to be shaped by the external sources of information, such as conversations with friends or family or media input (Anderson, 2012), showing how shared knowledge in the collective can lead to mnemonic convergence. Although we observed considerable overlap in the themes reported in past and future events (Öner & Gülgöz, 2020; Topcu & Hirst, 2019), we also observed greater consistency across countries in the event themes reported in the future relative to the past. These findings correspond well with previous research demonstrating higher levels of consistency within future events relative to past event representations (Kane, Van Boven, & McGraw, 2012). The future event themes were similar to the messages promoted by governmental and health regulation authorities on how to manage the virus (i.e., developments in health science) and the associated societal consequences (i.e., the economy, lifting of lock-down, and politics). Possible Limitations The current research has several limitations. First, although the data from all countries were collected within the same two-and-a-half-month period, the duration of active data collection differed in each country. In addition, the outbreak and the spread of the COVID-19 virus was different across countries. Although severity and stringency measures may countervail part of this variability, it is possible that the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation within each country influenced the events individuals reported. As individuals gradually have more information, the types of events they preferentially keep salient may change accordingly. Page 36 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 32 Additionally, data was collected during one time point and therefore was not analyzed longitudinally. However, we hope to address this limitation in follow-up studies. Second, we asked participants to report remarkable events since the pandemic outbreak. We used this restriction as a time limit for the responses reported. On the one hand, this instruction may have biased responses toward pandemic related events, resulting in COVID-19- themed events dominating the responses. On the other hand, the period during which we collected data was dense with pandemic-related events and due to the uncertainty in the situation, it is very likely that individuals preferentially attended to COVID-19-related information. Thus, even if we used a more neutral instruction, we would expect a similar pattern in event themes. Despite this limitation, the study demonstrates important similarities and differences in the themes and phenomenological characteristics of past and future collective events reported during the early stage of the pandemic which are informative within the field of collective thinking. Third, sample characteristics differ across countries. Our goal was to include a range of 100 to 300 participants from each country in proportion to the population of the country. For that reason, some researchers used crowd-sourcing data collection tools, some recruited student samples, and some distributed the survey through social media. As such, this sampling method resulted in samples of differing age and education levels. Although the current research does not rely on demographics, this variation makes it difficult not only to generalize the findings across the nations but also to make direct country-wise comparisons. A related issue with respect to sampling is the sample size, in that, although we recruited at least 100 participants from each country, a larger sample would be preferable, and more representative of the population characteristics, for collective memory research. Nevertheless, by measuring three events per condition, we increased the overall power and reliability of the data. Page 37 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 33 Another issue about sampling is related to the possible diversity within and between countries. Especially in large