Dynamics of Coronavirus Representation and COVID-19 Pandemic Temporal, Cultural and Social Factors

Zinchenko, Yu. P. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia Federal Scientific Center for Psychological and Interdisciplinary Research, Moscow, Russia

Mitina, O.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Pervichko, E.I. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Koniukhovskaia, J.E. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Deshchenko, E.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic, having burst into our lives on the eve of 2020, from an academic psychological point of view, provided a unique natural experiment, during which we, as researchers, had the opportunity to observe how the process of social cognition of a new disease unfolds in society (Pervichko et al., 2020). Emerging patterns and collective perceptions of the novel coronavirus infection influenced decisions made both at the state level, in the form of anti-epidemic measures (Zhang et al., 2020), and at the level of small social groups and individuals, in the form of commitment to adhering to these measures (Plohl, Musil, 2021; Sibley et al., 2020). Based on the basic provisions of the cultural-historical approach (Vygotsky, 1983, 1984, 1991, 2019) and the psychology of corporeality (Nikolaeva & Arina, 1996, 2003; Nikolaeva, 2009; Tkhostov, 2002), we previously hypothesized (Pervichko et al., 2020), that societal cognition of a novel disease can be conceptualised by analogy to the formation of a personal subjective pattern of disease (SPD) (Luria, 1977; Nikolaeva, 1976, 1987). Traditionally, Russian clinical psychology distinguishes the sensory, emotional, cognitive and motivational levels (or components) of SPD (Nikolaeva, 1976, 1987, 2009). 

Continuing the line of research started in 2020 on the psychological consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic, we believe it expedient to further investigate the process of social cognition pertaining to COVID-19 consistent with the logic of SPD formation. From our point of view, this analogy is substantively justified since, from the onset of the pandemic to the present day, every individual has been comprehending, experiencing and fitting circumstances pertaining to the COVID-19 pandemic into their life in their own unique way. 

Our previous work demonstrated that perceptions of COVID-19 in Russia fluctuate markedly with epidemic waves and the availability of medical care, and vaccination rollout (Koniukhovskaia et al., 2021; Mitina et al., 2021; Pervichko et al., 2020, 2021, 2023; Semenova et al., 2023). Other researchers have also highlighted the need for a time-sensitive study due to changes in beliefs, attitudes, and emotional states over time (Bayeh et al., 2021; Li et al., 2021). Some authors emphasize a temporal shift in decision-making (Herbig, Wagoner, 2025; Gallant et al., 2021), moving from analytical, risk-focused processing to heuristic, trust-based processing as the vaccination campaign advanced, with implications for adaptive public health communication. Some perceptions also tend to operate as dynamic internal negotiations rather than fixed attitudes (Herbig, Wagoner, 2025) – as external context evolves, the public can incorporate new experiences or evidence into their ongoing decision-making processes (Kolotylo-Kulkarni et al., 2024).

At the same time, we proposed that these perceptions are not universal but are substantially shaped by country-specific social, economic, political, and public-health policy contexts. Cultural factors influence the perceptions of risks and preventive measures, subsequently motivating relevant behaviors. The transmission of infectious diseases, and thus their spread and impact on populations, is partially driven by social behaviors which, in turn, depend on patterns of individually and collectively-held beliefs within that population (Bayeh et al., 2021). This perspective relies on social psychological approaches that have demonstrated their usefulness in the domain of public health, including the theory of planned behavior, in which personal attitudes, perceived social norms, and sense of control combine to predict health-relevant behavioral intentions (Fishbein, Ajzen, 1975). Cultural representations of health and sickness determine thresholds of concern (Bayeh et al., 2021), which are decisive in determining health behavior relevant to health-related outcomes in terms of what phenomena are disease-related and worthy of concern, what signs are not to be missed, and what the treatment and recovery would look like. Other cultural factors, such as collectivism versus individualism (Tang et al., 2022), religious expression (Ting et al., 2021), also shape communal cognition and responses to the threat, stress levels, and compliance with restrictions and vaccination. 

The present study, therefore examined the combined influence of temporal (pandemic stage) and cultural-policy factors on perceptions of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic. We compared three post-Soviet countries with sharply contrasting anti-epidemic approaches: Russia (moderate and flexible restrictions), Azerbaijan (one of the strictest regimes), and Uzbekistan (minimal formal restrictions), across multiple phases of the pandemic from April 2020 to May 2022. These three countries share a common Soviet past. They are now developing differently, driven by social, religious, and ethnic factors. Attitudes toward vaccination in particular and behavior more generally varied during the pandemic. In Azerbaijan, the epidemiological threat was essentially eliminated only at the end of 2024, while in Uzbekistan it was minimal. Uzbekistan is currently more under the influence of China, while Azerbaijan is more under the influence of Turkey.

Methods

Materials

The study was conducted online between April 2020 and May 2022 as a part of an online study of the emotional state of the population, patients, and medical workers in Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Relying on the Russian-language version of Broadbent's Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (Broadbent et al., 2006; Yaltonsky et al., 2017), our research team developed and tested the Perceptions of coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic survey (Pervichko et al., 2020). In devising the wording of the questions, "illness" was replaced with "COVID-19" and "the COVID-19 pandemic." The relatively open-ended nature of item 9 ("Please list in rank order the three most important factors that you believe caused your illness") was excluded because the original survey was conducted among men and women who had not had COVID-19. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of eight questions with answers given on a Likert scale ranging from 0 to 10.

