Damian Sendler: Reopening large venues for sports and music events when Covid-19 infection rates and hospitalizations start to decline carries behavioral risks and mitigation options. Using four sources, we describe the variables that we believe will influence public behavior in relation to the spread of the virus. Research from non-pandemic conditions; research on behavior during an outbreak; relevant theory; and evidence and recommendations from the Scientific Pandemic Influenza Group on Behaviours for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). To begin, we’ll go over some of the most common dangers and frameworks for analyzing crowd behavior at live events. There are several trends in UK public behavior that may interact with live event and venue openings over the next few years. Covid-19 has been linked to a range of non-pharmaceutical (i.e. behavioral) interventions, and we present a range of mitigation strategies.
Damian Jacob Sendler: Whether it’s economic, social or psychological, the live events industry has a significant impact on the world around us. Annually, the industry generates several billions of pounds in revenue for the British economy. There are an estimated 570,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the event industry as a whole, with annual spending on sporting events totaling around £2.3 billion, festivals totaling £1.1 billion, and other music events totaling £1.3 billion (Eventbright, 2016). To add to the positive effects of mass gatherings, attending such events has been linked to positive feelings (Novelli et al., 2013) and mental health and well-being (Drury, 2020, Hopkins and Reicher, 2016b).
Dr. Sendler: As a precautionary measure following the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, live events around the world were closed. Government agencies, licensing authorities, and event and venue managers will think about reopening in a safe manner as infection rates and hospitalizations decline. To do this, they must first identify potential areas of risk and then devise strategies for reducing it. The purpose of this paper is to provide a behavioural science perspective on the current state of affairs in the United Kingdom (though the evidence and principles also apply to many other countries). 1 Concerts and sporting events are the main attractions at this venue. In addition to stadiums, other indoor and outdoor performance spaces, such as theaters, can benefit from some of our findings and recommendations.
SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, spreads via close contact, droplets and aerosols, both in the air (especially in poorly ventilated areas) and contaminated surfaces, to other people (WHO, 2020a). By increasing the number of people who come into contact with each other, the Covid-19 pandemic is likely to be amplified (WHO, 2020b).
However, it is critical to recognize that the risk of infection spreading is not limited to the event itself. It’s not uncommon for people who are interested in attending an event to do so as part of a larger group that includes things like getting together in advance at a pub, going to the venue together for the event, and returning to the pub afterward (SPI-M-O, 2020b). It’s important to look at how people get to and from live events, as well as how they behave at all of these sites (which are generally less monitored than at venues). To deal with this, thoughtful consideration, coordination, and resourcing are required. This might entail staggered arrival and departure times, or simply providing more transportation in the days leading up to and following the event. Consider how the London Olympics coordinated the movement of hundreds of thousands of people through congested public transportation systems, and learn from the lessons learned there (IOC, 2013).
Consider both the risks of an event taking place and the risks of an event not taking place, as well. All live events were canceled in the UK and other countries at the start of the pandemic. Eventually, sporting events could be held without the presence of spectators in the stadium, but indoor music concerts were prohibited until at least the middle of 2020. However, if crowds are barred from attending football games (which take place in outdoor stadiums), they may instead gather in bars and private homes to watch the games (which, being indoors, create a greater risk of transmission). Although there are good epidemiological reasons for banning certain genres of music events, such as pop concerts, if the demographics of those affected are important (age and social class), then even if there are good epidemiological reasons for the decision (singing, dancing, and touching are more likely at pop concerts which increases the risk of transmission), it may still be seen as illegitimate, and so undercut (Reicher and Stott, 2020, SPI-B, 2020, SPI-B., 2020c).