countries, like China, Russia, and the United States, contextual factors differ across regions, states or cities, potentially resulting in variation in the psychological responses of individuals. Our measures of severity and stringency, however, were taken across the whole country, not particular provinces or states. We addressed this problem not in regard to the content but to the phenomenology. Although country-level severity and stringency had significant effects on the phenomenology, differences in the past-future and global-national events persisted. Although this finding provides a general view of how individuals represent events at a country-level, individual-level data could be examined in future research by looking into the effect of the pandemic on individuals’ lives. Finally, although this study involved a large collaborative effort to obtain data from participants across 15 countries, future studies should seek to include a wider range of countries from the global south. In these regions, differing governmental responses, onset of the pandemic, social and cultural beliefs and access to international media sources may lead to the emergence of different collective memories during the early stages of the pandemic relative to the global north. Final Conclusions and Future Directions The present study took advantage of the unique opportunity to examine cross-country differences in collective memory and forecasted events in a large dataset of almost 4,000 participants recruited from 15 countries across Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania. Despite a diverse range in cultures, there was a clear congruency in the content of collective events across all nations in this study. Although we asked for only three events per condition (past global; past national; future national; future global), the most frequently mentioned events were typically shared rather than idiosyncratic to specific countries. This global sharing of key Page 38 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 34 events is in line with how people remembered World War II (Abel et al., 2019; Roediger & Abel, 2015); with some exceptions, commonalities in collective remembering across nations was typical. However, differences in events were found as well. Themes of infection and lockdown dominated reports of public past events, and themes of impact on the economy and a second wave dominated future thought. In line with previous research, future events were reported as less negative than past events. Furthermore, events reported from the perspective of the future of the nation were less negative than global future events, suggesting that the collective group from which events are constructed influences the phenomenological characteristics of past and future events. In addition, we used a ‘big data’ approach to show how country-level statistics explained specific differences in the content of past and future collective events (e.g., greater frequencies of economic events for low severity-high stringency countries) and presented the first study of shared representations of global and national events for the ‘collective future’ (a fledgling but promising area of study; Szpunar & Szpunar, 2016). This study was cross-sectional and future research should explore how changes in national narratives on the impact of COVID-19 (e.g., national ‘successes’ in eradicating its effects) could potentially alter collective memory and forecasted events (perhaps creating divergence in key memories across countries). The current study therefore not only provides an expansive ‘snapshot’ of collective understanding from within a global pandemic, but also presents a solid starting point to examine the longer-term effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on collective memory and collective forecasting. Page 39 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 35 Footnotes 1 We intend to make the data available online via OSF so that researchers can benefit from this unique data set to test separate hypotheses. However, in a minority of cases, data was not available for sharing due to either specific IRBs or individuals not giving such consent. 