Participants

To address the research objectives, voluntary anonymous surveys were conducted with respondents from three countries (Russia, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan) during different periods of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 2,863 participants from the three aforementioned countries took part in the study from April 2020 to May 2022. Depending on the region and the time of participation in the study, 7 subsamples were formed (see Figure 1).

Respondents from Russia were divided into 4 subsamples: those surveyed (1) during the first wave in April-May 2020 (N=1141), (2) during the decline in incidence between June-September 2020 (N=413), (3) during the second wave in October-December 2020 (N=889) and (4) from January to May 2021 (N=41), when COVID-19 vaccines became available. After a year of conducting research and collecting data on a Russian-speaking sample, we realized that perceptions of the pandemic are dependent on time and cultural context. We hypothesized that domestic policies regarding anti-epidemic measures and a country's culture could be significant factors influencing perceptions of the pandemic. Therefore, we also began collecting samples in two Russian-speaking post-Soviet countries where branches of the Psychology Department of Lomonosov Moscow State University are present.  During the same period as subsample 4, respondents from (5) Azerbaijan (N=235) and (6) Uzbekistan (N=60) were also surveyed. In addition, another sample of 7 respondents from Uzbekistan was surveyed in January-May 2022 (N=84). Sample sizes from different countries are certainly not comparable, but then, the population sizes in these countries also vary. Only Russian-speaking respondents (for whom Russian is their native language) took part in the study. Each sample included both genders within a range of ages, starting at age 18. The full characteristics of the samples from the three countries are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Gender and age characteristics of study participants in seven samples from three countries

Sample	Number of respondents			Age
	women	men	total	min	max	M	SD
Russia
Sample 1. April-May 2020	938 (82.21%)**	203	1141	16	81	36.45	10.98
Sample 2. June-September 2020	293 (70.94%)	120	413	18	88	34.44	10.73
Sample 3. October-December 2020*	770 86.61%	119	889	16	83	40.51	12.14
Sample 4. First half (January-May) of 2021	28 68.29%	13	41	16	73	33.44	17.05
Azerbaijan
Sample 5. First half (January-May) of 2021	140 59.57%	95	235	17	80	26.05	10.45
Uzbekistan
Sample 6. First half (January-May) of 2021	49 81.67%	11	60	16	45	23.72	6.7
Sample 7. First half (January-May) of 2022	57 67.86%	27	84	19	43	22.13	3.36
Total	2275	588	2863

Note. *Statistically significant differences at a two-tailed significance level of p <.001. Average age amounted to 41.28±11.811 in women and 35.5±13.067 in men; 

**Percentage of females in the sample

Procedure and Statistical Analysis

For the exploratory analysis, we used a sequential comparison strategy for each questionnaire item. Given the gender-mixed nature of the sample, we first assessed the influence of gender, followed by an analysis of the contribution of cultural context and pandemic stage. Table 2 presents the research design, which is the method of studying each factor according to the sample size and statistical processing method. The statistical data analysis methods used in the study were: (1) descriptive statistics; (2) the parametric student's t-test and the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test to compare independent samples; (3) two-way ANOVA to compare multiple samples from different periods of the pandemic or from different countries. 

Table 2

Study design and statistical data analysis methods

Factor	Compared samples	Statistical procedures
1. Gender	Men and women in all samples	Student's T test and Mann-Whitney U test
2. Time	Samples 1-4 from Russia during the year of observations, accounting for gender;  Samples 6-7 from Uzbekistan (the first halves of 2021 and 2022), accounting for gender	Two-way ANOVA, comparison of confidence intervals
3. Culture	Samples 4-6 from Russia, Uzbekistan, and Azerbaijan, accounting for gender

Results

1. Gender factor influence

Our earlier study (Pervichko et al., 2020) found significant differences in the perceptions of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic between men and women in the early months of the pandemic. Therefore, in this study, we first compared the average answers to each item in the Perceptions of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic questionnaire among men and women in all seven samples (Tables 3 and 4). In other words, we tested what differences men and women had at different stages of the pandemic in different countries.

Sample 1. In the Russian sample of April-May 2020, significant differences were found in responses to items 1, 2, 4, 5, and 8. At the beginning of the pandemic, women were more concerned about its impact and spread compared to men, expressing a greater emotional impact due to the pandemic, more frequently observed symptoms of COVID-19 in themselves, and anticipated the pandemic to last longer. Meanwhile, men expressed significantly greater confidence in the effectiveness of anti-epidemic measures (see Table 3). 

Sample 2. During the decline in the incidence of COVID-19 in the summer of 2020, significant differences remained only in items 5, 6, 7, and 8. Women continued to be more concerned about the pandemic, more often noted its impact on their emotions, and were more likely to experience symptoms of COVID-19. Men, on the other hand, became more confident in their understanding of the symptoms of COVID-19. 

Sample 3. During the second wave of the pandemic in 2020, men continued to report a greater understanding of COVID-19 than women (item 7), while women felt a stronger impact of the pandemic on their lives (item 2) and saw the pandemic as a longer-lasting event (item 3). 

