1

The Attitudes to Authority during COVID-19 Survey

July 2020

Kristina Murphy, Harley Williamson, Elise Sargeant & Molly McCarthy

2

The Attitudes to Authority During COVID-19

Survey

Technical Report

Griffith Criminology Institute Griffith University

To cite this report: Kristina Murphy, Harley Williamson, Elise Sargeant & Molly McCarthy (2020). The Attitudes to Authority During COVID-19 Survey: Technical Report. Griffith Criminology Institute. Brisbane: Griffith University.

3

Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2

Background: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic ....................................... 2

The ‘Attitudes to Authority during COVID-19 Survey’ ................................................. 3

Part 1: Survey Methodology ................................................................................................ 4

Overview of the Survey .................................................................................................. 4

Survey Procedure ............................................................................................................ 4

Sampling Design and Creation ................................................................................... 5

The Facebook Ad Manager ........................................................................................ 6

Survey Qualification ................................................................................................... 6

Survey Response Rate ..................................................................................................... 7

Sample Representativeness ............................................................................................. 8

Item Non-Response ....................................................................................................... 11

Part 2: Preliminary Survey Findings .................................................................................. 13

Survey Section 1: Participant Background ................................................................... 13

Demographic Composition of Sample ..................................................................... 13

Survey Section 2: How You See Yourself and Others ................................................. 18

2.1 Identity with Different Groups ....................................................................... 18

2.2 Community Cohesion .................................................................................... 19

2.3 Informal Social Control ................................................................................. 19

Survey Section 3: Attitudes Towards Authority ........................................................... 20

3.1 General Attitudes towards Police ................................................................... 20

3.2 Defiance and Compliance .............................................................................. 24

3.3 Support for Authoritarian Policing Strategies ................................................ 27

3.4 General Attitudes towards Government ......................................................... 30

Survey Section 4: Authority Responses to COVID-19 ................................................. 31

4

4.1 Support for COVID-19 Measures .................................................................. 31

4.2 Confidence in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis .......................... 33

4.3 Communication from Authorities Regarding the COVID-19 Crisis ............. 35

4.4 Duty to Obey Authorities’ During COVID-19 Restrictions .......................... 36

4.5 Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions ............................... 37

4.6 Personal Morality ........................................................................................... 40

4.7 Perceived Sanction Risk ................................................................................ 41

4.8 Specific Informal Social Control ................................................................... 42

4.9 Support for Police During COVID-19 Crisis ................................................. 43

4.10 Miscellaneous Questions regarding COVID-19 Restrictions ........................ 49

Survey Section 5: The Effects of COVID-19 on Participants ....................................... 49

5.1 Experience of Having COVID-19 ................................................................. 50

5.2 Knowledge of COVID-19 .............................................................................. 50

5.3 Concern regarding contracting COVID-19 .................................................... 51

5.4 Perceived threat of COVID-19 ...................................................................... 52

5.5 Adverse Life Outcomes Experienced Because of COVID-19 ....................... 54

5.6 Emotional Wellbeing During COVID-19 Lockdown .................................... 55

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 57

Part 3: Construction of Scales ............................................................................................ 59

Survey Section 1: Participant Background ................................................................... 59

Survey Section 2: How You See Yourself and Others ................................................. 59

Identity with Different Groups ................................................................................. 59

Community Cohesion ............................................................................................... 61

Informal Social Control ............................................................................................ 61

Survey Section 3: Your Attitudes Towards Authority .................................................. 62

Identity/Solidarity with the Police ............................................................................ 62

General Trust and Confidence in Police ................................................................... 63

Procedural Justice: General ...................................................................................... 63

5

Distributive Justice: General .................................................................................... 64

Bounded Authority: General .................................................................................... 64

Moral Alignment: Police .......................................................................................... 65

Moral Obligation to Obey Police ............................................................................. 65

Resistant Defiance .................................................................................................... 66

Dismissive Defiance ................................................................................................. 66

Willingness to Cooperate with Police ...................................................................... 67

Support for Police Use of Force ............................................................................... 67

Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance ................................................................. 68

Support for Authoritarian Rule ................................................................................. 68

General Attitudes towards Government ................................................................... 69

Survey Section 4: Responses to COVID-19 ................................................................. 71