People who attend these types of gatherings (e.g., sports and music arena events, as well as many theater, public performances) tend to have a different psychological experience than those who attend other common types of gathering such as shopping malls and transportation hubs. For the most part, people who attend the kinds of gatherings described here do so in order to socialize with others, especially those whom they perceive to share their goals – that is, to share their enjoyment of the event with others, and thus contribute to the ‘atmosphere’ (Bennett, 2015, Neville and Reicher, 2011, Templeton et al., 2020, Uhrich and Benkenstein, 2010). It is common for crowds at these events to be composed of a number of different psychological crowds (Neville and Reicher, 2011), each of which has its own level of shared social identity and the tendency to refer to itself as “we” or “us” (Drury et al., 2015, Novelli et al., 2013, Templeton et al., 2020). Two or more such psychological crowds (e.g., representing fans of each team and the police may be seen as a third group) are common at sporting events (Stott et al., 2007, Stott et al., 2001). Instead of showing up all by themselves, most people come in pairs or groups to these types of gatherings (Aveni, 1977, Neville and Reicher, 2011). They interact with strangers differently (in both quality and quantity) because they see the rest of the crowd at the event as “us,” rather than as mere physical crowds where there is no sense of shared identity or psychological unity (such as those at a shopping center or transportation hubs), despite this (Drury et al., 2015, Hopkins et al., 2019, Neville and Reicher, 2011, Novelli et al., 2013). Aside from the fact that many attendees have a digital network outside of the event itself, there will be a number of people they already know in attendance at these events (Billings et al. 2017; Lacasa and colleagues, 2016). As a result, a wide range of individuals from various social media platforms can engage in meaningful conversation (e.g., geographically, occupationally).
When compared to being in a physical crowd (e.g., a shopping mall crowd), people in a psychological crowd exhibit more of the following behaviors: proximity seeking (Neville et al., 2020b, Novelli et al., 2010, Novelli et al., 2013); interaction/talking (Dury et al., 2015); intimacy/touching (Hopkins et al., 2019, Neville and Reicher, 2011); mirroring of actions and (Hopkins and Reicher, 2017). Importantly, this applies to both total strangers and passing acquaintances in the crowd, as well as to friends and family members gathered together for a celebration.
Additionally, the physical environment of the venue, such as the flow and density of people, will influence how people behave in a crowd psychologically (Templeton et al., 2018). People may have to shout and stand closer to each other in order to communicate at loud music concerts (Graham, Wells, and West, 1997), and alcohol consumption can lead to increased risk-taking (Graham, Wells, and West, 1997), all of which increase the risk (Memish et al., 2019). In the following section, we discuss the importance of the physical environment in a COVID-19-mitigated event’s health outcomes.
When it comes to these types of gatherings, general or societal norms like politeness conventions shape behavior. However, group norms specific to a particular culture or genre moderate the crowd’s characteristic behaviors. Queues outside music venues, for example, are social systems with a set of rules (e.g., no pushing in), but some artists’ fans may have a set of additional rules for the queue (Helweg-Larsen and LoMonaco, 2008). If you’ve never been to a rock concert, for example, you might be surprised to learn that moshing (intense physical contact) (Spencer, 2014) is governed by a set of informal rules that limit the ‘violence’ to the area directly in front of the stage (Tsitsos, 1999).
All high-risk behaviors at large gatherings (singing, chanting, and dancing, drinking alcohol, and sharing food) have one thing in common: they tend to be normative to the group (Hopkins and Reicher, 2020, Stott et al., 2001, Stott et al., 2007). This could imply a number of things. To begin with, it means that the group expects and values them (Pearson, 2012). Second, it means that others join in when others begin (Mann et al., 2013). When people are more emotionally invested, their behavior will continue to be in line with these norms, but in a more extreme manner (rather than abandoning the norms) (Spears, 2021).
If you’re trying to stop these behaviors by coercively “policing” them out, it can lead to conflict and a loss of trust in the authorities (Reicher and Stott, 2020). In the case of preventing football fans from jumping up and down and cheering when a goal is scored, it is unlikely that simply prohibiting these behaviors and punishing those who violate the prohibition will be seen as legitimate (Reicher and Stott, 2020). Even attempts to prohibit the consumption of alcoholic beverages during football games, such as tailgating, can have the unintended consequence of raising the risks associated with other activities (Pearson and Sale, 2011).
Instead of chanting, shouting and hugging when a goal is scored, crowd members can work together to develop less risky expressions of these norms (Hopkins and Reicher, 2020). After that, we’ll talk about this.