Sample 4. In the first half of 2021, significant differences between men and women remained only in item 1, with women reporting a greater perceived impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their lives than men.

Table 3

Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes of responses by questionnaire items in men and women from four samples of respondents from Russia, depending on the time of participation in the study

Questionnaire items	Gender	(1)  First wave,  April - May 2020		(2)  Decline in incidence,  June - September 2020		(3) Second wave, October - December 2020		(4)  January - May 2021
		M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
1. How much does the existing COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?	F	6.33	2.31	5.49	2.52	6,12	2.30	4.96	2.32
	M	5.87	2.48	5.69	2.47	5,54	2.39	3.08	2.84
Cohen’s d		.196		.080		.251		.755
2. How long do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will continue?	F	5.78	1.81	5.77	2.07	6.30	1.98	5.50	1.58
	M	5.46	1.93	5.88	1.90	5.96	2.05	5.62	2.47
Cohen’s d		.175		.054		.171		.063
3. How much control do you feel you have over the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic?	F	2.75	1.98	2.74	1.93	2.54	1.99	2.54	1.43
	M	2.98	2.40	2.42	1.87	2.63	2.14	2.38	2.29
Cohen’s d		.112		.167		.045		.092
4. How much do you think the measures taken help fight the COVID-19 pandemic?	F	4.32	2.24	4.32	2.15	3.70	2.04	3.21	1.79
	M	4.73	2.34	4.42	2.31	3.66	2.23	3.23	2.80
Cohen’s d		.182		.046		.019		.009
5. Do you sometimes feel the symptoms of coronavirus?	F	2.56	2.06	2.54	2.01	3.12	2.25	2.11	1.85
	M	2.20	1.77	2.08	1.80	3.03	2.29	1.31	0.63
Cohen’s d		.179		.236		.040		.507
6. How much are you concerned about the spread of COVID-19?	F	5.33	2.67	5.23	2.71	5.65	2.75	4.14	3.04
	M	4.80	2.70	4.73	2.54	4.71	2.82	3.46	3.26
Cohen’s d		.198		.188		.341		.219
7. How well do you feel you understand what COVID-19 is?	F	6.39	2.61	5.99	2.69	6.08	2.59	6.21	2.53
	M	6.63	2.73	6.98	2.44	6.67	2.57	7.69	2.32
Cohen’s d		.091		.378		.228		.600
8. How much does the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic affect you emotionally?	F	5.42	2.64	4.76	2.71	5.69	2.72	4.54	2.35
	M	4.01	2.81	4.38	2.60	4.23	2.62	3.00	2.77
Cohen’s d		.528		.142		.539		.619

Note. Bold indicates significant differences in mean values for men and women according to the Mann-Whitney U test (p <.05).

Thus, during the year of observations, women in Russia were more concerned about the impact of the pandemic on their lives and more often felt like they had COVID-19 symptoms, while men were predominantly confident in their ability to control the spread of the coronavirus and in their understanding of the symptoms of COVID-19. 

Samples 5 and 6. In the first half of 2021, men and women from both Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan showed no significant differences in their perception of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic (see Table 4).

Sample 7. In the first half of 2022, study participants from Uzbekistan demonstrated significant gender differences in responses to items 4, 6, and 8. Women were more concerned about the spread of the pandemic and were more emotionally affected but were also more confident in the effectiveness of the measures taken against COVID-19. In comparison, in the Russian sample from the first year of the pandemic, it was men who were more confident in the effectiveness of the measures taken rather than women. 

Table 4

Means, standard deviations, and effect sizes of responses by questionnaire items in men and women in three samples (from Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan)

			(5) Azerbaijan First half of 2021		Uzbekistan
Questionnaire items	Gender				(6) First half of 2021		(7) First half of 2022
			M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
1. How much does the existing COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?	F		6.18	2.63	3.80	2.06	3.51	2.21
	M		5.89	2.64	3.18	2.27	3.52	2.36
Cohen’s d			.110		.296		.004
2. How long do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will continue?	F		5.84	1.94	4.90	2.17	5.40	2.34
	M		5.99	2.055	4.82	2.52	4.63	2.76
Cohen’s d			.075		.036		.310
3. How much control do you feel you have over the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic?	F		3.20	2.22	3.24	2.33	3.49	2.45
	M		2.85	2.07	2.73	2.01	2.56	2.39
Cohen’s d			.162		.224		.383
4. How much do you think the measures taken help fight the COVID-19 pandemic?	F		4.31	2.44	4.39	2.34	5.28	2.44
	M		4.02	2.41	4.82	2.27	3.81	2.56
Cohen’s d			.119		.185		.593
5. Do you sometimes feel the symptoms of coronavirus?	F		2.56	2.21	3.18	2.32	2.93	2.28
	M		2.61	2.33	2.09	1.58	2.04	1.45
Cohen’s d			.022		.493		.433
6. How much are you concerned about the spread of COVID-19?	F		4.72	2.72	3.51	2.11	3.61	2.16
	M		4.80	3.15	2.55	1.04	2.74	2.47
Cohen’s d			.028		.488		.384
7. How well do you feel you understand what COVID-19 is?	F		6.54	2.60	6.41	2.57	6.49	2.67
	M		7.13	2.42	6.27	3.38	6.30	3.75
Cohen’s d			.233		.051		.062
8. How much does the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic affect you emotionally?	F		5.29	2.87	3.71	2.59	3.74	2.44
	M		4.58	3.12	2.64	1.8	2.22	1.67
Cohen’s d			.239		.433		.683

Note. Bold indicates significant differences in mean values for men and women according to the Mann-Whitney U test (p <.05).