Duty to Obey Authorities during COVID-19 Restrictions ....................................... 71

Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions ......................................... 71

Personal Morality ..................................................................................................... 72

Perceived Sanction Risk ........................................................................................... 73

Specific Informal Social Control .............................................................................. 73

Support for Police During COVID-19 Crisis ........................................................... 74

Procedural Justice – Police-Initiated Contact ........................................................... 76

Procedural Justice – Citizen-Initiated Contact ......................................................... 77

Survey Section 5: The Effects of COVID-19 ............................................................... 77

Emotional Well-being During COVID-19 Lockdown ............................................. 77

References .......................................................................................................................... 79

Appendix A: Facebook Advertisement Materials ......................................................... 83

Part 4: Survey Codebook ................................................................................................... 84

Codebook Appendix ........................................................................................................ 120

Appendix A: Age Variable .......................................................................................... 120

Appendix B: Ethnic/Racial Group String Variable ..................................................... 122

6

Appendix C: Employment String Variable ................................................................. 124

Appendix D: Postcode String Variable ....................................................................... 127

Appendix E: ‘Key Worker’ Role String Variable ....................................................... 147

* * *

7

Table of Tables

Table 1. Response Rate from the Survey ................................................................................... 8

Table 2. Percentage Comparison of Gender between COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census .... 9

Table 3. Percentage Comparison of Age between COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census ......... 9

Table 4. Comparison of Australian-born vs. Overseas Born Participants between COVID-19

Survey and 2016 Census .......................................................................................................... 10

Table 5. Comparison of Educational Attainment between COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census

.................................................................................................................................................. 10

Table 6 Comparison of states and territories of residence between COVID-19 Survey and 2016

Census ...................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 7. Summary of Demographic Background Variables .................................................... 15

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Identity ................................................... 18

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Various Attitudes to Police Scales .................................... 21

Table 10. Descriptive statistics for Defiance and Compliance Scales ..................................... 25

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Support for Police Use of Force ........... 28

Table 12. Descriptive statistics for Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance ........................ 29

Table 13. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Support for Authoritarian Rule ............ 29

Table 14. Descriptive statistics for Attitudes to Government Scales ....................................... 30

Table 15. Participants’ Feelings of Duty to Support Government’s COVID-19 Restrictions . 37

Table 16. Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions ......................................... 38

Table 17. Specific Informal Social Control pertaining to the COVID-19 Crisis ..................... 43

Table 18. Support for Police Enhanced Powers During COVID-19 Crisis ............................. 44

Table 19. Trust in Police to Enforce COVID-19 Restrictions Appropriately .......................... 45

Table 20. Specific Procedural Justice Assessments of Police Enforcing the COVID-19

Restrictions .............................................................................................................................. 47

Table 21. Participants’ Experiences of Having COVID-19 ..................................................... 50

8

Table 22. Perceived Threat of COVID-19 ............................................................................... 53

* * *

9

Table of Figures

Figure 1. Number and Percentage of Participants Living in each Australian State/Territory . 14

Figure 2. Mean scores for Australian Identity, Law-abiding and Identity with Community .. 19

Figure 3. Mean Scores for Items Demonstrating Participants’ Perceptions that Police are

Important Representatives of the State .................................................................................... 24

Figure 4. Participants’ Level of Support for Various COVID-19 Measures ........................... 32

Figure 5. Stacked Graph showing Participant support for each COVID-19 Measure ............. 33

Figure 6. Mean Scores Demonstrating Participants’ Confidence in Authorities to Handle the

COVID-19 Crisis ..................................................................................................................... 34

Figure 7 Stacked Graph Outlining Participant Responses to Each Item About their Confidence

in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis ....................................................................... 35

Figure 8. Participants’ Perceptions that Authorities have Communicated Effectively During the

COVID-19 Crisis ..................................................................................................................... 36

Figure 9 Mean Scores Demonstrating Participants’ Levels of Self-reported Compliance with

COVID-19 Restrictions ........................................................................................................... 39

Figure 10. Extent to Which Participants are Following Recommendations from Authorities to

Prevent the Spread of COVID-19 ............................................................................................ 40

Figure 11. Participants’ Belief that it is Morally Wrong to Engage in these COVID-19