2 Most of the countries computed the agreement between two raters and they tested interrater reliability using Cohen’s Kappa. However, the countries having more data points used more than two coders and, for these countries, Krippendorf’s Alpha was used as the index of agreement between more than two raters. For the two measures, we found a fair to good level of agreement across raters with values ranging from .53-.69 (for Krippendorf’s Alpha) and .61 to .89 (for Cohen’s Kappa). 3 Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million was also considered as a measure of COVID- 19 severity, and analyses using this index demonstrated a similar pattern of findings. Total COVID-19 cases per million was selected as the final index of severity for this study to minimize the influence of variations in national health system response on the index of COVID-19 severity. Page 40 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 36 Open Practices Statement The study was preregistered and can be accessed at https://osf.io/m46nq/ . The data have not been made available on a permanent third-party archive, because Institutional Review Boards in each country did not approve that we could not post the data; requests for the de-identified data can be sent via email to the corresponding author. Page 41 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 43 Roediger III, H. L., & Abel, M. (2015). Collective memory: A new arena of cognitive study. Trends in Cognitive Science, 19(7), 359–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.04.003 Scherman, A. Z., Salgado, S., Shao, Z., & Berntsen, D. (2017). Life script events and autobiographical memories of important life story events in Mexico, Greenland, China, and Denmark. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2016.11.007 Shao, Y., Yao, X., Ceci, S. J., & Wang, Q. (2010). Does the self drive mental time travel? Memory, 18(8), 855–862. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.514272 Shrikanth, S., Szpunar, P. M., & Szpunar, K. K. (2018). Staying positive in a dystopian future: A novel dissociation between personal and collective cognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 147(8), 1200–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000421 Sornette, D., Mearns, E., Schatz, M. et al. (2020). Interpreting, analysing and modelling COVID- 19 mortality data. Nonlinear Dynamics, 101, 1751–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071- 020-05966-z Stone, C. B., & Jay, A. C. (2019). From the individual to the collective: The emergence of a psychological approach to collective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(4), 504– 515. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3564 Szpunar, P. M., & Szpunar, K. K. (2016). Collective future thought: Concept, function, and implications for collective memory studies. Memory Studies, 9(4), 376–389. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698015615660 Szpunar, K. K., Addis, D. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2012). Memory for emotional simulations: Remembering a rosy future. Psychological Science, 23(1), 24–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611422237 Page 48 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 44 Tekcan, A. İ., Boduroglu, A., Mutlutürk, A., & Erciyes, A. A. (2017). Life-span retrieval of public events: Reminiscence bump for high-impact events, recency for others. Memory & Cognition, 45(7), 1095–1112. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-017-0724-1 Thomas, T., Angrist, N., Cameron-Blake, E., Hallas, L., Kira, B., Majumdar, S., Petherick, A., Phillips, T., Tatlow, H., Webster, S. (2020). Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker, Blavatnik School of Government. (accessed 28.01.21) https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response- tracker Tinti, C., Schmidt, S., Sotgiu, I., Testa, S., & Curci, A. (2009). The role of importance/consequentiality appraisal in flashbulb memory formation: The case of the death of Pope John Paul II. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23(2), 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1452 Topcu, M. N., & Hirst, W. (2020). Remembering a nation's past to imagine its future: The role of event specificity, phenomenology, valence, and perceived agency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 46(3), 563–579. https://doi.org/10.1037/xlm0000746 Walker, W. R., Skowronski, J. J., & Thompson, C. P. (2003). Life is pleasant—and memory helps to keep it that way! Review of General Psychology, 7(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.2.203 Wang, Q. (2009). Are Asians forgetful? Perception, retention, and recall in episodic remembering. Cognition, 111, 123–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2009.01.004 Wang, Q. (2016). Remembering the self in cultural contexts: A cultural dynamic theory of autobiographical memory. Memory Studies, 9(3), 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750698016645238 Page 49 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 45 Wang, Q. (2021). The cultural foundation of human memory. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 151–179. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-070920-023638 Wertsch, J. (2002). Voices of Collective Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613715 Wertsch, J. V., & Roediger III, H. L. (2008). Collective memory: Conceptual foundations and theoretical approaches. Memory, 16(3), 318–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210701801434 World Health Organisation (11th March, 2020) WHO Director-General's opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19 [Press Briefing] https://www.who.int/directorgeneral/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid- 19---11-march-2020 Page 50 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 REMEMBERING AND IMAGINING THE PANDEMIC 46 Figure Captions Figure 1. Frequency of past events reported as a function of COVID-19 severity and stringency Figure 2. Frequency of future events reported as a function of COVID-19 severity and stringency Page 51 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 1 Stringency and Severity Indices of Countries Abbr. Date Country Continent Stringency Index (Mean) Categories for Stringency Total Cases Total Deaths Total Cases (per million) Categories for Severity Total Deaths (per million) Info on Stringency Index USA 23-05-20 United States North America 37.69 Low 1631175 100399 4927 High 303.46 (SD = 33.500, max = 72.69, N=144) CAN 15-05-20 Canada North America 39.55 Low 75959 5679 2012 Medium 150.468 (SD = 33.959, max = 74.54, N=116) DNK 03-06-20 Denmark Europe 43.90 Low 11971 580 2066 Medium 100.135 (SD = 30.886, max = 72.22, N=135) DEU 25-05-20 Germany Europe 45.85 Low 180600 8309 2155 Medium 99.172 (SD = 29.748, max = 76.85, N=126) MYS 21-05-20 Malaysia Asia 47.78 Medium 7059 114 218 Low 3.522 (SD = 26.488, max = 73.15, N=122) GBR 05-06-20 United Kingdom Europe 47.79 Medium 264150 38505 3891 High 567.201 (SD = 32.593, max = 79.63, N=137) POL 26-05-20 Poland Europe 48.26 Medium 22074 1024 583 Low 27.057 (SD = 35.361, max = 83.33, N=127) GRC 05-06-20 Greece Europe 49.29 Medium 2967 180 285 Low 172.69 (SD = 34.639, max = 84.26, N=137) RUS 26-06-20 Russia Europe 50.33 Medium 619936 8770 4228 High 60.1 (SD = 35.588, max = 87.04, N=127) NZL 05-06-20 New Zealand Oceania 50.54 Medium 1504 22 312 Low 4.562 (SD = 33.855, max = 96.3, N=137) TUR 28-06-20 Turkey Asia 51.74 Medium 197239 5097 2338 Medium 60.435 (SD = 27.739, max =75.93, N=160) ESP 20-06-20 Spain Europe 53.57 Medium 245938 28322 5260 High 605.756 (SD = 32.236, max = 85.19, N=152) FRA 