Between Anti-Intellectualism and Authoritarianism: Experimental Evidence on Support for Health Emergency Policies

This paper explores how anti-intellectualism and authoritarianism influence individuals’ support for various health emergency policies, using the COVID-19 pandemic as a case study. The study engages with broader debates on the production and use of scientific evidence in policymaking, especially in contexts of risk and uncertainty. While populist governments often presented polarising responses to the pandemic—ranging from science denialism to strict authoritarian measures—existing literature lacks clarity on how these tendencies impact public perceptions of distinct policy types. This study addresses this gap by distinguishing between regulatory, distributive, and redistributive policies, building on Lowi’s typology. Theoretical frameworks suggest that anti-intellectualism, defined as distrust toward experts and intellectuals, leads to lower compliance with public health guidelines and reduced concern about the pandemic. Conversely, authoritarian predispositions, driven by a preference for social order during perceived threats, are associated with stronger support for restrictive policies and compliance with legitimate authority. However, the role of scientific and expert authority—often perceived as the “elite” in populist rhetoric—complicates these dynamics, creating tension between anti-elite sentiments and policy enforcement. This study empirically tests these relationships through a randomised conjoint analysis, enabling the isolation of policy attributes and their effects on public support. The analysis focuses on two countries, the United States and Brazil, which experienced politicised COVID-19 debates and are marked by authoritarian populism and science-related populist rhetoric. Both cases provide an opportunity to compare public reactions in federal systems where multi-level governments had autonomy in implementing policies, ranging from vaccine distribution to mandates with sanctions. By analysing policy preferences across diverse types and contexts, it highlights how anti-intellectualism and authoritarianism moderate support for evidence-based policies. Ultimately, this research advances theoretical and empirical knowledge on the contested role of science in policy-making during health emergencies.