Restrictions .............................................................................................................................. 41

Figure 12. Participants’ Perceptions of Sanction Risk ............................................................. 42

Figure 13. Participants’ Level of Support for Police Enhanced Powers During the COVID-19

Crisis ........................................................................................................................................ 45

Figure 14. Frequency Distribution Outlining Participants’ Level of Satisfaction with How

Police Handled Themselves During the COVID-19 Crisis ..................................................... 48

Figure 15. Participants’ Self-reported Knowledge of COVID-19 ........................................... 51

Figure 16. Participants' Concern about Contracting COVID-19 ............................................. 52

Figure 17. Perceived Threat of COVID-19 to Different Aspects of Participants’ Lives ......... 54

10

Figure 18. Adverse Outcomes Experienced by Participants as a Result of COVID-19 .......... 55

Figure 19. Positive Emotions Experienced Since the Start of the COVID-19 Crisis .............. 56

Figure 20. Negative Emotions Experienced Since the Start of the COVID-19 Crisis ............ 57

* * * *

2

Introduction This technical report presents the methodology, findings and data for the Attitudes to Authority

during COVID-19 Survey (heron referred to as the COVID-19 Survey). The survey was

administered by Griffith University researchers during the initial period of the global novel

coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic outbreak in Australia. It was administered via Facebook

for a three-week period to gauge Australians’ views about the COVID-19 crises, its impact on

their lives, and their attitudes regarding Australian authorities’ response to the pandemic. The

following sections of the report present: (a) the background literature informing the project, (b)

the aims of the project, (c) the methodology used to collect the survey data, and (d) a summary

of the main findings obtained from the survey. Following this, the items used to construct key

measures in the survey are presented. The actual survey instrument used in the project is then

presented at the back of this report, with a detailed breakdown of participant responses

provided to each survey item.

Background: The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic Australia reported its first confirmed case of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) in

Sydney on 26 January 2020. In the weeks following, the number of confirmed cases across the

country rose dramatically, with the vast majority of cases being imported by international

travellers (both returning Australians and tourists). On March 11, 2020 the World Health

Organization declared the COVID-19 outbreak a global pandemic. A priority amongst

authorities globally is limiting the spread of the virus. During the initial period of the pandemic

outbreak in Australia, this response included introducing mandatory ‘lockdown’ restrictions

which limited citizens’ freedom of movement. On 15 March 2020, acting on the advice of

Australia’s Chief Medical Officer, Prime Minister Scott Morrison announced a series of

immediate and mandatory restrictions. The restrictions, mostly implemented and enforced by

state and territory governments, limited public gatherings and freedom of movement.

Australia’s external borders were also closed to non-residents on March 20, and internal border

restrictions were subsequently introduced between most Australian states and territories.

Further, many businesses, schools and universities closed to limit the virus’ spread. During the

most restrictive lockdown period (March 15 to May 1), travelling to and from medical

appointments or work (if work could not be done at home), shopping for ‘essential’ supplies,

and exercise in one’s local area, were the only activities allowable outside the home. People

were also forbidden to socialise with friends or family in their own homes. ‘Social distancing’

3

became a new household term, and people were directed to keep physical distance from others

if they had to leave the house.

As lockdown restrictions entered their second and third month, signs began to emerge

that Australians had become restless in social isolation and had become complacent in abiding

by restrictions. Thousands of infringement notices were issued to those flouting lockdown

restrictions. For example, by May 3, Queensland Police had issued 1,664 fines totalling more

than $2 million (Cartwright, 2020), and by May 21, Victoria Police had issued more than 5,719

fines totally more than $9.4 million (Zagon, 2020). On May 10, anti-lockdown protests

occurred in Melbourne, resulting in 10 arrests. Despite this, Australia has had early success in

controlling the COVID-19 outbreak (approx. 7,400 confirmed cases and 102 deaths as of June

2020). Part of this success was due to the willingness of most Australians to comply with

lockdown restrictions in the early phase of the pandemic outbreak.