02-06-20 France Europe 57.89 High 190735 28943 2922 Medium 443.411 (SD = 33.371, max = 87.96, N=134) ITA 30-05-20 Italy Europe 63.93 High 232664 33340 3848 High 551.422 (SD = 30.769, max = 93.52, N=131) CHN 15-05-20 China Asia 69.83 High 84038 4637 58 Low 3.222 (SD = 12.626, max = 81.94, N=116) Note. Date refers to the last day of data collection in the respective countries. Severity categories were obtained using total cases per million. Page 52 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 2 Demographics Grouped by Countries % of study completed Age Gender Education Home country COVID diagnosis (Self) COVID diagnosis (other) Country N M SD M SD Male (%) Female (%) Other (%) Higher education (%) Up to high school (%) (%) N (%) N (%) Canada 189 99.5 4.95 31.59 10.64 60.85 38.1 1.06 75.13 24.87 86.6 1 0.52 49 25.93 China 610 100 0 23.48 6.4 19.84 75.41 4.75 84.26 15.74 100 1 0.16 4 0.66 Denmark 151 99.8 0.6 42.32 19.16 21.85 78.15 0 76.16 23.84 96.7 0 0 47 31.13 France 159 82.52 25.74 41.46 17.98 29.56 69.18 0 88.05 10.69 94.9 2 1.27 79 50.32 Germany 115 98.3 9.3 25.12 7.71 12.17 84.35 2.61 25.22 73.04 93.8 1 0.88 35 30.7 Greece 187 87.09 22.11 42.1 11.11 22.99 74.87 1.07 74.33 24.06 99.5 0 0 29 15.68 Italy 337 92.98 13.8 30.28 10.85 24.33 75.37 0.3 62.02 37.98 98.8 0 0 114 33.83 Malaysia 107 99.99 0.1 22.93 5.25 17.76 82.24 0 70.09 29.91 75.7 0 0 14 13.08 New Zealand 91 90.86 20.99 28 10.57 14.29 85.71 0 53.85 46.15 78 0 0 15 16.48 Poland 240 82.52 24.7 29.92 9.07 16.25 79.58 0.42 72.92 22.5 99.1 2 0.87 26 11.26 Russia 197 89.55 20.91 39.35 14.77 26.9 69.54 0 84.26 9.14 92.6 2 1.05 53 27.6 Spain 352 83.94 23.51 38.31 15.06 34.38 64.77 0.57 74.15 25 95.7 2 0.57 189 53.69 Turkey 563 99.53 3.09 37.03 14.62 25.22 72.82 1.78 67.32 32.15 100 6 1.07 182 32.38 UK 120 89.72 20.7 29.74 11.48 13.33 78.33 1.67 74.17 18.33 77.3 0 0 42 37.84 USA 565 87.38 22.72 38.24 12.4 52.21 46.9 0.88 70.97 29.03 96.6 8 1.42 150 26.55 Page 53 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 3. The Frequencies of Event Themes for Past- Global events Countries Themes Canada China Denmark France Germany Greece Italy Malaysia N.Z. Poland Russia Spain Turkey UK USA Total COVID-19-related themes (%) Environment 81.4 3.8 1.5 4.6 1.6 2.4 6.5 1.8 2.3 3.9 5.1 10.8 2.1 1.8 .5 2.9 2.9 Economy 4.1 6.0 1.4 .8 2.4 1.1 1.6 4.7 .5 0.0 6.3 .6 2.7 0.0 2.1 2.9 Travel 8.4 .5 2.6 3.3 8.9 4.5 2.8 3.5 4.9 25.4 9.3 4.4 2.5 2.4 5.2 4.2 Culture 4.3 3.2 7.7 7.3 1.6 1.7 6.1 2.9 15.0 0.0 4.2 1.9 3.8 3.8 8.2 4.9 Mass closures 3.0 1.3 .6 2.2 .8 .3 1.1 1.2 1.0 6.8 .9 1.1 .9 3.8 2.3 1.6 Lockdown 10.7 6.9 7.4 13.6 13.3 9.4 12.3 16.4 5.8 0.0 11.4 8.6 4.6 19.2 11.2 9.2 Deaths 5.3 .8 7.1 2.4 12.1 22.4 3.1 9.9 7.8 0.0 6.0 6.3 6.1 9.1 6.5 5.7 Infections 14.5 35.5 10.3 9.8 8.1 9.9 7.8 18.7 12.6 0.0 9.0 13.7 6.5 11.1 12.0 14.8 Politics 3.8 15.5 15.4 6.0 3.6 6.5 9.7 4.1 2.9 0.0 5.4 6.3 4.0 4.3 1.6 7.1 Health 3.6 2.1 7.1 1.4 6.5 4.8 6.1 8.2 2.9 0.0 2.4 4.6 6.0 2.9 3.8 4.1 Media 2.8 1.0 3.7 11.7 2.4 .6 9.9 9.4 3.9 0.0 3.6 3.2 3.0 2.4 5.0 4.0 Misinformation 1.3 .3 1.1 .3 7.3 1.7 3.4 1.2 1.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.0 6.7 1.5 1.6 Social solidarity 0.0 4.8 .9 .3 3.2 2.0 .4 2.3 0.0 1.7 1.2 .6 .5 1.9 .7 1.6 Hygiene 3.0 1.1 3.1 3.5 3.6 3.4 4.4 0.0 1.9 0.0 .3 1.7 2.4 3.4 2.0 2.2 Civil rights 2.5 .1 4.6 0.0 .8 1.7 .7 .6 1.0 5.6 .3 1.7 .3 0.0 .9 1.0 Health Science 0.0 .5 0.0 0.0 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.1 .3 0.0 .8 .4 Digitalization .8 .3 0.0 .3 0.0 .6 0.0 1.8 0.0 .6 1.2 .4 .4 0.0 .2 .4 Second wave 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4 .6 .5 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 .3 .1 End of pandemic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 .0 Non COVID-19-related themes (%) Environment 5.3 8.3 4.9 11.7 4.4 5.7 7.2 1.8 9.7 17.5 6.6 6.1 23.3 4.8 6.5 9.5 War 2.3 1.3 1.1 1.1 3.2 8.2 6.2 0.0 3.4 5.6 5.1 1.9 10.6 1.4 3.4 4.2 Politics 4.6 3.3 8.3 13.0 10.1 4.8 6.2 1.8 3.9 17.5 6.6 