Factors associated with attendee adherence to COVID-19 guidance during the 2021 DCMS Events Research Programme Phase 1 (Final report)

Abstract

As part of the DCMS Events Research Programme 2021, we surveyed and interviewed attendees of the FA Cup Semi-Final (18th April), Carabao Cup Final (25th April), the FA Cup Final (15th May), the Snooker World Championship (17th April – 3rd May) and Sefton Park music event (2nd May) to examine attendee experiences of the events, perceptions of the COVID-19 guidance, and factors most associated with self-reported adherence.

Full text

1
Factors associated with attendee adherence to
COVID-19 guidance during the 2021 DCMS Events
Research Programme Phase 1 (Final report)
Authors
Anne Templeton, Kayleigh Smith, Klara Jurstakova, Jennifer Dang Guay, Oliver Ellis, Nuria
Martinez, Guanlan Mao, Yasemin Ulusahin, John Drury
Acknowledgements
Our thanks go to the participants who provided their views on the events and to the organisers
who provided help in distributing the study information.
Contents
1.
Executive summary
2
2.
Methodology
3
3.
Demographic information
4
4.
Analysis of spectator experiences across indoor, open-air, outdoor events and
across spectator numbers
8
4.1.
Comparison of self-reported adherence to different measures across all events
8
4.1.1
Comparison across event environments
9
4.1.2.
Comparison across occupancy levels
10
4.2
Qualitative analysis on ability to adhere to the guidance across environments and
occupancy levels
11
5.
Comparison of results from behavioural and self-report data on spectator
adherence to COVID-19 measures
12
6.
Identify risk factors associated with self-reported (non)adherence to COVID-19
guidance at events
14
6.1.
Barriers and facilitators associated with adherence
14
6.2.
Group factors associated with adherence
17
6.3.
Impact of vaccine status or having COVID-19 previously
18
7.
Understanding and developing communication strategies for the COVID-19
guidance
19
7.1.
Comparison of information sources
19
7.2.
Effective information sources
21
8.
Conclusions, limitations and next steps
21
8.1.
Key findings
21
8.2.
Comparison with observational data
22
8.3.
Limitations
23
8.3.
Recommendations
24
Appendix A: Online survey for FA Cup Semi-Final, Carabao Cup, FA Cup Final,
and World Snooker Championship
26

2
Appendix B: Interview schedule for A Cup Semi-Final, Carabao Cup, FA Cup
Final, and World Snooker Championship
45
Appendix C: Online survey for Sefton Park
46
Appendix D: Interview schedule for Sefton Park
63
1. Executive summary
As part of the DCMS Events Research Programme 2021, we surveyed and interviewed
attendees of the FA Cup Semi-Final (18th April), Carabao Cup Final (25th April), the FA Cup
Final (15th May), the Snooker World Championship (17th April – 3rd May) and Sefton Park
music event (2nd May) to examine attendee experiences of the events, perceptions of the
COVID-19 guidance, and factors most associated with self-reported adherence. This work is
intended to complement observational data from Movement Strategies on adherence to
COVID-19 measures at the same events by providing data on underlying processes. The key
findings are:
• Self-reported adherence to physical distancing guidance was lower in open-air events
and events that were ‘outdoor’ but in a tent compared to indoor events. This is, in part,
because open-air and ‘outdoor’ events were associated with lower perceived risk of
COVID-19 transmission.
• Adherence to physical distancing was lower at events with higher occupancies. Data
from some participants suggests this was partially due to more difficulty adhering in
higher densities (e.g., in barriers while queuing). However, data from the FA Cup
Final suggests reduced adherence to distancing at higher occupancy events may also
be due to greater numbers of regular attendees being present (i.e., season-ticket
holders) who were more comfortable in close proximity with others compared to
those who would did not regularly attend the events.
• There is good corroboration between the observed data collected by Movement
Strategies and the self-report data provided by attendees. The areas where the
observational data showed higher levels of non-adherence are the same areas where
attendees either reported seeing non-adherence or having greater difficulty adhering.
• The self-report data suggests that observed non-adherence such as lack of physical
distancing and mask wearing were associated with either lack of ability to adhere
(e.g., many people egressing at once) or lack of clarity about expected behaviour (e.g.,
difficulty hearing live announcements).
• The variables consistently associated with adherence across all events were: (1) trust
that the organisers had sufficiently prepared to keep attendees safe; (2) seeing other
attendees adhere to the measures; (3) and motivation to keep others safe. There were
different motivations expressed for keeping others safe: because attendees felt part of
a group, wanted events to reopen, or wanted to support the Events Research
Programme.

3
• Seeing other attendees adhere was associated with increased self-reported adherence
but seeing non-adherence from other attendees was associated with decreased self-
reported adherence.
• Pre-event communications were perceived as most effective for understanding the
COVID-19 guidance and allowed participants to plan safe behaviour at events. Pre-
event communications were rated as most effective compared to information available
online, information from stewards, announcements during events, and information
from other attendees. Announcements during the events and information from other
attendees were rated as the least effective methods of obtaining information.
• Limitations to the study include low response rates, limited validity due to a partially
unrepresentative sample of attendees who would not ordinarily attend events
1
, and
limited generalizability due to unique motivations for behaviour such as wanting to
support events reopening. Key differences between frequent attendees and those who
would not ordinarily attend are foregrounded throughout the report.
2. Methodology
In line with the SAGE EMG science framework for opening up group events
2
, we address the
priority research question ‘which characteristics of events and venues and behaviours likely
contribute most to transmission?’, with a focus on examining behavioural processes via self-
report measures. Specifically, we examine attendee experience, self-reported adherence,
perceptions of the COVID-19 guidance, and barriers to adherence. Our key objectives were
to:
1. Analyse spectator experiences across indoor and outdoor events and across spectator
numbers
2. Compare self-report data on spectator adherence to COVID-19 guidance with
observed data collected by Movement Strategies to suggest possible reasons for non-
adherence
3. Identify risk factors associated with (non)adherence to COVID-19 guidance at events
4. Gain data to inform communication intervention strategies at later events phases to
increase spectator adherence to COVID-19 guidance
We collected survey data from a total of 2,502 attendees across the FA Cup Semi-Final (277
participants, 9.79% response rate from 2,828 attendees), Carabao Cup Final (511 participants,
6.64% response rate from 7,700 attendees) and FA Cup Final (1,329 participants, 7.10%
response rate from 18,720 attendees) at Wembley stadium, the Snooker World Championship
(53 participants, response rate and number of attendees unknown) at the Crucible Theatre,
and the Sefton Park music event (332 participants, 5.44% response rate from 6,101 attendees)
in Liverpool as part of the DCMS Events Research Programme 2021. We also interviewed 37
1
44.5% of attendees were season-ticket holders, 7.7% were regular attendees (e.g., fans of the sport/musicians), 40% were
neither a season-ticket holder nor regular attendee, and 7.7% did not select a response.
2
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/emg-and-dcms-science-framework-for-opening-up-group-events-16-march-
2021

4
participants (5 participants from the FA Cup Semi-Final, 7 participants from the Carabao Cup
Final, 12 participants from the FA Cup Final, 8 participants from the Snooker World
Championship, and 5 participants from Sefton Park) all of whom had participated in the
survey. Of the surveyed participants, 44.4% were season-ticket holders, 7.8% were regular
attendees, 39.6% were neither, and 8.6% did not respond to this question. We provide effect
sizes and power analyses throughout this report, but it is important to note that the response
rates are low and some data is from a potentially biased sample of attendees who would not
ordinarily attend the events (see section 8.3 for further discussion about sample
generalisability).
We excluded participants who either did not indicate the event they attended, failed the
attention check, did not complete the survey, or were outliers. We also excluded survey
respondents who responded more than 10 days after the event (36 for the FA Cup Final and
22 for the Carabao Cup Final) since perceived safety in the crowd was significantly higher
and perceived risk of COVID-19 spread was significantly lower for those who participated
more than 10 days after the event, suggesting attendees evaluated the events as safer the
longer they participated post-event. An exception to this was the Sefton Park music event
where there were no statistically significant differences in answers given by respondents who
responded before (N = 283) and after (N = 49) the 10-day threshold, so we did not exclude
those who participated over 10 days after the event. We endeavoured to interview participants
within 10 days of the event attended, but this was not always possible due to participant
availability. Where interviews took place more than 10 days after the event, we recorded the
number of days since the event and compared the themes with data from attendees to assess
any impact on their perspectives. All interviews were included since no impact on the themes
was observed.
Full ethical approval was obtained by the University of Edinburgh School of Philosophy,
Psychology and Language Sciences Research Ethics Committee for both the online survey
(reference number 397-1920/6 approved 16th April 2021) and the interviews (reference
number 251-2021/3 approved 9th April 2021). All participants provided informed consent
prior to participating in the online surveys and interviews. Participants had to be over the age
of 18 to participate. All survey data was anonymised, and interviews were video recorded on
Zoom or Teams before being transformed into anonymised transcripts for analysis at which
point the videos were deleted.
3. Demographic information
Here we summarise the demographic information from the surveys and interviews, focusing
on gender, age, employment status, and vaccination status of the participants. Attendees of
the Events Research Programme included local residents and healthcare workers invited to
take part in the programme, as well as people who would typically attend the events. The
invited local residents and healthcare workers are not necessarily representative of people
who would attend future events, so we also report whether or not our participants were