The ‘Attitudes to Authority during COVID-19 Survey’ The Attitudes to Authority during COVID-19 Survey (i.e., COVID-19 Survey) was an

online survey developed to gauge Australian attitudes towards mandatory restrictions

introduced to tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, to examine participants’ feelings towards

COVID-19 and its impacts on participants’ lives, and to understand public attitudes toward

authorities during a pandemic outbreak. The survey captured participants’ attitudes towards

authorities generally, before examining perceptions specific to their handling of the COVID-

19 pandemic response. Questions pertained to attitudes towards state and federal government

authorities, health authorities, and police. The survey canvassed the attitudes of adult

participants (i.e., 17+ years) from all states and territories in Australia.

This technical report is divided into four parts. Part 1 outlines the methodology of the

COVID-19 Survey, including the sampling strategy, response rates, sample representativeness,

and an overview of the key concepts and how they were measured. Part 2 summarises the

preliminary findings from the COVID-19 Survey. Part 3 details the items used to construct the

scales that represent each of the key concepts outlined in Part 2 of this report. Finally, Part 4

presents the codebook, which outlines all of the items in the survey, as well as a breakdown of

participant responses to each question and any missing data for each item. Several appendices

containing data from the survey are also presented.

4

Part 1: Survey Methodology

Overview of the Survey The Attitudes to Authority during COVID-19 Survey (i.e., COVID-19 Survey) was

designed to gauge participants’ perceptions of mandatory restrictions introduced to address the

COVID-19 pandemic, participants’ reflections on how the pandemic had affected their lives,

participants’ general attitudes towards authorities as well as their attitudes towards authorities

specific to their handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. The full survey included 227 questions

and took approximately 30 minutes to complete.

There were five sections in the survey, each section containing multiple questions.

Section 1 of the survey included a range of demographic background questions. These were

included to ascertain how different people in different situations or from different backgrounds

respond to the pandemic. Section 2 also contained some general background questions related

to participants’ identification with different groups in society and their thoughts on their

neighbourhoods. Section 3 asked about general thoughts regarding police and government.

Section 4 included a range of questions that asked participants about their opinions of powers

granted to police and government personnel in Australia to address the COVID-19 pandemic.

The fifth and final section of the survey included a series of questions gauging the extent to

which COVID-19 had impacted participants’ lives.

Survey Procedure Limesurvey was used to design and construct the COVID-19 Survey. Participants were

recruited through Facebook (see Appendix A for the advertisement and further information)

and surveys were completed online by directing participants to the provided Limesurvey

weblink in the advertisement. Eligibility criteria were placed on survey respondents, with only

Australian Facebook users and those aged 17+ years being eligible to participate. A

convenience sample of 3,175 participants was recruited during the survey fielding period.

However, after removing participants who had not completed the survey (n=1,402), or who

had answered at least 1 of 2 validity check questions incorrectly (n=178), this resulted in a final

useable sample size of 1,595 participants.

Data collection began at 9am on Friday April 24th, 2020 and the recruitment

advertisement published on Facebook closed at 9am on Friday May 15th, 2020 (thus, the survey

was fielded through Facebook for a total of 21 days). At the conclusion of the survey,

5

participants had the option of entering into a prize draw for a $100 gift voucher. Those wanting

to enter the prize draw were directed to a separate website to collect their personal details. As

the survey was advertised as an anonymous survey, this ensured identifying information was

not linked to their survey responses.

Limesurvey enables users to download data in a variety of formats. A CSV file containing

all survey responses was exported from Limesurvey. It was subsequently cleaned to conduct

the analyses presented in this report.

Sampling Design and Creation As previously mentioned, the survey was conducted through Limesurvey, which is an

online survey platform, and participant recruitment occurred through an advertisement

published on Facebook. Facebook is becoming a well-known platform for conducting research

(Samuels & Zucco, 2013) and has been used to recruit participants across disciplines including

health (Pedersen & Kurz, 2016), education (Forgasz, Tan, Leder, & McLeod, 2017) and social

science (Brickman Bhutta, 2012).

