Abstract

Policies implemented to control the COVID-19 (C19) pandemic have faced public resistance. We examined this issue via an experimental vignette study embedded in a May 2020 national (U.S.) survey conducted by YouGov. Specifically, we explore how the public perceived a local policymaker proposing a C19-related isolation policy, based on the policy’s invasiveness or its punitivity. We find that more intrusive and more punitive policies generally resulted in colder feelings towards, and harsher perceptions of, the policymaker. However, our results suggest that the main driver of public sentiment towards the policymaker was the invasiveness of the proposed policy, with the policy's punitivity being less impactful. We discuss these findings in relation to policymaking, policy support and compliance, and tradeoffs between informal/formal controls, and intrusive/punitive policies.

摘要

为控制 COVID-19 (C19) 大流行而实施的政策面临公众的抵制。我们通过 YouGov 进行的 2020 年 5 月全国（美国）调查中嵌入的实验性小插图研究来研究这个问题。具体而言，我们根据政策的侵入性或惩罚性，探讨了公众如何看待当地政策制定者提出与 C19 相关的隔离政策。我们发现更具侵入性和更具惩罚性的政策通常会导致对政策制定者的冷漠和严厉看法。然而，我们的结果表明，公众对政策制定者的情绪的主要驱动力是拟议政策的侵入性，而政策的惩罚性影响较小。我们讨论了与政策制定、政策支持和合规性以及非正式/正式控制之间的权衡相关的这些发现，