5
frequent attendees of the event (for further discussion about limitations and generalisability
see Section 8.3).
Table 1. Summary of demographic information for survey data from FA Cup Semi-Final,
Carabao Cup, FA Cup Final, Snooker World Championship, and Sefton Park.
Surveys
FA Cup
Semi-Final
(N = 277)
Carabao
Cup Final
(N = 511)
FA Cup
Final
(N = 1329)
Snooker World
Championship
(N = 53)
Sefton Park
(N = 332)
%
%
%
%
%
Gender
Male
56.32
67.91
75.55
71.7
37.95
Female
43.67
32.09
24.05
28.3
61.14
Non-binary
0
0
0.15
0
0.30
Transgender
male
0
0
0.23
0
0
Prefer not to say
0
0
0
0
0.60
Age range
18-24
10.11
6.65
3.31
7.55
44.88
25-34
31.05
18.59
11.66
16.98
37.65
35-44
19.13
19.77
12.34
22.64
6.63
45-54
20.22
18.40
18.59
18.87
7.83
55-64
16.25
26.42
36.19
32.08
3.01
65-74
3.25
9.78
16.40
1.89
0
75-84
0
0.39
1.50
0
0
Prefer not to say
0
0
0
0
0
Employment
status
Full-time
80.14
73.78
64.26
67.92
58.43
Part-time
9.39
6.65
8.50
9.43
5.12
Unemployed
looking for
work
0.72
1.17
0.90
0
1.20

6
FA Cup
Semi-Final
Carabao
Cup Final
FA Cup
Final
Snooker World
Championship
Sefton Park
Employment
status
Unemployed
not looking for
work
0.36
0.59
0.60
0
0
Retired
3.61
10.76
22.72
15.09
0.60
Student
3.61
3.52
1.43
3.77
33.13
Disabled
0.36
0.98
0.45
0
0
Furloughed
1.44
0.98
0.23
3.77
1.20
Full-time carer
0
0.19
0.15
0
0
Prefer not to say
0.36
1.37
0.75
0
0.30
Vaccine status
Vaccinated
69.68
76.91
89.69
66.04
43.07
Not vaccinated
30.32
23.09
10.31
33.96
56.93
Had COVID-19
previously
22.74
17.22
14.07
11.32
29.82
Region
England
100
99.02
99.25
98.11
99.1
Scotland
0
0.39
0.23
0
0.3
Wales
0
0
0.45
1.89
0.3
Outside UK
0
0.59
0.08
0
0
Prefer not to say
0
0
0
0
0.3
Attendee type
Season-ticket
holder/regular
attendee
2.89
48.34
73.97
35.85
15.06
Neither season-
ticket holder
nor regular
attendee
27.79
51.66
36.03
62.26
84.94
Did not say
69.31
0
0
1.89
0

7
Table 2. Summary of the demographic information for interview data from FA Cup Semi-
Final, Carabao Cup, FA Cup Final, Snooker World Championship, and Sefton Park.
Interviews
FA Cup
Semi-Final
(N = 5)
Carabao
Cup Final
(N = 7)
FA Cup
Final
(N = 12)
Snooker
World
Championship
(N = 8)
Sefton Park
(N = 5)
N
N
N
N
N
Gender
Male
3
6
11
7
3
Female
1
1
1
1
2
Non-binary
1
0
0
0
0
Age range
18-24
0
1
1
0
1
25-34
0
0
1
2
1
35-44
3
1
1
0
1
45-54
1
4
1
2
1
55-64
1
0
3
2
1
65-74
0
1
5
2
0
Employment
status
Full-time
4
4
8
4
5
Unemployed
0
0
0
1
0
Self-employed
0
2
0
1
0
Retired
1
1
4
2
0
Vaccine status
Fully vaccinated
1
4
7
5
1
Not vaccinated
3
0
0
1
1

8
FA Cup
Semi-Final
Carabao
Cup Final
FA Cup
Final
Snooker
World
Championship
Sefton Park
Vaccine status
Received one
dose of the
vaccine
1
3
5
2
3
Attendee type
Regular
attendee/fan
1
2
9
5
N/A
Neither a regular
attendee nor fan
3
5
3
3
N/A
Did not say
1
0
0
0
N/A
4. Analysis of spectator experiences across indoor, open-air and ‘outdoor’ events
and across spectator numbers
Occupancy levels increased across the Wembley events (2,828 at FA Cup Semi-Final; 7,700
at Carabao Cup Final; 18,720 at FA Cup Final), the World Snooker Championship (325
people per day rising to 900 for the final), and there was almost full occupancy at Sefton Park
(6,101 attendees). The environments also differed across the events from open-air stadium
(Wembley), fully indoor arena (World Snooker Championship) and ‘outdoor’ area under
raised tent (Sefton Park). Adherence to physical distancing may be more difficult in higher
densities, leading people to be in closer proximity than the 1m safety guidelines even when
trying to maintain distance. Similarly, risk of transmission is lower in ‘outdoor’ areas which
may impact the prevalence of protective health behaviours. Sefton Park is a unique event
since physical distancing was required when queuing prior to entry, but inside neither
physical distancing nor face coverings were required, although the use of hand sanitiser was
encouraged. We compare self-reported behaviour across the events to explore whether
occupancy levels, environment type, and safety guidance were associated with reasons for
(non)adherence to the COVID-19 guidance.
4.1. Comparison of self-reported adherence to different measures across all events
We asked survey respondents to what extent they agreed they had adhered to safety measures
of physical distancing, face mask wearing, and hand hygiene at each event on a scale of 1 =
strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree.

9
Figure 1. Mean self-reported adherence to hand hygiene, face mask wearing, and physical
distancing across all events.
There was a significant interaction of event type on adherence
3
4
, whereby attendees of the
FA Cup Final self-reported lower overall adherence to physical distancing and face mask
wearing than attendees of the FA Cup Semi-Final, Carabao Cup Final, and the World
Snooker Championship from the 17th – 26th April. Further, attendees of Sefton Park self-
reported lower overall adherence to physical distancing than attendees of the FA Cup Semi-
Final and Carabao Cup Final (see Figure 1)
5
. Notably, there appears to be a trend of
diminished adherence over time, suggesting that time of the event is a possible confound. We
further explore the differences across event environments in Section 4.1.1, and across
occupancy levels in 4.1.2.
4.1.1. Comparison across event environments
We compared self-reported adherence across events that were fully indoor (Snooker World
Championship), in an open-air stadium (all Wembley events), and ‘outdoor’ under a raised
tent (Sefton Park). There was no main effect of event environment on self-reported adherence
to hand hygiene, face mask wearing, or physical distancing guidelines across events, but post
3
An a priori power analysis using G*Power for each separate test of mean differences across the six events of the Events
Research Programme on self-reported adherence to hand hygiene, physical distancing and face mask wearing revealed that
324 participants would be needed to detect a medium effect size (0.25), where alpha = .05, and power = .95. Our N = 2502.
4
There was a significant interaction of event type on measure of adherence (excluding Sefton Park), F(2, 4336) = 34.362, p
< .001, 𝜂2= 0.005, but this represents a very small effect. There was a significant effect of event on physical distancing
(including Sefton Park), F(5, 2496) = 21.007, p < .001, 𝜂2= 0.040, indicating a small to medium effect.
5
Post-hoc tests using Bonferroni corrections revealed that the FA Cup Final has lower overall adherence (physical
distancing M = 4.18, SD = 1.00) than the FA Cup Semi-Final (physical distancing M = 4.66, SD = .68; face mask wearing M
= 4.83, SD = .60, p < .001), Carabao Cup Final (physical distancing M = 4.54, SD = .77; face mask wearing M = 4.70, SD =
.76, p < .001), and the World Snooker Championship from the 17-26th April (physical distancing M = 4.64, SD = .60; face
mask wearing M = 4.88, SD = .42, p = .013). Post-hoc analysis using Tukey adjustments for multiple comparisons revealed
that Sefton Park has lower overall adherence to physical distancing measures (M = 4.30, SD = .96) than the FA Cup Semi-
Final and Carabao Cup Final, both p < .001.