Thus, gender differences were observed in the samples from Russia and Uzbekistan but not from Azerbaijan. Women from Russia and Uzbekistan were more concerned about the impact of the pandemic than men and were also more likely to experience symptoms of COVID-19. Possibly reflecting traditional gender roles that place greater health-related responsibility on women in older cohorts. For example, there are expressed expectations that women in these regions be more concerned about the health of their family members and sick relatives. Meanwhile, men declared a greater understanding of the disease and confidence in the ability to control its spread, accompanied by less concern over the matter.

2. Time factor influence

To study the dynamics effecting perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic over time, Russian samples 1 – 4 presented changes in perception over different time periods, which were analyzed according to gender. The influence of specific periods of time across the pandemic lifecycle represented factors of measurement, specifically on samples 1-4 from Russia, because the Russian sample represented the largest source of data for each of the periods of 2020. Additionally, the Russian sample provided clearly delineated time periods within this year: the first wave in the spring of 2020, the decline in incidence in the summer of 2020, the second wave in the fall, and the start of vaccination in early 2021. These distinct periods could significantly affect the perception of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia.

Comparison analysis based on these time factors was carried out using parametric and nonparametric methods, the results of which coincided almost every time.

Appendix 1 presents confidence intervals for responses to each item in each time period separately for men and women in samples 1-4. The graphs clearly show the dynamics affecting perceptions of the coronavirus and the pandemic during its first year in the male and female subsamples. Below, we compare and analyze the responses of men and women to each of the questionnaire items.

Item 1. Women assessed the impact of the pandemic on their lives in accordance with incidence dynamics: the impact was significantly higher during the first and second waves of the pandemic and decreased during the decline in incidence in summer and winter. Meanwhile, men showed a different dynamic: until the beginning of 2021, they perceived the impact of the pandemic on their lives was virtually identical; however, with the introduction of mass vaccination, the impact of the pandemic on men’s lives was rated significantly lower.

Item 2. Sample 3 presented significant differences |among women, therefore, during the second wave, women began to see the pandemic as a more prolonged phenomenon. 

Item 3. Men and women showed no significant differences in their perceptions of control over the spread of the pandemic over time. 

Item 4. Confidence in the effectiveness of anti-epidemic measures declined significantly: by the second wave of the pandemic, confidence in the effectiveness of the measures taken had declined significantly in both men and women (sample 3); in women, this disappointment continued to grow at the beginning of 2021, when mass vaccination had already started.

Item 5. Men felt the effects of COVID-19 most significantly during the second wave of the pandemic and least often during the fourth period. Women also felt the effects of the coronavirus most acutely during the second wave. Both genders reported symptom scanning was most intense during the second wave, in contrast to the first one. This may be explained by the fact that the number of new COVID-19 cases was much greater in the second wave compared to the first. Thus, the incidence of COVID-19 significantly influenced the uninfected population and symptom scanning behavior, regardless of gender.

Item 6. Significant differences pertaining to concerns about the spread of COVID-19 over the course of the pandemic phases were found only in the female sample; by the beginning of 2021, this concern had significantly decreased in women compared to the second wave.

Item 7. With regard to the understanding of COVID-19, no significant differences were found for men and women across the phases of the pandemic, therefore, the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect the understanding of the disease.

Item 8. Only the subsample of women showed significant differences in responses about the emotional impact of the pandemic: in the course of the first and second waves, this impact was rated higher compared to the periods of decline in incidence (i.e., samples 2 and 4). 

Therefore, women's perceptions of the pandemic were more pronounced during peaks of infection incidence, which had a corresponding effect on their emotional state and concern about the pandemic. During the second wave, both men's and women's symptom search behavior was significantly more pronounced and reported feelings of disappointment in the effectiveness of anti-epidemic measures, while women became more convinced that the pandemic was going to last longer. The introduction of mass vaccination at the beginning of 2021 lowered the perceived impact of the pandemic in peoples lives and curbed COVID-19 symptom scanning behavior. It is interesting to note that in women, after the introduction of vaccination, concern about the impact of the pandemic decreased, although disappointment in the measures taken persisted.

A similar analysis of the dynamics influencing perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic was carried out on the samples from Uzbekistan at later periods of the pandemic (the first half of 2021 and 2022), but no significant differences were found. On the one hand, this may be explained by the fact that the pandemic had stabilized at this stage and had become familiar to the respondents. On the other hand, the absence of significant differences may stem from the fact that Uzbekistan had softer prohibitive coronavirus mitigation measures, and respondents reported less impact from anti-virus s rules. The following section provides a detailed comparative analysis that illustrates the role of culture in influencing differing perceptions of coronavirus and the pandemic within a single phase of the pandemic.

Cultural affiliation factor

The third objective of our study was to evaluate the possible contribution of cultural differences by conducting a comparative analysis of data obtained from samples from Russia (Sample 4), Uzbekistan (Sample 5), and Azerbaijan (Sample 6) derived from the same time period, in which we account for differences across men and women (see Appendix 2). 