While using Facebook meant that a convenience sampling approach was utilised,

Facebook was the most practicable option to collect the data for several reasons. Firstly, it was

the most cost-effective. Secondly, recruiting participants through Facebook may have

alleviated the potential for certain biases. For example, using a platform such as Qualtrics,

where people register to complete surveys in exchange for money, may mean that survey

results are biased because participants may be motivated by the monetary gain rather than the

value of the research. Facebook may attract a range of potential participants from diverse

backgrounds to complete the survey. Prior research shows that surveys advertised through

social media sites such as Facebook are also more likely to attract younger participants (Ramo

& Prochaska, 2012). This overcomes the problem of many other survey methods which tend

to over-represent older participants. Moreover, as Facebook is not traditionally used to conduct

research, it may have attracted participants more genuinely interested in the study. Thirdly,

Facebook is the dominant social media platform in Australia, and almost 60% of the Australian

population are active Facebook users (SocialMediaNews.com.au, 2020). Also, when initiating

a survey advertisement on Facebook, the advertisement is automatically promoted on

Instagram as well. As Instagram is the third most used social media platform in Australia

(SocialMediaNews.com.au, 2020), utilising Facebook (and Instagram) as a conduit to collect

6

data may have enabled the net to be cast more widely than other methods, and thus attracted a

more representative sample of participants to complete the survey.

The Facebook Ad Manager Facebook has an Ad Manager feature which enables a user to create their own

advertisement for potential participants to click on (see Appendix A for a visual depiction of

the advertisement used for the present study). The advertisement was featured through Griffith

University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice Facebook page. The process to

recruit participants was as follows:

à If a Facebook user was interested in finding out more information about the study or

if they wished to complete the survey they could click on the “sign up” button on the

advertisement;

à Upon clicking the “sign up” link, potential participants were taken to a Limesurvey

website where the landing page of the survey was. Here they read through an

information sheet and electronically consented to participate in the study before being

directed to the survey questions.

The Facebook Ad Manager provides estimated sample sizes that might be yielded based

on the length of time the survey will be fielded and the specified budget. When specifying a

21-day duration and a budget of $1000, the estimated daily results were predicted to be 121-

800 clicks of the advertisement by Facebook users. The aim was to gauge how many people

on average were participating in the survey over a one-week period and adjusting the budget

accordingly to ensure the minimum desired sample was achieved.

Survey Qualification Facebook draws on a set budget amount and bids on behalf of the researcher for

advertising space. Advertising space is selected based on the location most likely to attract the

desired participants (e.g., based on demographic parameters set by the researcher). For the

COVID-19 Survey, parameters included any person over the age of 18 living in Australia. The

parameters in the Facebook Ad Manager can also be manipulated during the data collection

phase. For example, key demographics such as age, gender, and the location of the participant

can be altered to target more specific groups. Partway through data collection in the current

study, the sample was skewed towards females. Thus, the parameters were altered so the

7

advertisement was targeted solely to males. Once the gender ratio evened out, the parameters

were again reset to target both male and female adults living in Australia.

Survey Response Rate Facebook provides information on the results of the advertisement. Firstly, it provides

the impressions of the advertisement, which show the number of times that a Facebook

advertisement was on-screen (across Facebook and Instagram on a computer, tablet, and

mobile devices). The reach of the advertisement represents how many Facebook users viewed

the advertisement at least once. Finally, the results show how many Facebook users clicked on

the advertisement to go to the survey landing page. There were a total of 3,628 clicks on the

Facebook advertisement during the time it was live. From here, 3,175 consented to participate

in the survey and were subsequently directed to the survey instrument on Limesurvey. This

represented an 87.5% response rate (out of a possible 3,628 potential participants who clicked

on the Facebook advertisement). However, upon analysis of the data, participants who had not

completed the survey (n=1,402) were removed. A total of 1,773 participants completed a

survey in full. Of these, 178 had incorrectly responded to one of two validation check questions

and were also removed, leaving a total useable sample size of 1,595 participants. This usable

sample represents a 44.0% response rate. This final response rate represents the proportion of

people who completed the survey in full after clicking on the survey link (N=3,628; see Table

1).

8

Table 1. Response Rate from the Survey

Identity Scales Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Total N

Impressions from the Facebook Advertisement 212,905a

Reach of the Facebook Advertisement 114,624b

Results from the Facebook Advertisement 3,628

Surveys Fully Completed 1,773

Surveys Partially Completed 1,402

Initial Response Rate 87.5%c

Participants who Incorrectly Responded to Validation Check Questions 178

Final Usable Surveys 1,595

Final Response Rate 44.0%d

a Impressions are the number of times the advertisement was shown on the user’s screen either via Facebook or Instagram. This figure may include numerous views of the advertisement by the same individuals; b The reach represents the number of people who viewed the advertisement at least one time; c Surveys Fully Completed as a proportion of Results from the Facebook Advertisement; d Final Usable Surveys as a proportion of Results from the Facebook Advertisement.

