How Personal Experience with Covid-19 Shapes Attitudes Towards Government Coercion?

The COVID-19 pandemic exposed millions around the world to extreme health and economic shocks. In order to contain the pandemic, governments employed various policies, which differed in their level of coercion. These measures ranged from mere nudges and recommendations to wear masks and keep social distance, to strict personal and national restrictions such as lockdowns, quarantines and shutdowns of economic sectors. The nature, scope and duration of these measures varied not only across countries but also within them. Public reactions to these restrictive policies were also diverse. Levels of compliance - and relatedly, of protest against the restrictions - differed over time, across and within countries. Using original survey data collected in Israel during January 2021, this study explores how risk perceptions and personal health or economic exposure to the coronavirus affected support for government policies related and unrelated to the pandemic. In particular, did corona-induced deterioration of personal health or employment status result in more support for coercive government policies? Did such experiences spill over to shape attitudes on government involvement more broadly? Contrary to my expectations, I find that actual exposure - e.g., getting sick or losing one’s job - had only limited effect on support for the policies. Risk perceptions, on the other hand, especially with regard to COVID-19’s health implications (but not economic or emotional consequences) increased support for coercive government policies. The findings are consequential for democratic politics, as large-scale crises are times when right-restricting temporal measures are introduced, and may eventually become permanent. If risk perceptions, irrespective of actual exposure, are more important in raising support for such measures, this can be used or - in the pessimistic scenario - exploited by leaders within the current or the next natural crisis.