In conclusion: 

• Azerbaijani respondents reported the greatest perceived life impact than respondents from Uzbekistan and Russia (Item 1).
• Women from Uzbekistan gave lower estimates of the possible duration of the pandemic than women from Azerbaijan (Item 2).
• Respondents from Azerbaijan were more concerned about the spread of the pandemic than respondents from Uzbekistan (Item 6).
• Respondents from Azerbaijan reported a greater impact of the pandemic on their emotions than respondents from Uzbekistan (Item 8).

The comparison of subsamples from these three countries derived from the same time period (January-May 2021) indicates no significant differences between men and women. Differences between the three countries were observed in responses to four questions, without significant differences by gender. Therefore, it can be assumed with confidence that these differences are due primarily to cultural factors. 

The observed discrepancies can be explained by the different anti-epidemic policies across the compared countries with the most stringent anti-epidemic measures taken in Azerbaijan, while Uzbekistan had the mildest (including rules pertaining to self-isolation, vaccination, PCR testing ans do on). In Azerbaijan, where tougher anti-epidemic measures were introduced, men and women were equally concerned about the impact of the pandemic on their lives and more confident in the effectiveness of the measures to control the spread of the pandemic. In contrast, in Uzbekistan, the country with the mildest anti-epidemic policy, respondents felt less impact of the pandemic on their lives and were confident in its shorter duration. Thus, stricter measures aimed at reducing losses in the struggle against coronavirus were accompanied by increased concern among the population. Ultimately, stricter regimes increased perceived threat and emotional burden but also confidence in control. 

Discussion

The present study is unique in its simultaneous examination of the role of cultural and time factors in the dynamics of perceptions of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic, taking into account demographic predictors, such as gender and age differences. To improve the reliability of results, the study analyzed separate questionnaire items comprising the Perceptions of coronavirus and the COVID-19 Pandemic questionnaire. 

The analysis showed that gender is a significant factor across different cultural conditions and at different stages of the pandemic. In general, it can be concluded that women were more sensitive to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic with perceptions of the pandemic particularly acute during peaks of incidence, causing greater emotional impact and concern about the pandemic. In addition, women were more likely to look for COVID-19 symptoms, while men reported a better understanding of the symptoms. During the first wave, men were calmer and more confident in their ability to control the pandemic than women. Meanwhile, women's concern about the impact of the pandemic decreased only after the introduction of vaccination, accompanied by a gradual increase in disappointment in the measures taken.

Similar gender differences were observed in the USA (Alsharawy et al., 2021). American women reported greater fear and more negative expectations regarding the health effects of COVID-19 than men, although men were more prone to having more adverse health effects. Women were also more likely to have negative emotional experiences during the pandemic, especially in cases where personal actions made the situation worse. Women generally showed more adherence to preventive measures than men, but these gender differences in behavior lessened as the fear of the pandemic subsided. Thus, concern about the pandemic may be an important factor that can, on the one hand, provoke more anxious and depressive reactions among women (Herrera-Añazco et al., 2022), but may also contribute to a greater feeling of control over the pandemic as well as demonstrating a greater degree of compliance with anti-epidemic measures than is characteristic of men. 

Our comparative analysis of samples from these three countries showed that the cultural factor can sometimes offset gender differences. For example, it was revealed that men and women from Azerbaijan assessed the impact of the pandemic on their lives as more significant and were more concerned about its spread than respondents from Uzbekistan and Russia. Interestingly, respondents of both genders from Russia were also more concerned about the impact of the pandemic but were less confident in it being controlled than respondents from Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan. 

The observed differences across respondents from Russia, Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan can be explained by varying anti-epidemic measures taken in these respective countries. Azerbaijan introduced the most stringent anti-epidemic measures, while Uzbekistan had the mildest. In Azerbaijan, where a stricter antivirus policy was introduced, men and women were equally concerned about the impact of the pandemic on their lives, more confident in the effectiveness of the measures taken and the ability to control the spread of the pandemic. In turn, respondents from Uzbekistan, the country with the mildest anti-epidemic policy, reported feeling less of an impact on their lives because of the pandemic and were confident in its shorter duration. In Russia, the danger was not underemphasized, but even when the authorities did implement tougher and more unpopular measures during acute periods of the epidemic, they lifted them quickly with relative flexibility.

Odintsova et al. (2021) compared samples from Russia and Belarus and found that residents of Belarus had more fears and felt greater impacts of the pandemic on different areas of their lives when compared to Russians, which was attributed by the researchers to the lack of additional measures to contain the spread of the coronavirus.

Thus, state policy on anti-epidemic measures and the strictness of their observation and control over their implementation may be significant factors both in controlling the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic and in accepting personal responsibility for compliance with antivirus restrictions. A lack of public information campaigns about the dangers of coronavirus and low control over compliance with anti-epidemic measures can lead to COVID nihilism, which becomes fertile ground for a more explosive spread of the novel coronavirus infection (Emelyanova et al., 2022). However, to promote citizens' compliance with anti-epidemic measures and personal responsibility for vaccination, cultural representations about the coronavirus and the pandemic need to be designed to reduce denial of the coronavirus and its effects on society (Mo et al., 2023).

