TY - JOUR
T1 - Punitiveness toward social distancing deviance in the COVID-19 pandemic
T2 - Findings from two national experiments
AU - Lee, Heejin
AU - Pickett, Justin T.
AU - Graham, Amanda
AU - Cullen, Francis T.
AU - Jonson, Cheryl Lero
AU - Haner, Murat
AU - Sloan, Melissa M.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature B.V. 2024.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Objective: This study sought to understand how the public perceived new offenses in a time of public health crisis—social distancing deviance in the COVID-19 pandemic—and what factors influenced their perceptions. We also explored whether the correlates of crisis-related punitiveness changed over time, as the pandemic became more politicized. Data and methods: Our data came from two national surveys administered one year apart, in March 2020 (n = 995) and March 2021 (n = 1,030). To measure sanction preferences, we used experimental vignettes randomizing the characteristics of the offense (e.g., victim harm) and offender (e.g., individual vs. business owner). Results: As with other types of deviance, just desert concerns predominated. Respondents preferred harsher penalties when offenders violated social distancing directives (versus guidelines) and caused more harm. Certain political/ideological factors (e.g., binding foundations, libertarianism, racial resentment) became more predictive one year into the pandemic, after controlling for personal fear of the virus and demographic factors. Conclusions: The findings illustrate how public punitiveness toward antisocial behavior develops over time. When new offenses emerge, the public initially evaluates them mostly based on moral culpability and harm. With politicization, however, other factors (e.g., racial and political beliefs) play a role as well. It appears, then, that public reactions to new offenses initially reflect intuitions of justice and are later updated to incorporate cultural and political concerns.
AB - Objective: This study sought to understand how the public perceived new offenses in a time of public health crisis—social distancing deviance in the COVID-19 pandemic—and what factors influenced their perceptions. We also explored whether the correlates of crisis-related punitiveness changed over time, as the pandemic became more politicized. Data and methods: Our data came from two national surveys administered one year apart, in March 2020 (n = 995) and March 2021 (n = 1,030). To measure sanction preferences, we used experimental vignettes randomizing the characteristics of the offense (e.g., victim harm) and offender (e.g., individual vs. business owner). Results: As with other types of deviance, just desert concerns predominated. Respondents preferred harsher penalties when offenders violated social distancing directives (versus guidelines) and caused more harm. Certain political/ideological factors (e.g., binding foundations, libertarianism, racial resentment) became more predictive one year into the pandemic, after controlling for personal fear of the virus and demographic factors. Conclusions: The findings illustrate how public punitiveness toward antisocial behavior develops over time. When new offenses emerge, the public initially evaluates them mostly based on moral culpability and harm. With politicization, however, other factors (e.g., racial and political beliefs) play a role as well. It appears, then, that public reactions to new offenses initially reflect intuitions of justice and are later updated to incorporate cultural and political concerns.
KW - COVID-19
KW - Intuitions of justice
KW - Moral foundations
KW - Punitiveness
KW - Racial resentment
KW - Social distancing deviance
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185272128&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11292-024-09610-3
DO - 10.1007/s11292-024-09610-3
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85185272128
SN - 1573-3750
JO - Journal of Experimental Criminology
JF - Journal of Experimental Criminology
ER -