Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 8 - Do the Public Support ‘Hard’ or ‘Soft’ Public Policies?

  • from Part I - Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
  • Edited by Joan Costa-Font, London School of Economics and Political Science, Matteo M. Galizzi, London School of Economics and Political Science
  • Book:
    Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
    Published online:
    31 January 2025
    Print publication:
    02 May 2024, pp 126-147

  • Summary

    Early in the pandemic, the public accepted considerable state intervention to stop the spread of COVID-19. This was a puzzle of sorts, given the prevailing wisdom that people prefer to be nudged and avoid restrictions and financial costs. We revisit and update the evidence presented in an earlier study that explored the factors that explain public preferences for ‘soft’ (nudge) versus ‘hard’ (laws, bans) policies. We report that public support for ‘hard’ policies appears to have steadily declined since mid-2020. New insights reflect the importance of partisanship and risk perceptions for individual preferences for ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ policies. We find little evidence of spillover effects from COVID-19 policy preferences to environmental policy preferences, but also no evidence of crowding out in terms of policy agendas. We conclude with a series of questions that shape the future research agenda, where much is still to be learned about how and why policy preferences evolve over time.

  • Psychosocial implications of early COVID-19 restrictions on older adults in a small-town region in Southwestern, Pennsylvania (USA)

  • Tiffany F. Hughes, Xinhui Ran, Fang Fang, Erin Jacobsen, Beth E. Snitz, Chung-Chou H. Chang, Mary Ganguli
  • Journal:
    International Psychogeriatrics / Volume 36 / Issue 9 / September 2024
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    10 November 2022, pp. 762-771
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation
  • Objectives:

    The restrictions put in place in 2020 to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus disease 2019 limited or eliminated social connections that are vital for psychosocial well-being. The objectives of this research were to examine the impact of early pandemic-related restrictions on feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety as well as social activity disruption and their concomitant associations in a sample of community-dwelling older adults residing in a small-town region in the USA.

    Design and Setting:

    Cross-sectional data collected from an ongoing population-based cohort study in Southwestern, Pennsylvania.

    Participants:

    Analyses included 360 adults aged 65 years and older whose annual study assessment occurred during the first 120 days of pandemic-related restrictions.

    Measurements:

    Self-reported feelings of loneliness, depression, and anxiety due to the pandemic-related restrictions were each measured using a single question. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were also assessed with the modified Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 item tools. Disruption in a variety of common social activities was also assessed.

    Results:

    Feeling lonely affected 36% of participants who were more likely to be female, not currently married, and living alone. Giving up in-person visits with family was associated with significantly higher odds of feeling lonely, and feeling lonely was associated with significantly higher odds of feelings of anxiety and depression.

    Conclusions:

    Loneliness is a serious outcome of pandemic-related restrictions among older adults, potentially linked to loss of connection with family, and may be associated with increased feelings of depression and anxiety.