The identified dynamics of perceptions identified in this study are consistent with the cycle of societal perception observed in public health emergencies (Wang et al., 2022). Wang et al. (2022) suggest that the perceptions toward a threatening event are influenced by an aggregate of variables, including event characteristics, public response, individual characteristics, and individual relationships. We addressed these factors in previous publications concerning the role of personality traits and self-regulation styles in pandemic perceptions (Mitina et al., 2021; Pervichko et al., 2021). In this article, we took on the task of examining the dynamics of representations through the lens of the life cycle of an emergency event. As suggested by Wang et al. (2022), perception of risk within society changes as the situation unfolds, and this process is significantly influenced by the control measures taken by governmental departments in accordance with the stages of the emergency. Usually, the perception of a threat by the population has the following regularities: (1) the closer the threat, the greater the perceived risk; (2) the greater the ability to control the infection, the less the sense of threat. Therefore, it can be concluded that relevant departments must effectively modulate the reactions of the population in accordance with the risks while also considering the life cycle of the emergency.

Thus, social and personal perceptions of the coronavirus and the COVID-19 pandemic are an important mechanism for the response and regulation of society in the face of a new disease. For this reason, timely study and modulation of these perceptions is crucial to change the behavior of society and reduce epidemic threats. 

Conclusion

1. The present study demonstrates that gender, cultural context, and pandemic stage are important factors that influence the perception of the pandemic. These perceptions evolve according to the life cycle of societal response to the given health emergency. 
2. Women were found to be more sensitive to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic: their perception of the pandemic changed more in response to the peaks of incidence, which had a greater effect on their emotional state and concern about the pandemic. 

Limitations

The primary limitation of this study concerns the unbalanced sample sizes, uneven gender and age range of the samples obtained in Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan, which could possibly affect the reliability of the statistical conclusions and limit the generalization of the research findings on the whole population in these countries. Further research into the role of cultural differences should incorporate larger and more balanced samples to counteract that. Additionally, the survey was administered in Russian, so all the respondents from Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan were exclusively Russian-speaking.

It is possible that other factors could also affect the dynamics of perceptions of the coronavirus and the pandemic, but these were not the focus of this article.

The present study examined only a comparative analysis of each questionnaire item. We believe it would be worthwhile to also evaluate structural factors influencing the Perceptions of the Coronavirus and the Pandemic questionnaire, which would help identify the invariant and variable components of this theoretical construct.

Ethics Statement

The study obtained ethics approval of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Psychology at the Lomonosov Moscow State University. All the participants gave their informed consent before taking part in the survey.

Author Contributions

Yu.P., O.V., and E.I. conceived the idea and study design and supervised the findings of this work. E.I. and J.E. composed the survey and wrote the original draft. O.V. performed the quantitative analysis and verified the statistical methods. E.V. revised and edited the original manuscript. All authors discussed the results and contributed to the final manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 21-18-00624).

The authors are grateful for the information technology support of the research to Doctor of Science in Psychology, Honorary Professor of the Lomonosov MSU, Aleksandr G. Shmelev.

References

References

Alsharawy, A., Spoon, R., Smith, A., & Ball, S. (2021). Gender differences in fear and risk perception during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 689467. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.689467

Bayeh, R., Yampolsky, M.A., & Ryder, A.G. (2021). The social lives of infectious diseases: Why culture matters to COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 648086. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.648086

Broadbent, E., Petrie, K.J., Main, J., & Weinman, J. (2006). The brief illness perception questionnaire. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 60(6), 631–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2005.10.020

Emelyanova, E.K., Goroshko, N.V., & Patsala, S.V. (2022). Kovidnyi nigilizm v usloviiakh borʹby s pandemiei COVID-19 [Covid nihilism in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic]. Sotsialʹnye aspekty zdorovʹia naseleniia [Social Aspects of Public Health], 68(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.21045/2071-5021-2022-68-1-1 

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley.

Gallant, A.J., Nicholls, L.A., Rasmussen, S., Cogan, N., Young, D., & Williams, L. (2021). Changes in attitudes to vaccination as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal study of older adults in the UK. PLoS ONE, 16(12), e0261844. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261844

Herbig, L., & Wagoner, B. (2025). Temporal dynamics of vaccination decision-making: How trust and risk perception evolved during COVID-19 in Germany. COVID, 5(9), 150. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid5090150

Herrera-Añazco, P., Urrunaga-Pastor, D., Benites-Zapata, V.A., Bendezu-Quispe, G., Toro-Huamanchumo, C.J., & Hernandez, A.V. (2022). Gender differences in depressive and anxiety symptoms during the first stage of the COVID-19 pandemic: A cross-sectional study in Latin America and the Caribbean. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 727034. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.727034

Kolotylo-Kulkarni, M., Marakas, G.M., & Xia, W. (2024). Understanding protective behavior and vaccination adoption among US individuals during the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Business Research, 179, 114649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114649

Koniukhovskaia, J.E., Pervichko, E.I., Mitina, O.V., Stepanova, O.B., Dorokhov, E.A., Irgashev, N.R., & Mirsaidov, M.M.U. (2021). Dinamika predstavlenii o pandemii COVID-19 u nebolevshikh koronavirusom vzroslykh v techenie 2020 goda [Dynamics of perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic in adults who have not had coronavirus during 2020]. In Psikhologiia i meditsina: Puti poiska optimalʹnogo vzaimodeistviia [Psychology and medicine: Ways to find optimal interaction] (pp. 5–11). Ryazan State Medical University.