10
hoc analysis showed that self-reported adherence to physical distancing was significantly
greater in indoor environments than in each of open-air and ‘outdoor’ events
6
7
.
4.1.2. Comparison across occupancy levels
The number of attendees rose across the Wembley events of the FA Cup Semi-Final (2,828
attendees), Carabao Cup Final (7,700 attendees), and the FA Cup Final (18,720 attendees).
We compared self-reported adherence to hand hygiene, face mask wearing, and physical
distancing at the events
8
. Self-reported adherence to all measures was significantly lower in
the FA Cup Final, which was an event with the highest occupancy and in a latest time-period
compared to the other events. There was significantly lower self-reported adherence to hand
hygiene at the FA Cup Final (highest occupancy) than the Carabao Cup (lower occupancy)
9
,
and lower self-reported adherence to physical distancing
10
and face mask wearing
11
at the FA
Cup Final (highest occupancy) than the Carabao Cup Final (lower occupancy), and FA Cup
Semi-Final (lowest occupancy).
The events with lower self-reported adherence to physical distancing are the same events
where attendees reported both feeling more comfortable in close proximity with others and
less ability to physically distance. Attendees of the FA Cup Final felt more comfortable in
close proximity to others compared to those who attended the Carabao Cup Final
12
. There
was also less perceived ability to physically distance and egress safely
13
at the FA Cup Final
than the other events, and less ability to distance and egress safely at the Carabao Cup than
the FA Cup Semi-Final
14
. Thus, overall, participants felt less able to maintain physical
6
An a priori power analysis using G*Power for each separate test of mean differences across the event environments on self-
reported adherence to hand hygiene, physical distancing and face mask wearing revealed that 252 participants would be
needed to detect a medium effect size (0.25), where alpha = .05, and power = .95. Our N = 2502.
7
F(2, 2499) = 2.522, p = .080,𝜂 2 = 0.002, representing a very small effect size. LSD post hoc analysis showed that self-
reported adherence to physical distancing was significantly higher in indoor environments (M = 4.60, SD = .72) than indoor
open-air (M = 4.33, SD = .93, p = .024), and outdoor (M = 4.30, SD = .96, p = .019). There were no significant differences
for self-reported adherence for face mask wearing and hand hygiene between the types of events, all comparisons p > .05.
8
An a priori power analysis using G*Power for each separate test of mean differences across the three events for Wembley
on self-reported adherence to hand hygiene, physical distancing and facemasks wearing revealed that 252 participants would
be needed to detect a medium effect size (0.25), where alpha = .05, and power = .95. Our N = 2117. The same information
applies to the analysis of comfort in close proximity, ability to physically distance, and ability to egress.
9
F(2, 2114) = 4.232, p = .015, 𝜂2 = 0.004, indicating a very small effect. Self-reported hand hygiene at the FA Cup Final (M
= 4.48, SD = .86) was lower than at the Carabao Cup Final (M = 4.60, SD = .79), p = .021.
10
F(2, 2114) = 50.229, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.045, indicating a small to medium effect. Physical distancing was significantly lower
at the FA Cup Final (M = 4.18, SD = .93) than the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 4.66, SD = .68, p < .001) and Carabao Cup (M =
4.54, SD = .77, p < .001).
11
F(2,2114) = 44.58, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.040, indicating a small to medium effect. Wearing of face masks was lower at the FA
Cup Final (M = 4.37, SD = 1.00) than the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 4.83, SD = .59, p < .001) and the Carabao Cup Final (M
= 4.70, SD = 76, p < .001).
12
F(2, 2114) = 3.123, p = .044, 𝜂2= 0.003, indicating a very small effect. There was significantly greater comfort in close
proximity at the FA Cup Final (M = 3.41, SD = 1.04) compared to the Carabao Cup Final (M = 3.28, SD = 1.00, p = .035).
There was a non-significant difference in comfort in close proximity between the FA Cup Final (M = 3.41, SD = 1.04) and
the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 3.35, SD = 0.94, p = 0.696), and between the FA Cup Semi Final (M = 3.35, SD = 0.94) and the
Carabao Cup Final (M = 3.28, SD = 1.00, p = .568).
13
F(2, 2114) = 20.970, p < .001, 𝜂2= 0.019, indicating a small effect. There was significantly lower perceived ability to
egress safely at the Carabao Cup Final (M = 3.73, SD = 1.22) compared to the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 4.07, SD = 0.98, p <
.001). There was also significantly lower perceived ability to egress safely at the FA Cup Final (M = 3.58, SD = 1.23)
compared to both the FA Cup Semi-Final (p < .001) and the Carabao Cup Final (p = .042).
14
F(2, 2114) = 53.79, p < .001, 𝜂2= 0.048, indicating a small to medium effect. There was significantly lower perceived
ability to physically distance at the Carabao Cup Final (M = 3.76, SD = 1.25) compared to the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 4.23,
SD = 0.96, p < .001). There was also significantly lower perceived ability to physically distance at the FA Cup Final (M =
3.43, SD = 1.27) compared to both the FA Cup Semi-Final (M = 4.23, SD = 0.96, p < .001) and the Carabao Cup Final (M =
3.76, SD = 1.25, p < .001).

11
distancing as occupancy rates increased. Across the events, those who were season-ticket
holders felt more comfortable in close proximity compared to those who would not ordinarily
attend the events
15
. This may explain why comfort in close proximity was higher in the FA
Cup Final which had the largest number of fans present and had the lowest self-reported
adherence to physical distancing measures.
Self-reported adherence to the safety measures was compared between participants who
attended the World Snooker Championship between the 17-26th April (lower occupancy) and
the 27th April - 3rd May (higher occupancy). Similarly, we compared responses for the two
time periods across comfort in close proximity with other attendees, ability to egress safely,
and ability to physically distance
16
. All comparisons were non-significant
17
.
Comparison for Sefton Park was not possible since it was a one-day event but the overall
impact of environment and occupancy is discussed in Section 4.2.
4.2. Qualitative analysis on ability to adhere to the guidance across environments and
occupancy levels
The event environment and occupancy levels were raised by interview participants as reasons
for perceived safety and subsequent (non)adherence to the safety guidance.
Across all events, interviewees reported that physical distancing during ingress and egress
was more difficult at event with higher occupancies. This is consistent with Movement
Strategies video data showing lower physical distancing in areas with higher attendee
numbers. For example, during the Snooker World Championship, where occupancy levels
increased up to full capacity of the venue, one participant said:
“When you actually entered in [through] the door, you were quite close to other people
and going up the sort of steps… it was fairly, fairly, close to other people (…). When
they let you out (…) I'd say it was still… it still felt fairly busy, to be honest.” (Snooker
World Championship Semi-Final, M, 26, full-time employed, one vaccine dose, non-
regular attendee).
The increased occupancy levels were particularly worrying for participants in the indoor
setting, while the ‘outdoor’ nature of Wembley and Sefton Park events was seen as a factor
which made participants feel safe. For example, an interviewee from Sefton Park stated:
“I think outdoors, you pretty much can do anything really, I do think the lack of
transmission is a massive thing” (Sefton Park, M, 24, full-time employed, not
vaccinated).
15
F(3, 2113) = 18.303, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.025, indicating a small effect. Comfort was higher for season-ticket holders (M =
3.51, SD = 1.02) than for those who would not ordinarily attend the event (M = 3.14, SD = 1.04), p < .001.
16
A post hoc power using G*Power with a sample size of 33 and 20 for the Snooker events on the 17th- 26th April and the
27thApril- 3rd of May 2021 respectively revealed that the statistical power for the test of mean differences on comfort in
proximity in the crowd was 0.45 with an effect size d = 0.53, ability to egress in the crowd was 0.13 with an effect size d =
0.23, ability to physical distance was 0.16 with an effect size d = 0.28, self-reported adherence to hand hygiene was 0.10
with an effect size d = 0.19, self-reported adherence to physical distancing was 0.07 with an effect size d = 0.12, self-
reported adherence to facemasks was 0.12 with an effect size d = 0.22.
17
All comparisons were non-significant at p > .05.

12
Even at the event with the highest level of occupancy, participants thought Wembley stadium
was not crowded:
“They were following the guidance. But, also, they were following the guidance
because there was space (…) it was the capacity was so so low, people were just
standing. I mean the groups, people standing around in groups which weren't socially
distanced. Let's be honest.” (FA Cup Final, M, 68, retired, fully vaccinated, fan).
However, across all occupancy levels, fans said that due to the ‘outdoor’ nature of the
Wembley events, they did not see the need to adhere to face mask wearing:
“Well, I don't think wearing a mask understands…I personally didn't think was
necessary 'cause like I said, we were spaced out and it was outdoors. I struggle to see
the benefit of that. (FA Cup Final, M, 52, full-time employed, one vaccine dose, fan).
The indoor setting of the Snooker World Championship events, on the other hand, was
associated with greater motivation to adhere to face mask wearing:
“If you've got a mask on then it means there's no medical reason not to wear it… So, to
have it on but not cover your nose is not considerate (…) as far as I'm concerned when
you're all in a relatively confined space and you're watching two people who are trying
their best to entertain us” (Snooker World Championship Final, M, 69, retired, one
vaccine dose, non-regular attendee).
5. Comparison of results from observational and self-report data on spectator
adherence to COVID-19 measures
Here we compare additional problems in adherence observed in Movement Strategies’
analysis of the same five events with barriers reported by the attendees in the interviews.
Table 3. Adherence issues identified in the observed data from Movement Strategies and
possible reasons indicated in the self-report measures and interviews
Observed issue
Possible reasons
Lack of physical distancing
in queues for entry
• Lack of ability to physically distance in crowd barriers
• Lack of clarity about why physical distancing was needed
prior to entry when there were no physical distancing
restrictions inside the event (Sefton Park)
Lack of physical distancing
and mask wearing in
hospitality areas
• Uncertainty about how to follow the guidance in
hospitality areas, including not being able to clearly hear
live announcements
• Taking mask off to eat and keeping it off when talking
Lack of physical distancing
during egress
• Lack of clarity about how to adhere
• Normative behaviour of leaving immediately if team loses

13
Lack of face mask wearing
in seating areas (at
Wembley)
• Lack of clarity about when face mask wearing was needed
due to open-air environment and seats arranged to observe
physical distancing
• Difficult to perform normative cheering and singing
behaviour in mask
Lack of hand hygiene
• Perceived return to normality (Sefton Park)
• Safety in ‘outdoor’ environment
Findings of the observed data from Movement Strategies suggest low physical distancing
within the queueing barriers at Wembley when crowd size increased. In line with this
observation, our participants frequently mentioned the difficulty of keeping physical distance
from each other in the queues:
“The barrier is set up to pick you up for it, which is a sort of zigzag, so everyone is very
close to each other without the mask. Indoors again, so that I- I thought there might be
some stricter enforcement of that.” (FA Cup Semi-Final & Carabao Cup Final, M, 42,
full-time employed, not vaccinated, neutral)
Similar issues were reported by the attendees in the hospitality areas:
“the queues even to get the food and that, they weren't probably 2 meters, they certainly
weren't 2 metres” (Carabao Cup Final, M, 72, retired, fully vaccinated, neutral).
In Sefton Park, where Movement Strategies reported lack of adherence to physical distancing
in the outside queues, participants in the interviews attributed the non-adherence to lack of
clarity about why physical distancing was needed:
“to be honest, I thought, what would be the point of people social distancing in the
queue to get in to get into the venue that we’d all been tested for, and that was why we
were being allowed in?” (Sefton Park, F, 53, full-time employed, fully vaccinated).
Consistent with observations made by Movement Strategies that mask wearing was low in
hospitality areas, some interviewed participants were not sure what measures applied in this
space:
“I've got the food and…and some some drink and I'm standing inside going…Oh, I can
take my face mask off…what do I do now, do take my face mask off here?” (Carabao
Cup Final, M, 39, self-employed, fully vaccinated, fan).
Consistent with Movement Strategies’ data on lack of physical distancing during egress,
another key risk area reported by most participants in the interviews was that there was lack
of clarity about how to egress:
“There were a few times where social distancing was harder, like when we were
leaving and everyone is leaving together” (FA Cup Final, F, 24, full-time employed,
fully vaccinated, neutral).
The lack of assistance with egress was also apparent in situations where it is normative for
fans of the losing team to leave at once and prior to the fans of the winning team:

14
“(..)but when you lose a match, you know, you lose a game, you just slope off.” (FA
Cup Final, M, 68, retired, fully vaccinated, fan).
Lack of mask wearing in the seating areas in Wembley reported by Movement Strategies was
also openly described by the interviewees. The reasons for non-adherence were attributed to
the difficulty to perform normative behaviours such as shouting or singing in a mask:
“it was sort of a put you mask on and take it off as soon as he [steward] turns the back
thing. Which, ehm, it sounds a bit rebellious, but it's common at football. (…)So it's like
a norm… if that makes any sense. (FA Cup Final, M, 52, full-time employed, one
vaccine dose, fan).
Movement Strategies observed a lack of physical distancing when queuing and low use of
hand sanitiser at Sefton Park. One of the reasons for decreased adherence to measures may be
that the temporary loosening of restrictions at the event lead the attendees to loosen their
adherence to COVID-19 safety measures in general. One participant mentioned feeling
strange returning to more cautious behaviour after experiencing the level of freedom allowed
at the festival:
“...it felt incredibly surreal to go from being that free to being cautious again” (Sefton
Park, F, 41, full-time employed, one vaccine dose).
Together, the observed and self-report data indicate that cases of (non)adherence are
associated with physical ability to follow the guidance, clarity of the communication, and the
behaviour of other attendees. We look further into the variables associated with
(non)adherence in Section 6 and focus on the role of communication approaches in Section 7.
6. Identify risk factors associated with self-reported non-adherence to COVID-19
guidance at events
6.1. Barriers and facilitators associated with adherence
We conducted a regression analysis to examine possible predictors associated with self-
reported adherence to hand hygiene, physical distancing, and face mask wearing across all
events
18
.
The recurring variables positively associated with adherence to the safety measures were (1)
trust that the organisers had sufficiently prepared to keep attendees safe, (2) seeing
other attendees adhere to the measure, and (3) motivation to keep others safe (see Table
4). Feeling safe in the crowd was negatively associated with adherence to all measures at all
events: the safer people felt, the less they adhered.
18
An a priori power analysis using G*Power with 7 predictor variables revealed the total sample size needed to find
variables associated with self-reported adherence separately to hand-hygiene, physical distancing, and face mask wearing
across all events is 95 participants to detect a medium effect size (0.25), where alpha = .05, and power = .95. Our N = 2502.

15
Table 4. Predictors associated with self-reported adherence to hand hygiene, physical
distancing, and face mask wearing across all events.
β
β(SE)
p
CI
Using hand sanitiser/washing hands
Lack of concern that other crowd
members could transmit COVID-19
-.148
.028
< .001
[-.203, -.093]
Trust in organisers
.110
.020
< .001
[.071, .149]
Seeing others adhere to the measure
.210
.016
< .001
[.178, .241]
Motivation to keep others safe
.120
.017
< .001
[.087, .153]
Feeling safe in the crowd
-.145
.028
< .001
[-.200, -.090]
Physical distancing
Feeling safe in the crowd
-.112
.031
< .001
[-.173, -.051]
Trust in organisers
.157
.023
< .001
[.112, .201]
Seeing others adhere to the measure
.257
.016
< .001
[.240, .303]
Motivation to keep others safe
.110
.017
< .001
[.077, .144]
Sufficient measures in place to
physically distance
.060
.020
.002
[.021, .099]
Comfort in close proximity to others
-.179
.021
< .001
[-.221, -.137]
Face mask wearing
Feeling safe in the crowd
-.248
.029
< .001
[-.305, -.190]
Trust in organisers
.141
.020
< .001
[.101, .181]
Motivation to keep others safe
.147
.017
< .001
[.113, .181]
Seeing others adhere to the measure
.210
.014
< .001
[.181, .238]
Notably, the motivation to keep others safe may at least in part have been due to motivation
to help events reopen or support the Events Research Programme, and therefore may not be
valid for future events. This is supported by the interview data which indicated that
motivation to return to live events and motivation to contribute to the Events Research
Programme influenced adherence to the guidance. The interviews also indicated that trust in
organisers influenced adherence to the guidance, but barriers to adherence included seeing
others non-adhere, and trying to engage in previously normative behaviours.
Key demographic differences included:
● Female attendees reported higher adherence than male attendees to hand hygiene,
physical distancing, and face mask wearing.
19
● Season-ticket holders at the sporting events self-reported lower adherence to hand
hygiene, physical distancing, and face mask wearing than attendees who were fans of
the sport but not season-ticket holders and those who were neither (i.e., locals invited
to attend as part of the Events Research Programme who would not ordinarily attend).
19
Hand hygiene: F(3, 2166) = 22.691, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.030, indicating a small to medium effect. Tukey post hoc tests
showed that female attendees reported higher adherence (M = 4.75, SD = .61) than male attendees (M = 4.45, SD = .89), p <
.001. Physical distancing: F(3, 2166) = 11.986, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.019, indicating a small effect. Tukey post hoc tests showed
that female attendees reported higher adherence (M = 4.50, SD = .83) than male attendees (M = 4.25, SD = .96), p < .001.
Mask wearing: F(3, 2166) = 21.321, p < .001, 𝜂2 = 0.029, indicating a small effect. Tukey post hoc tests showed that female
attendees reported higher adherence (M = 4.74, SD = .66) than male attendees (M = 4.43, SD = .98), p < .001.

16
A recurring theme in the interviews was the participants’ motivation to follow the safety
measures to ensure the successful return to live events:
“I am desperate... to get back to…watching my team..in the stadium… if I can do
anything to ameliorate that process, I'm willing to do it. So that's why I was behaving
myself a 100%...and…and…if if they wanted to the, do the…monitoring, testing,
checking, you name it…I was willing to go with it…” (FA Cup Semi-Final, M, 65,
retired, fully vaccinated, neutral).
The motivation to return to ‘normal’ was then also a factor associated with keeping others
safe:
“I try to ensure that things are done the correct way and in compliance with the law
and stuff. (…) We’ve got a think about us and others around us moving forward
(Snooker World Championship Final, M, 48, full-time employed, fully vaccinated,
regular attendee).
A consistent motivating factor for adherence across the events were cases when participants
identified with the venue itself or the Events Research Programme. According to the
interview data, this was particularly true for attendees of the earlier pilot events. For example,
one participant said:
“there was also being part of the study, so it felt like quite, a quite momentous occasion
being on the first people to see live sport since the pandemic started.” (FA Cup Semi-
Final, M, 38, full-time employed, not vaccinated, neutral).
Seeing safety being carefully monitored at the events built trust in the organisers, and this
was associated with lower perceived risk of COVID-19 spread at all events. Ensuring
negative results of the lateral flow tests was seen a particularly effective safety measure that
reduced the perceived risk. For example, an attendee at Sefton Park said:
“Yeah I think the people on the gates, you know, checking and making sure (…) I
thought “oh you know, they’re doing it properly, they're not just waving everyone in
without looking” (Sefton Park, F, 53, full-time employed, fully vaccinated).
This is supported by an attendee of the Carabao Cup Final who said:
“And knowing that it's in a safe setting…that the authorities…and the stadium,
the…event planners are kind of taking all the precautions for the safety of my
attendance in the event. Also, knowing that all people were lateral flow tested or
negative at that time….” (Carabao Cup Final, M, 48, full-time employed, fully
vaccinated, fan).
In contrast, seeing others non-adhere was associated with higher identification as a football
fan in Wembley events, which motivated participants to enjoy the games in normative ways
(e.g., loudly cheering), but also decreased motivation to adhere to the safety measures:

17
“the vast majority didn't wear, wear masks….And…when we scored there was some
quite a group sort of got together hugging each other, all the social distancing just flew
out the window then (…) they just…abandoned everything and went for it and then they
spent most of the game together...” (FA Cup Final, M, 52, full-time employed, one
vaccine dose, fan).
6.2. Group psychology factors associated with adherence and non-adherence
Motivation to adhere to the safety measures in relation to feeling as part of a group was
mentioned across the interviews. However, in other instances, feeling part of a group was
associated with non-adherence due to the nature of the group norms.
In World Snooker Championship events and in Sefton Park, a sense of being part of a group
was associated with adherence to safety measures. For example, the feeling of being part of a
‘snooker family’ enhanced the participants’ motivation to follow safety measures:
“I know it's a hackneyed old expression in every sport, but I really felt it was a…I
really felt it was a snooker family coming together to take this giant step [towards
normality] (...)[The safety measures] It was necessary this year. In 2022 I would still
say it was at least desirable” (Snooker World Championship Final, M, 72, retired, fully
vaccinated, regular attendee).
The sense of being part of ‘everyone working together’ towards the success of the event was
also apparent in peoples’ motivations to adhere:
“I think we’ve got to a point now where everyone is happy to play their part, I mean
we’ve played our part for over a year, to make sure we get back to doing good things
again.” (Sefton Park, M, 24, full-time employed, not vaccinated, regular attendee).
However, in some cases belonging to a group also promoted risky behaviours, especially in
cases where particular behaviours were usually normative for the event, such as being in
close proximity with others:
“But then as the…you know…the atmosphere grows and people are kind of naturally
pulled together a bit (…) So that was good in terms of the atmosphere, but obviously it
crossed my mind that if I was there…the distancing..you know..may or may not be the
problem.” (Carabao Cup Final, M, 48, full-time employed, fully vaccinated, not a usual
attendee).
The relationship between feeling safe and lowered adherence is supported by the survey data,
but specifically the analysis suggests that the more respondents felt in the same group with