To better understand how the pandemic affected crowd behavior at live events, it is important to look at broader trends in public beliefs and behaviors before and during the epidemic. Since physical distancing has been a key mechanism for preventing transmission and may be difficult to maintain at live events, proximity behaviors are particularly important. At present, there are four phases of the pandemic in the UK: (1) normal times, (2) the peak of “lockdown” (summer 2020), (3) when “lockdown” eases (spring/summer 2020), and (4) when an additional “wave” of transmission occurs (fall/winter 2020). (from September 2020). Afterwards, we examine how these trends may interact with live-event behavioral policies.
People’s desire to keep their distance from each other when they sit, stand, or move together varies depending on whether they are in a physical or psychological crowd (Neville and Reicher, 2011). Behavioural differences can be explained by varying levels of identity. When one’s personal identity is at stake (such as in crowded shopping malls or transportation hubs), people tend to keep their distance from random passersby (Novelli et al., 2010). Strangers are more likely to feel comfortable in close proximity at sporting events, festivals, music events, and some religious gatherings, where the proximity of others is not perceived as an invasion of personal space but rather as a shared’social identity space’ that is tolerable and even positive (Novelli et al., 2010, Novelli et al., 2013). People can also feel more secure in such close proximity during these kinds of events (Alnabulsi and Drury, 2014).
Damian Jacob Markiewicz Sendler: At an average of 135.1 cm, social interaction occurs between strangers in a formal setting and 91.7 cm between friends, according to research from 42 countries (Sorokowska et al., 2017). Smaller distances are more comfortable in psychological crowds than in physical ones. The most densely populated areas of a concert hall, for example, are often referred to as “the atmosphere” by some (Novelli et al., 2013). In front of the stage at these kinds of events, there is often a huge crowd (up to 9 people per square metre). Similar densities can be found in the bar area as well (although not as deep). In addition, restrooms are places where crowds congregate during intermissions in performances or games, resulting in an increase in population density. People will tolerate, enjoy, and even seek proximity in these areas around the venue and engage in forms of intimacy typical of psychological crowds (such as touching, coming close to others to speak into their ear, sharing drinks, and greeting others with handshakes, kisses, and hugs) in these places (Neville and Reicher, 2011).
This general tendency toward closer proximity and greater intimacy in psychological crowds can be overridden in certain circumstances by specific social norms, and this must be remembered. Even in large gatherings, such as religious festivals, some people show their intimacy with others by not interacting with them and allowing others to devote themselves to spiritual pursuits (Reicher et al., 2020). ‘Normative override’ may be useful in developing mitigations against proximity at live events, as we explain below (Drury et al., 2020).
A decrease in the percentages of people saying they adhered to all behavioral regulations, including physical distancing, was first noted in the UCL weekly survey on May 20 (Fancourt et al., 2020b), but the ONS survey on May 29 continued to show high observance of physical distancing (ONS, 2020b). After much media hoopla (including the use of terms like “freedom pass” and “end of lockdown”) and public debate, the Department of Homeland Security decided to relax some of the “lockdown” restrictions on July 4th. There were only about half of respondents who consistently maintained physical distancing in mid-July from the ONS (2020c) and the UCL survey (Fancourt et al., 2020c). There are a number of factors that could play a role in these trends (Drury et al., 2021): the decline in trust in the government, the decline in the sense of national unity, and the decline in the perception of risk (Duffy and Allington, 2020). (ONS, 2020b). Adherence and distancing remained high throughout the summer and early autumn, with little evidence of public ‘fatigue’ (Michie et al., 2020)
This spike in Covid-19 cases in the United Kingdom occurred from September 2020 to mid-November (Independent SAGE, 2020). By October, public stress levels had reportedly risen, indicating that people were becoming more aware of the danger (Fancourt et al., 2020d). As the number of cases and deaths continued to rise, a second UK-wide “lockdown” was put in place. Even though compliance with behavioral measures like distancing rose slightly in the summer months, it was still lower than in the spring lockdown (Fancourt et al., 2020e).