13.9 5.5 8.2 8.3 6.9 Culture 18.6 5.3 3.2 4.0 4.6 3.2 2.6 5.2 1.2 8.3 5.6 6.6 11.2 5.4 1.9 6.6 5.2 Crime 4.1 1.3 2.0 2.7 1.2 .9 2.1 1.2 5.3 1.1 0.0 3.4 1.7 5.8 1.9 2.0 Other 6.6 .9 2.0 2.7 .4 .6 1.3 6.4 2.4 5.6 1.5 3.8 6.5 6.3 6.0 3.5 Note:N.Z. = New Zealand, Hygiene = Hygiene & Social Behavior, Digitalization = Digitalization of society Page 54 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 4: The Frequencies of Event Themes for Past- National events Countries Themes Canada China Denmark France Germany Greece Italy Malaysia N. Z. Poland Russia Spain Turkey UK USA Total COVID-19-related themes (%) Environment 1.4 .1 .8 0.0 0.0 .8 .5 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.6 1.2 .4 0.0 .4 .5 Economy 1.4 1.7 3.0 .6 .8 1.6 1.0 .4 1.5 0.0 7.0 2.3 3.7 .5 4.2 2.5 Travel 10.6 .2 2.5 1.9 7.1 1.3 .7 2.9 6.4 9.3 13.3 1.2 3.4 2.1 3.2 3.2 Culture 6.7 0.0 0.0 .6 0.0 .3 0.0 .4 1.0 0.0 2.1 .9 .4 15.3 1.1 1.1 Mass closures 21.0 5.1 6.9 14.0 12.6 10.9 7.5 4.9 3.4 42.6 5.2 5.6 8.4 11.1 8.3 8.9 Lockdown 4.8 27.6 30.5 23.7 13.0 22.0 28.3 24.7 32.8 0.0 20.8 18.1 11.5 17.9 16.1 20.1 Deaths 1.1 .9 1.4 1.0 3.2 5.3 6.5 .8 5.9 0.0 2.3 4.0 5.2 .5 7.4 3.8 Infections 2.8 13.9 1.9 7.1 11.5 8.0 15.5 30.5 7.4 0.0 3.6 8.9 3.9 11.6 14.7 10.3 Politics 11.5 6.6 19.7 5.8 4.7 5.3 3.9 12.8 2.0 0.0 1.6 4.7 5.7 2.1 6.4 6.3 Health 3.1 10.6 2.2 3.2 .4 4.0 7.3 .8 1.5 0.0 2.6 5.2 4.3 2.6 3.4 5.0 Media 5.3 .7 4.4 10.4 4.0 5.6 2.7 4.5 11.8 0.0 1.0 4.7 2.9 3.7 2.5 3.2 Misinformation 0.0 .7 .3 0.0 .4 1.3 1.1 .4 .5 2.2 .5 .7 .2 0.0 5.6 1.4 Social solidarity 1.1 18.8 2.8 1.3 2.8 1.1 1.8 .8 1.0 2.7 .5 1.9 .7 7.9 .7 4.8 Hygiene 5.6 3.4 6.9 4.5 16.2 5.3 11.3 4.1 5.9 0.0 1.3 6.3 8.3 8.4 4.6 6.1 Civil rights 1.7 0.0 1.1 0.0 3.2 2.9 2.5 .4 1.0 10.9 4.7 2.8 0.0 0.0 3.2 1.7 Health Science .3 .6 0.0 0.0 .4 .3 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .5 0.0 .2 .3 Digitalization 2.0 .6 0.0 0.0 5.1 2.9 .3 .8 0.0 1.6 6.5 .9 1.6 1.1 .8 1.3 Second wave 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 End of pandemic 87.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0 Non COVID-19-related themes (%) Environment 1.1 2.8 1.7 1.9 .8 1.3 1.4 0.0 3.4 8.7 .8 2.6 15.1 0.0 1.5 4.0 War 0.0 .1 0.0 0.0 .8 8.2 .2 .4 .5 .5 .3 0.0 10.0 0.0 .3 2.1 Politics 2.8 .7 3.3 16.6 7.1 5.8 .6 4.9 3.4 8.7 15.9 16.2 3.5 4.2 6.9 5.2 Culture .6 1.9 8.3 4.2 2.0 2.7 1.9 0.0 2.5 4.4 3.6 8.2 .7 3.2 3.8 2.8 Crime 11.8 1.4 1.4 1.0 3.6 2.9 1.8 0.0 2.0 .5 1.3 0.0 .9 0.0 1.2 1.7 Other 12.5 3.4 1.5 .8 1.9 .4 .3 2.4 4.9 5.4 7.7 3.4 3.5 8.8 7.9 3.6 3.7 Note: N.Z. = New Zealand, Hygiene = Hygiene & Social Behavior, Digitalization = Digitalization of society Page 55 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 5: The Frequency of Event Themes for Future-Global events Countries Themes Canada China Denmark France Germany Greece Italy Malaysia N.Z. Poland Russia Spain Turkey UK USA Total COVID-related event themes (%) Environment 3.1 5.9 2.5 7.9 4.2 0.0 1.5 4.3 2.6 3.8 3.5 5.3 1.7 0.5 1.8 3.1 Economy 23.4 26.9 10.2 19.0 15.1 30.4 29.8 26.6 17.9 0.0 35.8 19.4 23.1 16.6 15.4 22.4 Travel 10.0 0.5 18.6 5.4 8.4 2.7 2.7 3.3 15.4 18.3 10.2 1.8 3.8 4.3 2.3 4.8 Culture 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.6 0.2 Mass closures 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.2 0.0 1.0 0.3 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.6 0.7 Lockdown 6.9 1.2 2.2 3.2 7.1 1.6 7.7 17.9 1.0 0.0 3.5 13.9 1.6 10.2 15.8 6.1 Deaths 0.9 1.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.2 1.1 2.1 0.0 0.5 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.5 Infections 2.3 5.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 4.