18
others (had a shared social identity with them), the safer they felt, and in turn, the lower they
reported adherence to the safety measures
20
.
Figure 2. Mediation analysis depicting relationship between shared social identification with
other attendees and self-reported adherence via perceived safety.
6.3. Impact of vaccine status or having COVID-19 previously
Across all events, perceived importance of the safety measures (e.g., limits to the number of
people who can attend, queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance
and face masks being worn by attendees) differed between attendees who had received the
COVID-19 vaccine and those did not, and between attendees who previously had COVID-19
and those did not. Overall, those that received the vaccine reported higher importance of the
safety measures, including limits to the numbers of people who can attend, queuing systems
designed in line with physical distancing guidance, and face masks being worn by the
attendees, compared to those that were not vaccinated against COVID-19
21
. Similarly, those
that did not previously have COVID-19 reported more importance of face masks being worn
by attendees and queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance, and
20
There was a significant direct effect of shared social identity on self-reported adherence for handwashing, b = 0.106, z =
4.143, p < .001, but not for wearing a face mask, b = -0.040, z = -1.572, p = .116 or physical distancing b = 0.014, z = 0.623,
p = .534. There was a significant partial mediation effect of shared social identity on self-reported adherence via perceived
safety for hand hygiene, b = -0.031, z = -4.107, p <.001, and indirect effect on physical distancing, b = -0.034, z = -4.200, p
<.001, and wearing a face mask, b = -0.044, z = -5.699, p <.001. The total effects were: hand hygiene: b = 0.075, p = .002, z
= 3.084; wearing a face mask, b = -0.084, p < .001, z = -3.489, and physical distancing, b = -0.020, p = .338, z = - 0.959.
21
A post hoc power using G*Power with a sample size of 1956 for attendees who received a COVID-19 vaccine and 546 for
those that did not, across all events, revealed that the statistical power for each separate test of means differences on comfort
in proximity and perceived importance of the safety measures, including limits to the number of people who can attend,
queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance and face masks being worn by attendees exceeded .99
for the detection of medium effect size.

19
lower comfort in close proximity compared to those that had COVID-19 previously
22
23
.
However, it is worth noting that many of the attendees were health care workers who were
likely to be vaccinated and believe the safety measures to be important, which might not be
applicable to future events with regular attendees.
7. Understanding and developing communication strategies for the COVID-19
guidance
7.1. Comparison of information sources
Clear communication about how to follow the COVID-19 safety measures is crucial to ensure
that spectators know how to adhere. We asked spectators how effective they found different
sources of information about the guidance, from 1 = very ineffective to 5 = very effective
(see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Perceived effectiveness of communication method across all 6 events. In order of perceived
effectiveness: from other attendees (M = 3.24, SD = .94), announcements during the event (M = 3.44,
SD = 1.06), event stewards (M = 3.86, SD = 1.09), events signage (M = 3.93, SD = .92), information
available online (M = 3.98, SD = .87), and pre-event communications (M = 4.25, SD = .84).
22
A post hoc power using G*Power with a sample size of 443 for attendees who had COVID-19 previously and 2059 for
those that have not, across all events, revealed that the statistical power for the test of means differences on comfort in
proximity was 1.00 with an effect size of d = 0.46 (medium effect), perceived importance of face masks being worn by
attendees was 0.96 with an effect size of d = 0.19 (small effect) and perceived importance of queuing system designed in
line with physical distancing guidance was 0.89 with an effect size d = 0.17 (small effect).
23
Vaccinated respondents reported higher importance on the safety measures, including limits to the numbers of people who
can attend (M = 3.62, SD = 1.18 vs. M = 3.24, SD = 1.25), queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing
guidance (M = 3.79, SD = 1.15 vs. M = 3.41, SD = 1.25) and face masks being worn by attendees (M = 3.60, SD = 1.30 vs. M
= 2.97, SD = 1.44) compared to those that were not vaccinated against COVID-19, all at p < .001. Those that did not
previously have COVID-19 reported more importance on face masks being worn by attendees (M = 3.51, SD = 1.35 vs. M =
3.25, SD = 1.36) and queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance (M = 3.74, SD =1.17 vs. M = 3.54,
SD = 1.21), and lower comfort in close proximity (M = 3.46, SD = 1.05 vs. M = 3.74, SD = 1.05), compared to those that had
COVID-19 previously, all at p < .01.

20
Across all events, pre-event communications were rated significantly more effective than all
other methods, followed by information available online, and information from stewards.
Announcements during the events were rated consistently as one of the least effective
methods of communication about the COVID-19 guidance
24
.
Interviewees reported that communication prior to all events was clear. The primary mode
was communication via email that included information about safety measures directly on the
tickets:
“So yeah basically just the email information that we had. I mean obviously I could
have searched myself, but I didn't need to because we were getting that much contact
and that. It was, it was good.” (Sefton Park, M, 33, full-time employed, one vaccine
dose).
However, some attendees raised a concern about the lack of clear communication about
where to get a COVID-19 test which would be accepted by the venues before the events:
“I can't remember what the term was, but we had to go to an assisted testing centre.
(...) Uh, and that caused a little bit of confusion because we on the link that we were
sent we could see our local testing centres, but we didn't know if it offered this assisted
term (...) So, I think that that could have been made a little bit clearer” (FA Cup Final,
M, 26, full-time employed, one vaccine dose, fan).
Communication during the event consisted of public announcements and guidance from
stewards, which was seen as effective. However, some attendees reported issues with the
ability to hear public announcements which limited their ability to adhere, particularly during
intervals and egress. In the Snooker World Championship events, issues with clarity of
communication were reported especially during the interval breaks:
“it was the first time I've been to snooker as well, so I wasn't sure what was to do with
covid and what (...) so I'm not sure… It was a bit confusing to be honest” (Snooker
World Cup Semi-Final, M, 26, full-time employed, fully-vaccinated, non-regular
attendee).
Some participants raised that there was a lack of clarity about whether taking the COVID-19
test after the events was optional or mandatory and this impacted their motivation to take the
test:
24
Across the events, there was a significant difference in how effective attendees rated communication methods, F(4, 12485)
= 676.536, p < .001, 𝜂2 = .116, indicating a large effect. Post-hoc comparison using tukey adjustment for multiple
comparisons revealed that pre-event communications were rated significantly more effective than all other sources at p <
.001. Information from events signage was rated second most effective and significantly more effective than information
from stewards, announcements during the event and information from other attendees, all at p < .001. Information from
stewards was rated as the third most effective method, and this was higher than live announcements during the event and
information from other attendees, both at p < .001. Announcements during the event were rated as significantly less effective
than all other methods of communication except information from other attendees, all at p < .001.

21
“...without the sort of connection with how it is being done and the fact that it was,
seemed very optional, I wasn't sure how effective that would be. So why would I go
through that effort as well? And do that so I didn't bother with the after game test?”
(FA Cup Semi-Final, M, 42, full-time employed, not vaccinated, neutral)
7.2. Who attendees look to for information
Across the events, attendees looked most to stewards for information compared to other
attendees and players/musicians
25
. In most events, other attendees were looked to more than
the players/musicians
26
, except at the World Snooker Championships.
Previous research from social psychology suggests that in novel situations, people’s actions
are influenced by those who they perceive to be part of their group
27
. Since self-reported
adherence was associated with the perception of being in a group with others (see Section
6.2), we also compared who attendees looked to for information with the extent to which they
felt in a group with them. There was a positive association between feeling part of a group
with the sources of information and looking to them for information
28
.
8. Conclusions, limitations and next steps
This study contributes evidence on processes associated with (non)adherence to the COVID-
19 guidance during the Events Research Programme. Notably, the self-report data broadly
mirrors the observed findings from Movement Strategies (see Sections 5 and 8.2) but add
information about the reasons associated with (non)adherence. In this section, we summarise
the key findings, compare the self-report and observed data, note the study limitations, and
make recommendations for future events.
8.1. Key findings
The variables positively consistently associated with self-reported adherence to the safety
measures at all events were trust that the organisers had sufficiently prepared to keep
attendees safe and seeing other attendees adhere to the measure. However, seeing the
behaviour of others was a double-edged sword. On one hand, observing others adhere was
associated with a cascading effect of higher self-reported adherence to the same measures,
but seeing non-adherence was associated with lower adherence. This was especially the case
25
F(2, 4994) = 1587.325, p < .001, 𝜂2 = .206, indicating a large effect. Post-hoc comparison using Tukey adjustment for
multiple comparisons found that across all events, attendees looked significantly more to stewards for information (M =
3.29, SD = 1.24) compared to other attendees (M = 2.33, SD = 1.22) and players (M = 1.86, SD = 1.10). It was also found
that attendees looked significantly more to other attendees for information (M = 2.33, SD = 1.22) than players (M = 1.86, SD
= 1.10), all p < .001.
26
Attendees looked significantly more to other attendees for information (Sefton Park: M = 2.73, SD = 1.21; FA Cup Semi-
Final: M = 2.36, SD = 1.29; FA Cup Final: M = 2.24, SD = 1.16) compared to the players/musicians (Sefton Park: M = 2.14,
SD = 1.15; FA Cup Semi-Final: M = 1.88, SD = 1.12; M = 1.79, SD = 1.12; FA Cup Final: M = 1.80, SD = 1.05), all p <
.001.
27
Drury, J., Brown, R., Gonzalez, R., & Miranda, D. (2015). Emergent social identity and observing social support predict
social support provided by survivors in a disaster: Solidarity in the 2021 Chile earthquake. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 46, 209-233. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2146
28
Stewards, r = .362, p < .001; players/musicians, r = .402, p < .001; and other attendees, r = .267, p < .001.