Li, Y., Luan, S., Li, Y., & Hertwig, R. (2021). Changing emotions in the COVID-19 pandemic: A four-wave longitudinal study in the United States and China. Social Science & Medicine, 285, 114222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114222

Luria, R.A. (1977). Vnutrenniaia kartina boleznei i iatrogennye zabolevaniia [Internal picture of diseases and iatrogenic diseases] (4th ed.). Meditsina [Medicine].

Mitina, O.V., Pervichko, E.I., Koniukhovskaia, J.E., Stepanova, O.B., & Dorokhov, E.A. (2021). Rolʹ samoreguliatsii v obraze bolezni COVID-19 [The role of self-regulation in the image of COVID-19 disease]. In V.I. Morosanova & Yu.P. Zinchenko (Eds.), Psikhologiia samoreguliatsii v kontekste aktualʹnykh zadach obrazovaniia [Psychology of self-regulation in the context of current educational tasks] (pp. 161–170). Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education.

Mo, L., Liu, Y., Li, A., Liu, T., Zhu, T. (2023). The impact of pandemic mental cognition on cultural values: An empirical study based on social media. BMC Public Health, 23, 1069. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16006-x

Nikolaeva, V.V. (1976). Psikhologicheskie aspekty rassmotreniia vnutrennei kartiny bolezni [Psychological aspects of considering the internal picture of the disease]. In M.M. Kabanov (Ed.), Psikhologicheskie problemy psikhogigieny, psikhoprofilaktiki i meditsinskoi deontologii [Psychological problems of mental hygiene, psychoprophylaxis and medical deontology] (pp. 95–98).

Nikolaeva, V.V. (1987). Vliianie khronicheskoi bolezni na psikhiku [The influence of chronic illness on the psyche]. Moscow University Press.

Nikolaeva, V.V. (2009). Psikhosomatika: Telesnostʹ i kulʹtura [Psychosomatics: Corporeality and culture]. Akademicheskii proekt.

Nikolaeva, V.V., & Arina, G.A. (1996). Ot traditsionnoi psikhosomatiki k psikhologii telesnosti [From traditional psychosomatics to the psychology of corporality]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriia 14. Psikhologiia [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin. Series 14. Psychology], (2).

Nikolaeva, V.V., & Arina, G.A. (2003). Kliniko-psikhologicheskie problemy psikhologii telesnosti [Clinical and psychological problems of the psychology of corporality]. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 24(1), 119–126.

Odintsova, M.A., Radchikova, N.P., & Yanchuk, V.A. (2021). Otsenka situatsii pandemii COVID-19 zhiteliami Rossii i Belarusi [Assessment of the COVID-19 pandemic situation by residents of Russia and Belarus]. Sotsialʹnaia psikhologiia i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 12(2), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2021120204

Pervichko, E.I., & Koniukhovskaia, J.E. (2021). Emotsionalʹnoe blagopoluchie naseleniia i patsientov v usloviiakh pandemii COVID-19: Obzor zarubezhnykh issledovanii [Emotional well-being of the population and patients in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: A review of foreign studies]. Psikhicheskoe zdorovʹe [Mental Health], (5), 29–42.  

Pervichko, E.I., Mitina, O.V., Koniukhovskaia, J.E., Stepanova, O.B., & Dorokhov, E.A. (2021). Lichnostnye determinanty predstavlenii o pandemii i sviazannykh s nei perezhivanii u ne bolevshikh COVID-19 zhitelei Rossii [Personal determinants of perceptions of the pandemic and associated experiences in residents of Russia who have not had COVID-19]. Voprosy psikhologii, 67(3), 104–117.

Pervichko, E.I., Mitina, O.V., Stepanova, O.B., Koniukhovskaia, J.E., & Dorokhov, E.A. (2020). Vospriiatie COVID-19 naseleniem Rossii v usloviiakh pandemii 2020 goda [Perception of COVID-19 by the population of Russia in the context of the 2020 pandemic]. Klinicheskaia i spetsialʹnaia psikhologiia [Clinical and Special Psychology], 9(2), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.17759/cpse.2020090206

Pervichko, E.I., Mitina, O.V., Stepanova, O.B., Koniukhovskaia, J.E. (2023). Determinatsiia disfunktsional'nogo dykhaniia psikhologicheskim neblagopoluchiem v usloviiakh pandemii COVID-19. Kakie psikhologicheskie peremennye oposreduiut etu sviaz'? [Determination of dysfunctional breathing by psychological ill-being in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. What psychological variables mediate this relationship?]. Psikhiatriia, psikhoterapiia i klinicheskaia psikhologiia [Psychiatry, psychotherapy and clinical psychology], 14(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.34883/pi.2023.14.1.001

Plohl, N., & Musil, B. (2021). Modeling compliance with COVID-19 prevention guidelines: The critical role of trust in science. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 26(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2020.1772988