Live events may be affected by changes in general adherence. There are other developments (such as reopening of public schools and universities) that may also signal that the virus has receded and that precautionary measures (such as physical distance) are no longer necessary. (SPI-M-O 2020a; SPI-M-O 2020b; SPI-M-O 2020c). Not just at live events, but more broadly, this could lead to a rise in risky behavior, at a time when seasonality and the restart of school may significantly increase infection rates.
There are also reasons to believe that the impact of current social trends on proximity behaviors at large venues and live events could be moderated by (1) other behavioral trends and (2) interventions.
Damien Sendler: Some required behaviors, such as distancing, have seen a decrease in adherence, while others, such as closeness, have seen an increase. In July 2020, a survey of 2,237 UK residents found a significant rise in the use of face masks, from 19% in April to 70% in July (Allington et al., 2020). Face masks are widely believed to help reduce the spread of coronavirus (81% of people believe this), and in England, face masks will be required to be worn on public transportation and in retail establishments beginning on June 15, 2020 and July 24, 2020, respectively. ‘Covid-secure’ behaviors appear to be gaining traction, with 88% of respondents reporting that they wash their hands more frequently (Allington et al., 2020). Self-report may overstate the extent of these behaviors, and they are lower in some segments of the community more likely to attend live events (such as younger adults; Fancourt et al., 2020d), but as protective health behaviors become more widely accepted and normalized, it will be easier to implement them in public settings.
Damian Sendler
It may be easier to support and encourage protective health behaviors like mask wearing, physical distancing, and increased hand hygiene in venues where live events are held. As a result, it’s possible that they’ll help normalize and spread these behaviors. As a result of the shared identities and commitments to future events and the economic survival of the host (e.g. local football clubs, music venues), these events also represent opportunities to promote or reinforcing already normalized protective health behaviors, such as mask wearing, physical distance, and increased hand hygiene.
Other pandemic examples have shown that public perception that government decisions were incorrect (and required backtracking) has serious consequences for the public’s trust in government and thus their compliance with government advice (Fancourt et al., 2020f, Wright et al., 2020). Sporting authorities were widely criticized for holding large-scale events in March, when infection rates were on the rise (e.g., Wood and Carroll, 2020). If the reopening of events is linked to an increase in the number of cases, this will have a negative impact on public confidence in the pandemic’s management. However, evidence from autumn 2020 shows that the public supports tighter restrictions (YouGov, 2020), equity and therefore the legitimacy of some restrictions have become a concern for the government (Swift, 2020). If some live events are halted while others are not, the imposition of new restrictions could lead to discontent and even conflict (Reicher and Stott, 2020).
There are many factors to consider, including the local context and the prevalence of infection, when deciding whether or not to reopen. Health and Safety inspectors must also develop, validate, and monitor a comprehensive Covid safety plan. We’ve outlined a few specific ways to reduce the risk.
A month in advance, in keeping with the communication/co-production strategy outlined above, it may be beneficial to create a series of communications for attendees of the events/venues. Training courses can also be designed and run with and for staff responsible for public safety and public-facing roles at the event. A review of counter-terror training courses with industry stakeholders operating in crowded places in the UK identified the need for the inclusion of evidence-based design and evaluation to increase the likelihood of organisational learning (Aplin and Rogers, 2019). (Aplin and Rogers, 2019).
Since face coverings cannot completely prevent transmission (especially if they are not very well fitted), it will be necessary to establish with participants new norms for avoiding activities like cheering, chanting, dancing, or jumping, as described above – including alternatives to these activities.