22
when frequent attendees (i.e., season-ticket holders) were together and saw others engage in
behaviours normally expected as part of events that are now unsafe, such as taking off face
masks to assist chanting and singing to support players.
Adherence to physical distancing was higher in indoor than open-air or ‘outdoor’ events. This
appears to be related to attendees’ perception that there was less risk of COVID-19
transmission in open-air and ‘outdoor’ events. Consistently throughout the interviews,
attendees appeared to make personal risk assessments about the level of risk which impacted
their adherence. Thus, it is important that participants are provided with appropriate
information about why the safety procedures are necessarily and how to follow them to
enable them to make informed choices (see Section 8.4 for recommendations).
The importance of risk awareness was also related to physical distancing as occupancy levels
increased and the attendee demographic returned to those who would ordinarily attend
events. On the one hand, participants reported difficulty following the physical distancing
guidance as occupancy rates increased (e.g., when in queuing barriers and exiting venues)
and some expressed concern about the risk this posed. Season-ticket holders, however, were
comfortable in close proximity to others, and the observational data suggests clustering
occurred in fan zones even when physical space was available. It is vital that venues provide
the physical opportunity to adhere to the safety measures at all stages of the event, but also
that organisers are aware of potential factors associated with lack of physical distancing, such
as fans feeling comfortable around fellow group members or wanting to be close to them.
Effective communication was vital to allow participants to adhere to the guidance. Pre-event
communications were perceived as most effective across all events to allow participants to
plan safe behaviour and obtain a lateral flow test prior to entry. Lack of clarity about how to
behave was associated with non-adherence at all events, particularly during intervals and in
hospitality areas where attendees could not properly hear live announcements detailing the
safety guidance. Stewards were viewed as particularly effective sources of information due to
being approachable. The perceived approachability was related to stewards being seen to
intervene without being over-bearing if non-adherence occurred, thus fostering positive
relations with attendees.
8.2. Comparison with observational data
Overall, there is good corroboration between the observed data collected by Movement
Strategies and both the self-report survey and interview data analysed here. Combined, the
observed and self-report data can be used to identify both where key areas of non-adherence
occur and why they occur.
The self-report data suggests that observed non-adherence such as lack of physical distancing
and mask wearing were associated with lack of ability to adhere (e.g., queuing in crowd
barriers) and/or lack of clarity about expected behaviour (difficulty hearing live
announcements). Non-adherence was particularly prominent in the fan zones at Wembley
where fans engaged in behaviours that are normally normative (i.e., before COVID-19) but
are now potentially unsafe (e.g., singing without a face mask, leaving immediately if the
supported team loses). Again, this demonstrates the need for venues to provide the physical

23
opportunity for attendees to adhere, clear guidance about why adherence is needed and how
to adhere, and to identify potentially risky behaviours that may be expected as part of the
event to plan for alternative safe behaviours (see Section 8.4 for recommendations).
8.3. Limitations
There are several limitations to the study and therefore the implications for future events.
The study achieved a low response rate at each event (see Section 2) meaning that there were
many participants’ views and perspectives we could not obtain. Our sample is also not
entirely representative of usual attendees at the events since attendees were also comprised of
healthcare workers and local inhabitants asked to join as part of the Events Research
Programme (this was less the case for the FA Cup Final, see Tables 1 and 2 for percentages
and numbers of attendees who were season-ticket holders, fans, or neither). Self-reported
adherence was lower for season-ticket holders than non-regular attendees, and the
observational data suggested lower adherence in fan zones than neutral zones. Thus, the data
from season-ticket holders and other fans are the most representative for understanding likely
adherence at future events where most attendees will be season-ticket holders or fans.
Nonetheless, the data from all participants provides useful information on reasons for non-
adherence, such as lack of clarity of information and physical constraints to adherence.
The applicability of some of the results is also limited because participants repeatedly
reported being motivated to follow the safety measures to facilitate the safe return to live
events and/or support the Events Research Programme. This may mean that the self-reported
adherence is inflated and not representative of what might take place at later events.
Nonetheless, interviewed participants were particularly open about reasons for non-adherence
that could be relevant for future events, such as meeting in houses with others prior to the
event as part of the normal pre-game routine.
Another way in which the event environments differ from normal events is that many
attendees did not take public transport for their journey
29
, instead opening for private
transportation or walking. Travel to and from events on public transport were raised as areas
of concern for some attendees due to inability to physical distance and other passengers not
wearing face masks properly. For future events where travel on public transport will be more
frequent, in line with suggestions made in a paper by SPI-B (2020)
30
, future event planning
should include focus on the entire spectator journey, including to and from events as potential
areas of risk.
Finally, the data for the World Snooker Championship is divided into two dates (17-26th
April and 27th April-3rd May). As such, we only have aggregated data for each week and not
29
37.1% used public transport for all of their journey, 9.8% used public transport for part of their journey, 12.1% travelled
by coach, 11% walked, 19% drove their own vehicle, 3.5% were dropped off by family or a friend, 6.3% took a taxi, 0.3%
cycled, and 1% selected ‘other’.
30
SPI-B (2020): Consensus statement on the reopening of large events and venues, 19 August 2020.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/spi-b-consensus-statement-on-the-reopening-of-large-events-and-venues-19-
august-2020https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105243

24
fine-grained analysis on variables such as self-reported adherence each day as occupancy
rates increased.
7.4. Recommendations
Here we draw out from our findings five key recommendations for maximizing COVID-
secure behaviours at live events.
(i) Ensure attendees can adhere to physical distancing guidelines at all stages of the event.
Providing the opportunity for attendees to adhere is essential to mitigate risks, so organisers
should provide physical opportunity to adhere throughout the entire event. This includes
when attendees are behind crowd barriers prior to entry, and in potentially less structured
zones such as during intervals and egress.
(ii) Provide clear guidance about why the safety measures are necessary, how to adhere to the
measures, and what precautions the organisers have taken to facilitate attendee safety
31
. Clear
guidance should be present at all stages of the event and should be provided in multiple
accessible forms (e.g., live signage, stewards, and live announcements) to mitigate the
potential that communication is missed (e.g., being unable to hear live announcements in
hospitality areas due to noise). Guidance should be consistent across all mediums to avoid
ambiguity.
(iii) Event organisers should make clear what measures they are taking to facilitate attendee
safety and why, but it is vital that attendees are still aware of the risks posed by COVID-19
and the importance of following the safety guidance. For example, make clear why seating is
designed in line with physical guidance and the importance of spectators avoiding changing
seats that might disrupt the physical distancing plans and increase risk.
(iv) Use effective communication sources such as players/ artists, clubs and stewards to
facilitate adherence to the guidance. Attendees were most likely to look for information about
how to act from those they felt were part of their group, thus making those sources a
potentially influential medium to communicate safe behaviour. Organisers can identify who
is seen by fans as a part of the group and consider using them to deliver messages about the
safety guidance. Levels of self-reported adherence were related to the extent others were
perceived to be adhering, so it is vital that influential members (e.g., players, club
representatives) are seen to be following the guidance.
(v) Be aware of normally normative behaviour occurring and posing risks, and promote
possible alternative safe behaviours (for more detail on social norms, see Neville et al.,
2021
32
; Templeton et al., 2020
33
). For example, fans of the losing team tend to leave quickly
31
Drury, J., Carter, H., Cocking, C., Ntontis, E., Tekin Guven, S., & Amlôt, R. (2019). Facilitating collective psychosocial
resilience in the public in emergencies: Twelve recommendations based on the Social Identity Approach. Frontiers in Public
Health. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00141
32
Neville, F., Templeton, A., Smith, J., & Louis, W. R., (2021). Social norms, social identities and the COVID-19
pandemic: Theory and recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, e12596.
https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12596
33
Templeton, A., Smith, K., Dang Guay, J., Barker, N., Whitehouse, D., & Smith, A. (2020, October 15). Returning to UK
sporting events during COVID-19: Spectator experiences at pilot events. Sports Ground Safety Authority

25
at the end of the game which can lead to close proximity during busy egress. Organisers can
provide practical alternative behaviours such as managed staggered egress (e.g., see the
egress measures used in English teams’ games in Europe). However, they can also work with
expected normative behaviour to facilitate safety in a way that is seen to be in the group
interest. One example would be to mitigate fans taking off their face masks to chant in
support of players by emphasising that wearing face masks when chanting allows live crowd
events to occur and thus allows the fans to support the players.
https://sgsa.org.uk/spectator-experiences-at-pilot-events/returning-to-uk-sporting-events-during-covid-19-analysis-of-
spectator-experiences-at-pilot-events/

26
9. Appendices (survey and interview schedule)
Appendix A: Online survey for FA Cup Semi-Final, Carabao Cup, FA Cup Final, and
World Snooker Championship
Experiences of crowd events during Covid-19
Please mark either 'yes' or 'no' for every statement below:
Yes
No
I have read and understood the
Participant Information Sheet
o
o
I am aware of the potential risks
(if any)
o
o
I am taking part in this research
study voluntarily (without
coercion)
o
o
The anonymised data only may be
shared in public research
repositories
o
o
I consent to take part in the above
study, including the anonymised
results of video recording being
used in analysis
o
o
I consent to take part in the above
study
o
o
Please enter a unique identifier code made up of the first 3 letters of your mother's maiden name, the
first 2 numbers of your date of birth. This is to keep the data anonymous but ensure that you can
withdraw at any point until the study is written up by providing the unique identifier code to the
research team. For example, if your mother's maiden name is Herbert, you were born on the 28th July
your unique identifier code would be HER-28.
________________________________________________________________

27
Please select the event you attended from the dropdown menu below.
▼ 17th-26th April - Snooker World Championships ... 27th April-3rd May - Snooker World
Championships
Please rate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Keeping other
attendees safe
was important
to me
o
o
o
o
o
I was motived
to help others
keep safe
o
o
o
o
o
Supporting my
club is
important to me
o
o
o
o
o
Supporting my
club was a
major
motivation in
attending the
event
o
o
o
o
o
It is important
to me to follow
the COVID-19
safety guidance
o
o
o
o
o
I was focused
on following
the COVID-19
safety guidance
o
o
o
o
o
Please rate how unimportant or important the following safety measures are to you.

