Punitiveness toward social distancing deviance in the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from two national experiments

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.

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).

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.

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.