Sample Representativeness The representativeness of the survey sample was ascertained by comparing key

demographic variables provided by respondents with Australian population data on the same

measures. Survey response demographics were compared with 2016 Australian census data.

Table 2 highlights the difference in gender ratio between the survey respondents and the gender

composition in the 2016 Australian census. There is an over-representation of females in the

COVID-19 Survey (by 6.3%; see Table 2).

9

Table 2. Percentage Comparison of Gender between COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census

Sample group Sample %

Census %

Absolute

difference

%

Male 43.0 49.3 -6.3 Female 57.0 50.7 +6.3 Total 100.0 100.0

There were some slight differences in age group when comparing the COVID-19 Survey

with census data (see Table 3). Specifically, in the COVID-19 Survey there was a substantial

over-representation of participants in the 55-64 age groups and a slight over-representation of

those in the 45-54 age group, while participants in all other age groups were slightly under-

represented. We expected that our sample would under-represent the 15-19-year age group

because the COVID-19 Survey only recruited participants aged 17+ years.

Table 3. Percentage Comparison of Age between COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census

Sample group Sample %

Census %

Absolute

difference

%

15-19* 1.3 7.5 -6.2 20-24 5.5 8.2 -2.7 25-34 11.4 17.7 -6.3 35-44 16.2 16.5 -0.3 45-54 22.3 16.3 +6.0 55-64 27.3 14.5 +12.8 65+ 16.1 16.8 -0.7 Total 100.0 100.0

* Note: ABS census data only provides figures for the 15-19 age group. We expected our sample to under-represent the 15-19-year age range because our survey only recruited participants aged 17+.

10

As can be seen in Table 4, there was a slightly higher proportion of respondents who

completed the COVID-19 Survey who were born in Australia, when compared to census

proportions. Specifically, 77.2% of the survey sample reported that they were born in Australia

(over-represented by 3.5%).

Table 4. Comparison of Australian-born vs. Overseas Born Participants between

COVID-19 Survey and 2016 Census

Sample group Sample %

Census %

Absolute

difference

%

Australian born 77.2 73.7 +3.5 Overseas born 22.8 26.3 -3.5 Total 100.0 100.0

When comparing sample proportions of educational attainment from the COVID-19

Survey with census data, there were some differences (see Table 5). In the COVID-19 Survey,

participants who had a bachelor’s degree or higher were substantially over-represented when

compared to census proportions. Those who had not completed high school were

correspondingly underrepresented.

Table 5. Comparison of Educational Attainment between COVID-19 Survey and 2016

Census

Sample group Sample %

Census %

Absolute

difference

%

No educational attainment 0.2 0.8 -0.7 Did not complete high school 3.6 23.7 -20.1 Completed high school 11.7 15.7 -4.0 Trade/technical certificate or diploma 28.4 24.7 +3.7 Bachelor’s Degree and above 56.1 22.0 +34.1 Total 100.0 100.0

11

Finally, participants were asked which Australian state or territory they resided in. From

here, the proportion of people living in each state/territory were compared to census data. As

outlined in Table 6, participants who reported that they lived in Queensland were over-

represented in the survey. This over-representation could be attributed to the fact that the

survey was initially disseminated through Griffith University’s Facebook page; Griffith

University is a Queensland-based University. Additionally, participants from Victoria were

somewhat under-represented by 8.0%.