28
Limits on the number of people who can attend
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Seats spaced in line with physical distancing guidance
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important

29
Face masks being worn by attendees
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree that each restriction impacted your enjoyment of
the event.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
disagree nor
agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Limits of
number of
people who
could attend
o
o
o
o
o
Physical
distancing in
queuing
o
o
o
o
o
Physical
distancing in
sitting/standing
in spectator
areas
o
o
o
o
o
Wearing of face
mask
o
o
o
o
o

30
Would you recommend friends and family to attends events with similar measures in place?
o Yes
o Maybe
o No
Below are a number of ways that safety information may have been communicated to attendees at
events. Please rate the extent to which you found the communication approach ineffective or effective
at your event.
Very
ineffective
Ineffective
Neither
ineffective or
effective
Effective
Very effective
Pre event
communications
o
o
o
o
o
Events signage
o
o
o
o
o
Event stewards
o
o
o
o
o
Announcements
during the event
o
o
o
o
o
Information
available online
o
o
o
o
o
Information
from other
attendees
o
o
o
o
o

31
Below are questions about the safety information and safety measures. Please rate the extent to which
you disagree or agree with the following statements.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I was provided
with sufficient
practical
information
about what to
do when
leaving the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
I understood
what actions
were expected
of me when
leaving the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
I was provided
with sufficient
practical
information
about how to
follow physical
distancing
measures
o
o
o
o
o
I understood
what physical
distancing
actions were
expected of me
during the
event
o
o
o
o
o
Planned egress
helps to keep
attendees safe
o
o
o
o
o
Planned egress
helps attendees
to egress
efficiently
o
o
o
o
o
Page Break

32
Please rate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
There were
sufficient
measures in
place to egress
safely
o
o
o
o
o
The organisers
helped the
attendees
prepare for
egress
o
o
o
o
o
There were
sufficient
measures in
place to allow
safe physical
distancing
o
o
o
o
o
Physical
distancing
helped to keep
attendees safe
o
o
o
o
o
I found the
information
about the safety
measures at this
event to be
consistent
o
o
o
o
o
The questions below ask perceptions of the safety instructions. Please rate the extent to which you
disagree or agree with the following statements about the safety guidance.

33
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I wanted to go
against the
safety guidance
o
o
o
o
o
I was willing to
follow the
instructions of
the event
organisers
o
o
o
o
o
I intended to
adhere to the
instructions
from the event
organisers
o
o
o
o
o
I felt confident
that the
organisers had
sufficiently
prepared to
keep attendees
safe
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the
organisers were
open about the
actions they
were taking to
keep attendees
safe
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
club for
information
about how to
follow the
COVID-19
safety measures
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
players for
information on
how to act
within the
COVID-19
safety measures
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
other attendees
for information
about how to
follow the
COVID-19
safety measures
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
stewards for
information on
how to act
within the
COVID-19
safety measures
o
o
o
o
o

34
This is an
attention check.
Please select
'strongly agree'
o
o
o
o
o
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I thought that
myself and the
management of
this event were
similar
o
o
o
o
o
There was great
togetherness
between the
attendees and
the
management
o
o
o
o
o
There were
positive
relations
between the
attendees and
management
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of
myself and the
stewards as
similar
o
o
o
o
o
I felt a sense of
unity with the
stewards
o
o
o
o
o
There was great
togetherness
between the
attendees and
the stewards
o
o
o
o
o
I thought that
myself and the
players were
similar
o
o
o
o
o
I felt a sense of
unity with the
players
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of
myself and the
players as being
part of the same
group
o
o
o
o
o

35
The following questions will ask about your feelings and views of the crowd at the event. Please
answer to the best of your ability from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I felt a sense of
unity with the
other crowd
members
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of
myself and the
others crowd
members as
being part of
the same group
o
o
o
o
o
I felt I had very
little in
common with
the other crowd
members
o
o
o
o
o
I thought
everyone in the
crowd felt part
of the same
group
o
o
o
o
o
I thought
everyone in the
crowd felt
united
o
o
o
o
o
I thought
everyone in the
crowd felt a
sense of
commonality
with one
another
o
o
o
o
o

36
To what extent do you disagree or agree that the other attendees overall adhered to the following
safety measures?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Using hand
sanitiser/washing
hands
o
o
o
o
o
Following
physical
distancing
guidelines
o
o
o
o
o
Wearing a
facemask when
required
o
o
o
o
o
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
The typical
attendee
maintained
physical
distancing
o
o
o
o
o
Most attendees
would support
others to keep
safe
o
o
o
o
o
The typical
attendee would
intervene if
they saw
another person
not adhering
o
o
o
o
o
Most attendees
thought it was
important to
follow the
COVID-19
safety measures
o
o
o
o
o

37
To what extent do you disagree or agree that you adhered to the following safety measures?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Using hand
sanitiser/washing
hands
o
o
o
o
o
Following
physical
distancing
guidelines
o
o
o
o
o
Wearing a
facemask when
required
o
o
o
o
o
If you saw that another attendee was not following theCOVID-19 safety measures, how would you
feel?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I would feel
confident
intervening to
help them
adhere
o
o
o
o
o
I would feel
comfortable
intervening
o
o
o
o
o
I would be
nervous to get
involved
o
o
o
o
o

38
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I felt safe when
I was with the
other crowd
members
o
o
o
o
o
I was
concerned
about other
crowd members
spreading
germs
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the
other crowd
members cared
about my safety
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the
other crowd
members took
care of one
another
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the
crowd members
could put me at
risk
o
o
o
o
o
I could expect
support from
the other crowd
members to
keep safe
o
o
o
o
o
I was
concerned that
the other
attendees could
transmit
COVID-19
o
o
o
o
o
I was worried
about catching
COVID-19
from other
attendees
o
o
o
o
o

39
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I enjoyed being
in close
proximity to
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o
I wanted to be
close to the
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o
I felt
uncomfortable
with the close
physical
proximity of the
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o
Being close
together with
other attendees
is an important
part of live
events for me
o
o
o
o
o
Being near other
attendees is a
valuable part of
live events
o
o
o
o
o

40
How did you travel to the event?
o Public transport (all of the journey)
o Public transport (part of the journey)
o By coach
o Drove in own vehicle
o Dropped off by friend/family member
o Taxi
o Walked
o Cycled
o Other (please state) ________________________________________________

41
How did you travel from the event?
o Public transport (all of the journey)
o Public transport (part of the journey)
o By coach
o Drove in own vehicle
o Dropped off by friend/family member
o Taxi
o Walked
o Cycled
o Other (please state) ________________________________________________
Have you had a COVID-19 vaccine?
o Yes
o No

42
Have you had COVID-19 previously?
o Yes
o No
Are you either a season ticket holder or regular attendee of this event?
o Season ticket holder
o Regular attendee
o Neither
This is the final set of questions. Please provide us with some basic demographic information.
Please select your age bracket
o 18 - 24
o 25 - 34
o 35 - 44
o 45 - 54
o 55 - 64
o 65 - 74
o 75 - 84
o 85 or older
o Prefer not to say

43
Please select your employment status
o Employed full time
o Employed part time
o Unemployed looking for work
o Unemployed not looking for work
o Retired
o Student
o Disabled
o Furloughed
o Full time carer
o Prefer not to say
Please select your gender identity
o Male
o Female
o Non-binary
o Transgender male
o Transgender female
o Prefer not to say

44
Please select the region that you live in
o England
o Scotland
o Wales
o Northern Ireland
o Outside of UK
o Prefer not to say

45
Appendix B: Interview schedule for A Cup Semi-Final, Carabao Cup, FA Cup Final,
and World Snooker Championship
1. Could you tell me what you were most looking forward to at the event?
2. Did you have any concerns about attending?
o What were the concerns? What did you think were the main risk areas for
catching the virus?
3. How did you travel to the event? With others?
4. Have you been to this venue before?
o What do you think of the venue organisers? Do you usually meet other people
you know there?
5. Did you see other people that you knew there [other than those they travelled with]?
o How did you react when you saw them?
o Is that typically how you would have greeted them?
6. How did you find the COVID-19 safety measures (e.g., physical distancing during
queuing)?
o Wearing face masks or coverings; keeping physical distance from others; and
using hand sanitiser.
o How necessary do you think the measures were?
o Did you want follow them?
o Why/why not?
o Did you feel able to follow the measures?
o Who do you think decides on these measures?
7. How did you access the guidance about the covid-19 safety measures?
o [Ask about which sources – from the venue, from NHS etc.]
o Did you understand how to follow the guidance?
o Why/why not?
o What parts did you find most (un)clear?
o Who/where did you look to for information?
8. How well do you think the other attendees agreed with the safety measures?
o Why do you think that?
o Was there anything that might have stopped them from following the safety
measures?
9. What did you think about the overall organisation of the event?
o What made you feel safe or unsafe?
10. How did you find the crowd experience compared to before COVID-19?
o How did you feel towards the other attendees at the event?
o How do you think they felt towards you?
o What were the interactions like?
11. One of the great things about live events is getting to support your team and celebrate
with others. How did you show your support or celebrate?
o Did the COVID-19 measures change your experience or actions in any way?
o How did the others at the event show support or celebrate?
12. Now thinking about when you were leaving the event. What were you asked to do?
o Was the guidance (un)clear?
o Were you able to follow the guidance?
o Which parts (e.g., wearing face masks, using hand sanitiser, physical
distancing)?
o How did others act?
13. Is there anything else you would like to mention, that we haven’t already discussed?

46
Appendix C: Online survey for Sefton Park
Please enter a unique identifier code made up of the first 3 letters of your mother's maiden name,
the first 2 numbers of your date of birth. This is to keep the data anonymous but ensure that you can
withdraw at any point until the study is written up by providing the unique identifier code to the
research team. For example, if your mother's maiden name is Herbert, you were born on the 28th
July your unique identifier code would be HER-28.
________________________________________________________________
Please rate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Keeping other
attendees safe
was important
to me
o
o
o
o
o
I was motived
to help others
keep safe
o
o
o
o
o
It is important
to me to follow
the COVID-19
safety
guidance prior
to entering the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
I was focused
on following
the COVID-19
safety
guidance prior
to entering the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
Please rate how unimportant or important the following safety measures are to you.

