Due to copyright issues, an electronic copy of the thesis must be ordered from the faculty. For the faculty to have time to process the order, the order must be received by the faculty at the latest 2 days before the public defence. Orders received later than 2 days before the defence will not be processed. After the public defence, please address any inquiries regarding the thesis to the candidate.
Trial Lecture – time and place
See Trial Lecture.
Adjudication committee
- First opponent: Professor Niklas Juth, Uppsala University,
- Second opponent: Professor Kurt Houlberg, VIVE The Danish Center for Social Science Research,
- Third member and chair of the evaluation committee: Associate professor Randi Opheim, University of Oslo
Chair of the Defence
Professor emeritus Mette Brekke, University of Oslo
Principal Supervisor
Professor Eli Feiring, University of Oslo
Summary
Effective public health policy requires more than medical arguments. This thesis examines when and why people support freedom-restricting measures, such as vaccination passports or regulations on lifestyle-related diseases, and the conditions under which support increases.
The dissertation addresses four central questions: how perceptions of legitimacy shape public acceptance of COVID-19 pandemic policies; how do theories of political authoritarianism help explain variation in public support for authoritarian pandemic measures; what is the association between perceived norm violations by others and support for strict public health interventions; and how are appeals to responsibility used to justify restrictions on or support for individual freedom.
Three empirical studies provide the basis for the analysis. Paper I uses cross-sectional survey data from 22 countries (n = 50,242) to examine the association between political orientation and support for vaccination passports. Paper II analyses Norwegian survey data (n = 935) to explore the link between perceived rule-breaking and support for stricter pandemic measures. Paper III uses qualitative inductive thematic analysis of open-text responses from a U.S. experiment with healthcare personnel (n = 245) to examine fairness-based justifications for favouring one receiver.
The findings show that legitimacy, fairness, and trust in decision-making influence acceptance of restrictions. Right-leaning respondents were more likely than left-leaning to endorse authoritarian measures, though this pattern does not generalise across countries. Support was higher when others were perceived to neglect health recommendations.
Overall, the results demonstrate that the effectiveness of freedom-restricting policies depends on public support shaped by legitimacy, political orientation, norm compliance, and responsibility attributions. These insights are valuable for pandemic preparedness and addressing challenges such as chronic disease.
Additional information
Contact the research support staff.