Table 6 Comparison of states and territories of residence between COVID-19 Survey and

2016 Census

Sample group Sample %

Census %

Absolute

difference

%

Northern Territory 0.5 1.0 -0.5 New South Wales 26.1 32.0 -5.9 Australian Capital Territory 2.7 1.7 +1.0 Queensland 32.4 20.0 +12.4 Victoria 17.7 25.7 -8.0 South Australia 6.5 7.0 -0.5 Western Australia 8.7 10.5 -1.8 Tasmania 5.3 2.1 +3.2 Total 100.0 100.0

Item Non-Response Item non-response in the COVID-19 Survey was low. Limesurvey enables users to

download all responses, completed responses only, or partially completed responses only. Only

completed responses were downloaded and formed part of the final dataset (n=1,595) to be

cleaned. A missing data analysis was conducted but the majority of the items excluding skip

questions returned a missing value count of 0 (0.0%). Ten items had a high missing value

results. This can be explained by the fact that respondents were not eligible to answer those

particular questions. For example, the one question containing high levels of missing data

asked participants to identify how long they had lived in Australia (if they were born overseas)

12

(77.2% missing). Non-response to this item was due to the fact that 22.8% of the sample was

not born overseas and thus the follow-up question was not applicable to them.

13

Part 2: Preliminary Survey Findings Part 2 of this technical report presents the findings from each of the five sections of the

COVID-19 Survey. The results presented here are descriptive only and do not seek to make any

generalised conclusions about relationships between variables or measures. More detailed

analyses using the data will be conducted at a later date. Note that Part 3 of this report will

outline the items used to construct scales used in the analysis in this current section.

Survey Section 1: Participant Background Demographic Composition of Sample The first section of the COVID-19 Survey included demographic information about each

participant. Some of these variables were compared to census data to determine their

representativeness to general population statistics (these comparisons are outlined in Part 1 of

the technical report).

As can be seen in Table 7, 42.6% of the survey sample were males, while 56.5% were

female. Participants ranged in age from 17-89, with the average age being 49.8 (SD = 14.5)

and the median age being 52. The majority of participants were Australian citizens (94.8%),

and 77.2% of the participants were born in Australia. Of those who were not born in Australia

(n=364), the majority of this sub-sample had lived in Australia for more than six years (91.2%).

The remaining sub-sample had lived in Australia for 3-6 years (4.9%), followed by those who

had lived in Australia for 1-3 years (2.7%) and those who had migrated to Australia less than

one year ago at the time of data collection (0.8%).

In terms of race and ethnicity, the vast majority of the sample reported being Caucasian

(93.4%), followed by Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander participants (1.6%), and Asian

(e.g., Chinese, Japanese) participants, who represented 1.5% of the sample. The remaining

sample comprised of Middle Eastern (e.g., Lebanese, Syrian, etc.) participants (0.3%), Pacific

Islander (e.g., Tongan, Fijian, Maori) participants (0.2%), and those who reported being Black

African (e.g., Sudanese, Kenyan) and South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.)

who represented 1.0% of the sample respectively.

For educational attainment, almost a third of the sample had a bachelor’s degree (27.6%).

Participants who completed a postgraduate degree and those with a diploma/advanced diploma

represented 17.2% and 16.4% of the sample respectively. With respect to employment status,

14

the majority of participants reported that they worked full-time (29.6%), were retired (19.6%),

or worked part-time (19.1%).

In terms of living conditions, almost two-thirds of the sample reported owning their home

(65.1%). The majority of the sample reported living with family members (74.4%), followed

by those who live alone (16.9%) and those who live with friends or flatmates (8.7%). Over

two-thirds of the sample reported having children who are over the age of 18 (37.4%). The

remaining sample reported having no children (35.3%) or having children under the age of 18

(27.3%).

Participants were asked to report the state or territory that they resided in. The majority

of the sample reported residing in Queensland (32.4%) followed by participants in New South

Wales (26.1%) and Victoria (17.7%). Figure 1 presents the proportion of survey respondents

from each state and territory of Australia (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Number and Percentage of Participants Living in each Australian

State/Territory

139 8.7%

8 0.5%

104 6.5%

517 32.4%

43 2.7%

85 5.3%

282 17.7%

417 26.1%

15

Finally, participants were asked about their political orientation in Section 1 of the

COVID-19 Survey. In Australia, political affiliation is described as either left leaning (socialist

e.g., the Australian Labor Party (ALP); the Greens) and right leaning (conservative e.g., the

Liberal National Party (LNP); Family First). This item was measured on a 1 (left) to 4 (centre)

to 7 (right) scale. On average, the majority of participants reported being more left-leaning that

right-leaning on the 7-point scale. Twenty-seven per cent (27.0%) of the sample reported being

in the middle of the scale, 50.6% identified as left-leaning (i.e., more liberal), and 22.3%

reported being right-leaning (i.e., more conservative).