Semenova, E.P., Koniukhovskaia, J., Sviridova, S., Pervichko, E., Stepanova, O., Mitina, O., & Shishkova, I. (2023). The role of COVID-19 pandemic anxiety and perceptions in COVID-19 vaccination. European Psychiatry, 66(S1), S837. https://doi.org/10.1192/j.eurpsy.2023.1667

Sibley, C.G., Greaves, L.M., Satherley, N., Wilson, M.S., Overall, N.C., Lee, C.H.J., Milojev, P., Bulbulia, J., Osborne, D., Milfont, T.L., Houkamau, C.A., Duck, I.M., Vickers-Jones, R., & Barlow, F.K. (2020). Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and nationwide lockdown on trust, attitudes toward government, and well-being. American Psychologist, 75(5), 618–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000662

Tang, J.W., Caniza, M.A., Dinn, M., Dwyer, D.E., Heraud, J.-M., Jennings, L.C., Kok, J., Kwok, K.O., Li, Y., Marr, L.C., Nara, E.M., Perera, N., Saito, R., Santillan-Salas, C., Sullivan, S., Warner, M., Watanabe, A., & Zaidi, S.K. (2022). An exploration of the political, social, economic and cultural factors affecting how different global regions initially reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. Interface Focus, 12(2), 20210079. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2021.0079

Ting, R.S.-K., Aw Yong, Y.-Y., Tan, M.-M., & Yap, C.-K. (2021). Cultural responses to COVID-19 pandemic: Religions, illness perception, and perceived stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 634863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.634863

Tkhostov, A.Sh. (2002). Psikhologiia telesnosti [Psychology of corporality]. Smysl.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1983). Istoriia razvitiia vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii [History of the Development of Higher Mental Functions]. Collected Works: in 6 volumes. Pedagogy.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1984). Orudie i znak [Tool and Sign]. Collected Works: in 6 volumes. Pedagogy.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1991). Problema kulʹturnogo razvitiia rebenka [The problem of cultural development of the child]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriia 14. Psikhologiia [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin. Series 14. Psychology], (4), 5–18.

Vygotsky, L.S. (2019). Myshlenie i rech': psikhologicheskie issledovaniia [Thinking and Speech: Psychological Research]. National Education.

Wang, J., Guo, C., Wu, X., Li, P. (2022). Influencing factors for public risk perception of COVID-19 — perspective of the pandemic whole life cycle. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 67, 102693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102693

Yaltonsky, V.M., Yaltonskaya, A.V., Sirota, N.A., & Moskovchenko, D.V. (2017). Psikhometricheskie kharakteristiki russkoiazychnoi versii kratkogo oprosnika vospriiatiia bolezni [Psychometric characteristics of the Russian-language version of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire]. Psikhologicheskie issledovaniia [Psychological Research], 10(51), 1. https://doi.org/10.54359/ps.v10i51.407

Zhang, L., Li, H., & Chen, K. (2020). Effective risk communication for public health emergency: Reflection on the COVID-19 (2019-nCoV) outbreak in Wuhan, China. Healthcare, 8(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare8010064

Appendix

Appendix 1

Dynamics of average responses for all items in men and women in samples 1-4 from Russia

Question 1. How much does the existing COVID-19 pandemic affect your life?  - Men: significantly lower scores at stage 4 compared to previous stages.  - Women: significantly lower scores at stages 2 and 4 compared to stages 1 and 3.	Question 2. How long do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will continue? - Men: no differences. - Women: significantly higher scores at stage 3 compared to other stages.
Question 3. How much control do you feel you have over the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic? No significant differences	Question 4. How much do you think the measures taken help fight the COVID-19 pandemic? - Men: significantly lower scores at stage 3 compared to previous stages. - Women: significantly lower scores at stages 3 and 4 compared to stages 1 and 2.
Question 5. Do you sometimes feel the symptoms of coronavirus? - Men: significantly higher scores at stage 3 compared to other stages; significantly lower scores at stage 4 compared to other stages. - Women: significantly higher scores at stage 3 compared to other stages	Question 6. How much are you concerned about the spread of COVID-19? - Men: no significant differences. - Women: significantly lower scores at stage 4 compared to stage 3.
Question 7. How well do you feel you understand what COVID-19 is? No significant differences	Question 8. How much does the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic affect you emotionally? Men: no significant differences. Women: significantly lower scores at stages 2 and 4 compared to stages 1 and 3.

Note. Women's answers are shown in blue, and men's are in green. Differences are significant at p < .05.

APPENDIX 2

Comparison of average answers by questionnaire items with significant differences for respondents from Russia, Azerbaijan, and Uzbekistan in the first half of 2021

Question 1. How much does the existing COVID-19 pandemic affect your life? - Men: the Azerbaijan subsample has significantly higher scores compared to the two other subsamples of men. - Women: Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan samples differ significantly.	Question 2. How long do you think the COVID-19 pandemic will continue? - Men: no significant differences - Women: Azerbaijan and Uzbekistan samples differ significantly.
Question 6. How much are you concerned about the spread of COVID-19? Significant differences between the male and female samples from Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan: respondents of both genders from Azerbaijan showed higher scores	Question 8. How much does the presence of the COVID-19 pandemic affect you emotionally? Significant differences between the male and female samples from Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan: respondents of both genders from Azerbaijan showed higher scores

Note. Women's answers are shown in blue, and men's are in green. Differences are significant at p < .05.