47
Limits on the number of people who can attend
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Queuing systems designed in line with physical distancing guidance
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Face masks being worn by attendees
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important

48
Providing a negative result from a lateral flow test prior to entry
o Very unimportant
o Unimportant
o Neither unimportant or important
o Important
o Very important
Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree that each restriction impacted your enjoyment
of the event.
Strongly
disagree
Disagree
Neither
disagree nor
agree
Agree
Strongly agree
Limits of
number of
people who
could attend
o
o
o
o
o
Physical
distancing in
queuing prior
to entry
o
o
o
o
o
Would you recommend friends and family to attends events with similar measures in place?
o Yes
o Maybe
o No

49
Below are a number of ways that safety information may have been communicated to attendees at
events. Please rate the extent to which you found the communication approach ineffective or
effective at your event.
Very
ineffective
Ineffective
Neither
ineffective or
effective
Effective
Very effective
Pre event
communications
o
o
o
o
o
Events signage
o
o
o
o
o
Event stewards
o
o
o
o
o
Announcements
during the event
o
o
o
o
o
Information
available online
o
o
o
o
o
Information from
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o

50
Below are questions about the safety information and safety measures. Please rate the extent to
which you disagree or agree with the following statements.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I was provided
with sufficient
practical
information about
what to do when
leaving the venue
o
o
o
o
o
I understood what
actions were
expected of me
when leaving the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
I was provided
with sufficient
practical
information about
how to follow
physical distancing
measures before
entry
o
o
o
o
o
I understood what
physical distancing
actions were
expected of me
before entry
o
o
o
o
o
Planned exiting
helped to keep
attendees safe
o
o
o
o
o
Planned exiting
helped attendees to
leave efficiently
o
o
o
o
o

51
Please rate the extent to which you disagree or agree with the following statements.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
There were
sufficient
measures in place
to exit the venue
safely
o
o
o
o
o
The organisers
helped the
attendees prepare
for exiting the
venue
o
o
o
o
o
There were
sufficient
measures in place
to allow safe
physical
distancing prior
to entry
o
o
o
o
o
Physical
distancing helped
to keep attendees
safe prior to entry
o
o
o
o
o
I found the
information about
the safety
measures at this
event to be
consistent
o
o
o
o
o

52
The questions below ask perceptions of the safety instructions. Please rate the extent to which you
disagree or agree with the following statements about the safety guidance.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I wanted to go
against the safety
guidance
o
o
o
o
o
I was willing to
follow the
instructions of the
event organisers
o
o
o
o
o
I intended to
adhere to the
instructions from
the event
organisers
o
o
o
o
o
I felt confident
that the
organisers had
sufficiently
prepared to keep
attendees safe
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the
organisers were
open about the
actions they were
taking to keep
attendees safe
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
musicians for
information on
how to act within
the safety
measures
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
other attendees
for information
about how to
follow the safety
measures
o
o
o
o
o
I looked to the
stewards for
information on
how to act within
the safety
measures
o
o
o
o
o
This is an
attention check.
Please select
'strongly agree'
o
o
o
o
o

53
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I thought that
myself and the
management
of this event
were similar
o
o
o
o
o
There was
great
togetherness
between the
attendees and
the
management
o
o
o
o
o
There were
positive
relations
between the
attendees and
management
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of
myself and the
stewards as
similar
o
o
o
o
o
I felt a sense of
unity with the
stewards
o
o
o
o
o
There was
great
togetherness
between the
attendees and
the stewards
o
o
o
o
o
I thought that
myself and the
musicians
were similar
o
o
o
o
o
I felt a sense of
unity with the
musicians
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of
myself and the
musicians as
being part of
the same
group
o
o
o
o
o

54
The following questions will ask about your feelings and views of the crowd at the event. Please
answer to the best of your ability from 'strongly disagree' to 'strongly agree'.
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I felt a sense of
unity with the other
crowd members
o
o
o
o
o
I thought of myself
and the others
crowd members as
being part of the
same group
o
o
o
o
o
I felt I had very
little in common
with the other
crowd members
o
o
o
o
o
I thought everyone
in the crowd felt
part of the same
group
o
o
o
o
o
I thought everyone
in the crowd felt
united
o
o
o
o
o
I thought everyone
in the crowd felt a
sense of
commonality with
one another
o
o
o
o
o
To what extent do you disagree or agree that the other attendees overall adhered to the following
safety measures?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Following
physical
distancing
guidelines
prior to entry
o
o
o
o
o

55
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
The typical
attendee
maintained
physical
distancing
prior to entry
o
o
o
o
o
Most
attendees
would support
others to keep
safe
o
o
o
o
o
The typical
attendee
would
intervene if
they saw
another
person not
being safe
o
o
o
o
o
Most
attendees
thought it was
important to
follow the
safety
measures
o
o
o
o
o
To what extent do you disagree or agree that you adhered to the following safety measures?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
Following
physical
distancing
guidelines
prior to entry
o
o
o
o
o

56
If you saw that another attendee was not following the COVID-19 safety measures, how would you
feel?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I would feel
confident
intervening to
help them
adhere
o
o
o
o
o
I would feel
comfortable
intervening
o
o
o
o
o
I would be
nervous to get
involved
o
o
o
o
o

57
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I felt safe when I
was with the other
crowd members
o
o
o
o
o
I was concerned
about other crowd
members
spreading germs
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the other
crowd members
cared about my
safety
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the other
crowd members
took care of one
another
o
o
o
o
o
I felt that the crowd
members could put
me at risk
o
o
o
o
o
I could expect
support from the
other crowd
members to keep
safe
o
o
o
o
o
I was concerned
that the other
attendees could
transmit COVID-19
o
o
o
o
o
I was worried
about catching
COVID-19 from
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o

58
To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements?
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Neither agree
nor disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly agree
I enjoyed being
in close
proximity to
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o
I wanted to be
close to the
other attendees
o
o
o
o
o
I felt
uncomfortable
with the close
physical
proximity of
the other
attendees
o
o
o
o
o
Being close
together with
other attendees
is an important
part of live
events for me
o
o
o
o
o
Being near
other attendees
is a valuable
part of live
events
o
o
o
o
o

59
How did you travel to the event?
o Public transport (all of the journey)
o Public transport (part of the journey)
o By coach
o Drove in own vehicle
o Dropped off by friend/family member
o Taxi
o Walked
o Cycled
o Other (please state) ________________________________________________
How did you travel from the event?
o Public transport (all of the journey)
o Public transport (part of the journey)
o By coach
o Drove in own vehicle
o Dropped off by friend/family member
o Taxi
o Walked
o Cycled
o Other (please state) ________________________________________________

60
Have you had a COVID-19 vaccine?
o Yes
o No
Have you had COVID-19 previously?
o Yes
o No
Are you either a season ticket holder or regular attendee of this event?
o Regular attendee
o Neither
This is the final set of questions. Please provide us with some basic demographic information.

61
Please select your age bracket
o 18 - 24
o 25 - 34
o 35 - 44
o 45 - 54
o 55 - 64
o 65 - 74
o 75 - 84
o 85 or older
o Prefer not to say
Please select your employment status
o Employed full time
o Employed part time
o Unemployed looking for work
o Unemployed not looking for work
o Retired
o Student
o Disabled
o Furloughed
o Full time carer
o Prefer not to say

62
Please select your gender identity
o Male
o Female
o Non-binary
o Transgender male
o Transgender female
o Prefer not to say
Please select the region that you live in
o England
o Scotland
o Wales
o Northern Ireland
o Outside of UK
o Prefer not to say

63
Appendix D: Interview schedule for Sefton Park
1. Why did you want to come to the event?
2. Could you tell me what you were most looking forward to at the event?
3. Did you have any concerns about attending?
a. Prompt: What were the concerns? What did you think were the main risk areas
for catching the virus?
4. How did you travel to the event? With others?
5. Have you been to this venue before?
a. Prompt: What do you think of the people who run the venue? Do you usually
meet other people you know there?
6. Did you see other people that you knew there [other than those they travelled with]?
a. Prompt: How did you react when you saw them? Is that typically how you
would have greeted them?
7. How did you feel about not having covid-19 safety measures such as physical
distancing and not wearing face masks)?
a. Prompt: This event was part of a broader programme testing live crowd
events where safety measures were in place like physical distancing and mask
wearing. How necessary do you think the measures such as wearing masks
usually are for live events during covid-19?
b. How safe did you feel at the event?
8. There were some covid-19 safety measures in place such as physical distancing when
queuing before entering the event, and having a negative results on a lateral flow test.
What did you think of physical distancing in the queue? What did you think of taking
the lateral flow test?
a. Prompt: were you happy to comply with the physical distancing? With the
lateral flow test?
b. Prompt: Did you feel able to comply with the physical distancing? With taking
the lateral flow test?
c. Prompt: Who do you think decides on these measures?
9. How did you access the guidance about the covid-19 safety measures that were in
place, such as taking a lateral flow test before arriving?
a. Prompt: [ask about which sources – from the venue, from NHS etc.]
b. Prompt: Did you understand how to follow the guidance? Why/why not? What
parts did you find most (un)clear?
c. Prompt: Who/where did you look to for information?
10. How well do you think the other attendees agreed with the safety measures?
a. Prompt: Why do you think that?
b. Prompt: Was there anything that might have stopped them from following the
safety measures?
11. What did you think about the overall organisation of the event?
a. Prompt: What made you feel safe or unsafe?
12. How did you find the crowd experience compared to before covid-19?
a. Prompt: How did you feel towards the other attendees at the event?
b. Prompt: What were the interactions like?
c. Prompt: How do you think they felt towards you?

64
13. One of the great things about live events is getting to share the experience with others.
How did you find being together with others to watch the musicians?
a. Prompt: How did you show you were enjoying the event? (e.g., singing along
to the music)
b. Prompt: How did the others at the event show they were enjoying it?
c. Prompt: Did the decision to not have covid-19 measures such as mask-wearing
change your experience or actions in any way?
14. Now thinking about when you were leaving the event. What were you asked to do?
a. Prompt: Was the guidance (un)clear? Were you able to follow the guidance?
Which parts? How did others act?
15. Is there anything else you would like to mention that we haven’t already discussed?