{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03009027081243731, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010030090270812437, 'mean_word_length': 5.438709677419355, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Too Harsh for Me but Not for Thee? Threat Control, Personal Freedom, and Perception of Pandemic Policy

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.