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. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of JQ: Justice Quarterly is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)