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 0.3 1.4 Politics 5.4 4.8 5.8 7.5 0.8 1.6 5.6 3.3 5.1 0.0 5.3 5.5 6.0 4.3 4.9 5.0 Health 2.9 2.7 0.6 1.8 1.7 4.0 7.6 3.8 1.0 0.0 3.2 2.4 3.3 2.7 1.9 3.0 Media 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 Misinformation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.3 Social solidarity 0.0 3.6 0.3 0.7 1.3 0.8 0.2 1.6 0.5 1.0 1.9 0.4 0.6 2.7 1.1 1.3 Hygiene 2.6 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.7 3.2 3.8 5.4 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.5 4.3 0.9 1.8 Civil rights 1.7 0.1 1.1 2.2 1.7 10.2 2.0 4.3 0.5 11.5 3.5 2.2 0.6 2.1 1.2 1.9 Health Science 4.6 8.2 11.1 15.4 6.3 14.2 0.0 0.0 15.4 0.0 4.3 20.5 6.3 13.9 13.4 8.9 Digitalization 2.0 1.0 0.8 0.7 2.1 2.4 1.8 4.3 0.5 3.8 7.8 2.4 6.3 3.2 0.4 2.7 Second wave 7.4 2.9 5.3 12.9 7.9 8.3 10.6 4.9 4.6 17.3 4.8 7.9 3.8 5.9 8.2 6.4 Pandemic end 85.4 3.7 4.7 5.3 5.7 3.3 2.2 5.6 3.8 3.1 0.0 3.5 8.8 3.5 2.1 0.8 3.8 Non COVID-related event themes (%) Environment 3.7 6.4 6.4 2.5 11.7 4.6 4.2 0.0 2.6 8.7 1.3 1.1 11.6 1.1 6.5 6.0 War 2.3 3.1 0.6 0.7 3.3 4.0 5.0 0.0 1.5 10.6 1.3 0.4 6.9 1.6 4.8 3.7 Politics 9.4 13.0 22.7 7.2 17.6 8.6 4.7 6.0 12.8 17.3 6.1 2.6 6.6 15.5 5.8 9.0 Culture 0.6 0.2 0.6 0.7 3.8 0.0 3.8 0.0 2.6 0.0 1.6 1.5 0.1 2.7 5.1 1.6 Crime 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.8 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.1 0.5 0.8 Other 14.6 3.1 3.6 2.5 3.9 0.4 0.3 1.4 0.5 6.2 1.9 0.5 1.5 10.3 2.7 6.7 4.4 Note:N.Z. = New Zealand, Hygiene = Hygiene & Social Behavior, Digitalization = Digitalization of society Page 56 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Table 6: The Frequency of Event Themes for Future-National Events Countries Themes Canada China Denmark France Germany Greece Italy Malaysia N.Z Poland Russia Spain Turkey UK USA Total COVID-19-reated themes (%) Environment 1.5 2.6 0.3 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.4 0.5 0.0 2.2 0.6 0.3 0.0 0.5 1.0 Economy 24.9 32.8 8.9 19.4 13.7 43.3 31.3 23.9 18.1 0.0 33.3 29.4 33.9 14.2 18.1 26.8 Travel 8.5 0.4 12.8 3.6 5.7 0.3 0.9 1.9 22.1 3.3 4.0 1.7 1.3 1.3 0.4 2.8 Culture 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.2 Mass closures 2.8 5.3 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.7 0.9 5.0 0.8 1.5 0.6 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.7 Lockdown 23.4 1.7 17.7 9.9 24.2 2.7 18.8 32.9 12.1 0.0 0.9 24.9 3.2 38.1 20.1 12.4 Deaths 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.7 0.6 Infections 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.4 2.5 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 2.6 1.0 0.9 Politics 3.8 3.8 1.3 1.2 0.0 1.8 3.0 8.0 1.0 0.0 1.9 4.9 1.7 0.6 4.0 2.8 Health 2.3 3.5 2.6 5.9 4.4 8.9 6.2 2.3 1.5 0.0 3.4 4.0 3.8 5.2 1.4 3.6 Media 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 Misinformation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 Solidarity 0.0 3.5 1.0 2.0 0.9 0.9 0.4 1.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 0.6 0.3 1.3 0.3 1.1 Hygiene 3.5 3.1 2.3 1.2 2.6 3.3 4.1 3.8 1.5 0.0 0.3 0.9 1.3 7.1 1.1 2.2 Civil rights 1.8 0.2 0.3 8.3 2.6 5.0 2.4 1.4 0.5 26.4 14.8 2.9 0.8 0.0 2.0 2.7 Health Science 4.8 9.0 5.2 2.4 2.6 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 4.6 1.2 4.5 5.3 3.7 Digitalization 1.5 2.1 4.9 2.4 5.7 3.6 2.8 3.8 1.5 4.1 8.0 1.7 1.8 2.6 1.1 2.5 Second wave 6.0 1.4 5.2 11.1 8.8 7.7 5.8 6.1 4.0 5.0 3.1 8.9 1.5 3.9 5.0 4.4 Pandemic end 85.2 2.3 7.4 6.2 8.7 3.1 1.5 2.8 0.0 6.0 0.0 3.4 10.6 3.6 0.6 0.4 3.9 Non COVID-19-related themes (%) Environment 3.0 4.2 6.9 1.6 2.6 3.3 0.7 0.9 2.0 5.0 0.3 0.0 9.1 0.6 2.7 3.9 War 0.5 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.9 1.1 Politics 5.0 7.8 15.4 14.2 14.1 7.7 9.5 6.1 16.6 43.8 14.2 2.3 16.0 9.0 18.6 12.7 Culture 0.8 1.1 3.9 0.8 5.3 0.3 0.7 0.0 1.0 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.4 1.9 4.8 1.6 Crime 0.8 0.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.0 1.9 0.5 0.8 1.5 0.0 2.8 0.0 1.0 1.2 Other 14.8 2.3 7.5 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.1 4.4 0.5 2.0 9.1 2.8 0.6 13.0 3.2 5.9 5.9 Note:N.Z. = New Zealand, Hygiene = Hygiene & Social Behavior, Digitalization = Digitalization of society Page 57 of 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60