Despite our best efforts, we could not come to a consensus on whether or not alcohol should be banned, so we urge further investigation. Alcohol has long been associated with the loss of self-control and inhibition that can accompany binge drinking (Graham et al., 1997), and there is new evidence to suggest that people who frequent bars and pubs are becoming less concerned with adhering to physical distance rules as their consumption increases (Fitzgerald et al., 2021). Evidence from football suggests that a more nuanced approach to controlling the availability of alcohol should be taken into consideration (Pearson, 2012, Pearson and Sale, 2011). Providing easy access to booze can be useful. Football stadiums may see an increase in early and staggered attendance if alcohol is served in the seated areas, reducing the strain on transportation and entry points, as well as concourses and areas near the restrooms. Their levels of drinking can be monitored as well as their behaviour, and they would not congregate as much as they would otherwise do in pubs prior to the event. As with pubs, any transgressions can lead to ejections, showing strong norm enforcement on the part of the stadium authorities. Fans may gather in pubs ahead of time, stay as long as they can to “load up” on beers before entering stadiums where a ban on alcohol could lead to traffic congestion at stadium entrance points and bathrooms (because they need to access them to urinate having drunk heavily before entry). In addition, they may be more difficult to control because they will be intoxicated when they arrive, and there will be no opportunity to use a graduated and differentiated approach to behavior management. An approach which enables alcohol to be served in the stadium in the way outlined (Pearson and Sale, 2011) could be combined with a communication strategy that discourages fans from ‘loading’ on alcohol before the game.
Damian Jacob Sendler
We could create a set of communications with and for the audience that cover these various points and that they would need to see and agree upon before attending the event. People might have to fill out a form before purchasing tickets online, for example, to accomplish this.
It’s critical to think about sanctions or incentives to encourage adherence to COVID-mitigated guidelines in addition to communication. There are two ways to go about this, just like when it comes to curbing violent or racist behavior in sports. However, this can also be applied at the organizational level. As a result, in football stadiums, those who break rules can be identified and sanctioned, such as being barred from the stadium. While sanctions can be imposed at the individual level, they can also be applied collectively. The club as a whole could be punished, including fines, fans barred from the ground, docking of points or even (as has been discussed in Scotland when players violated guidelines) stopping the sport altogether if there is a significant level of violation of the rules. Any sanctions must be used carefully and consistently, accompanied by strong messaging (using the principles of co-production and using ingroup voices as advocated above), in order to maintain their legitimacy. Individuals can be prevented from acting irresponsibly by creating strong collective pressures through the proper application of these tools.
Live event industry closure has already had a significant impact on society, and it is expected to have even more in the future. More than half a million jobs in the event industry are at risk, according to figures from the Event Industry Board published in December 2020. If live events are not resumed, three quarters of companies are expected to fold before February 2021. (Stainton, 2020). Such damage to the sector’s culture and psychology is likely to have a significant impact. For instance, the resurgence of illegal raves and unlicensed block parties was seen in 2020 after the closure of licensed events over the summer (SPI-B, 2020c). The risks of reopening live events and large venues must be understood and minimized. The field of behavioral science is well-suited to offering suggestions and assistance in this regard.
The types of live events covered in this article are mainly those where the attraction is to meet other like-minded individuals. For the most part, large social networks that aren’t normally in close proximity to one another are most at risk of virus spread in settings where there is a high degree of shared identity and, as a result, trust and intimacy. Risks associated with contact and proximity can be found at events that allow people to freely stand or move and where there is noise, music, or alcohol.
In addition, the degree to which people interact with each other during an event varies. People may not be able to freely stand while watching a sporting event in a stadium, but they can do so when getting refreshments. You can’t just apply a universal solution because it won’t work for every situation.
There are a number of methods available for reducing these dangers. There are several things that can help, such as redesigning and reorganizing the environment to allow for adequate ventilation, reducing the number of people in a space, requiring the use of face-coverings, providing refreshments in the seats, and setting up multiple hand-sanitizing stations.
Like other intimacy-related behaviors, the tendency of people in psychological crowds to move closer to each other can be influenced by specific group norms. For reshaping collective practices in a way that is less risky, an understanding of crowd psychology and, more specifically, the specific social identities of specific crowds is a powerful tool. It’s critical, however, that this is done with members of the group, led by members of the group, and communicated via members of the group.
Consider the fact that most venues have sophisticated surveillance and communication systems in place that can be particularly beneficial in terms of developing new methods of improving adherence. On the contrary, travel, gathering (e.g., in a pub) before and after the event pose the greatest challenges. This is why a holistic approach to risk assessment and plans for reopening live events must be taken in order to ensure their safety.