Table 7. Summary of Demographic Background Variables

Variable % N

Gender

Male 42.6 679

Female 56.5 901

Other 0.9 15

Race/Ethnicity

Caucasian 93.4 1489

Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander 1.6 26

Asian (e.g., Chinese; Japanese) 1.5 24

South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani) 0.1 2

Middle Eastern (e.g., Lebanese) 0.3 4

Black African (e.g., Sudanese, Kenyan) 0.1 1

Pacific Islander (e.g., Tongan, Maori) 0.2 3

Other 2.9 46

Educational Attainment

Did not have any/much formal schooling 0.1 2

Primary school 0.2 3

Junior secondary/intermediate/form 4/year 10 3.5 56

Senior secondary/leaving/form 6/year 12 11.7 186

Trade/Technical Certificate 12.0 191

16

Variable % N

Diploma or Advanced Diploma 16.4 262

Bachelor’s Degree 27.6 440

Graduate Certificate/Graduate Diploma 11.3 180

Postgraduate Degree 17.2 275

Employment Status

Studying full time 4.9 78

Home duties 3.7 59

Unemployed and seeking work 7.5 119

Unemployed and not seeking work 3.2 51

Retired 19.6 312

Pension 1.8 29

Working part-time or casually 19.1 305

Working full-time 29.6 472

Studying and working 19.1 65

Carer 0.3 5

Unable to work 0.8 12

Home schooling 0.1 2

Self-employed 2.8 42

Other 2.8 44

State/Territory of Residence

ACT 2.7 43

NSW 26.1 417

NT 0.5 8

QLD 32.4 517

SA 6.5 104

TAS 5.3 85

VIC 17.7 282

WA 8.7 139

17

Variable % N

Australian Citizenship

Yes 94.8 1512

No 5.2 83

Born in Australia

Yes 77.2 1231

No 22.8 364

Own or Rent Accommodation

Own 65.1 1038

Rent 34.9 557

Living Arrangements

I live alone 16.9 269

I live with family members 74.4 1187

I live with friends or flatmates 8.7 139

Children

Yes, my children are under 18 27.3 436

No, I do not have children 35.3 563

I have children, but they are older than 18 37.4 596

Length of Time in Australia for overseas-born participants

Less than 1 year 0.8 3

1-3 years 2.7 10

3-6 years 4.9 18

More than 6 years 91.2 332

Not applicable. I was born in Australia 0.1 1

18

Survey Section 2: How You See Yourself and Others A list of all the individual items and measures discussed in the sections below are presented in

Part 3 of this Technical Report. Part 4 of this report also presents a detailed breakdown of how

survey participants responded to each survey question.

2.1 Identity with Different Groups People can be members of various groups in society and may identify with one group

more so than another and identification with particular groups can shape how people respond

to authority or social issues (Huo, 2003). Groups that people can identify with might include

citizenship or the nation in which one lives (e.g., Australia or being Australian) or being a law-

abiding citizen. Section 2 of the COVID-19 Survey used a number of different statements to

measure participants’ level of identification as Australians (e.g., ‘I am proud to be an

Australian’), as law-abiding citizens (e.g., ‘I identify strongly as a law-abiding person’), and

their identification with their local community (i.e., how affiliated they felt with their local

community and others living in their community; e.g., ‘I identify strongly with my community’).

Each statement was followed by a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) response

scale, with higher scores on each of the multi-item identity scales indicating stronger

identification with that particular group. The individual items used to construct these multi-

item identity scales are presented in Part 3 of this report. An examination of the mean scores

of each of these three identity scales (see Table 8 and Figure 2) shows that participants

identified more strongly with their law-abiding identity (Scale Mean = 4.04; SD = 0.94) than

with their Australian identity (Scale Mean = 3.89; SD = 1.02) or their identity with their local

community (Scale Mean = 3.42; SD = 0.95).

Table 8. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Identity

Identity Scales Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

Australian Identity Scale 3.89 1.02

Law-abiding Identity Scale 4.04 0.94

Local Community Identity Scale 3.42 0.95

19

Figure 2. Mean scores for Australian Identity, Law-abiding and Identity with

Community

2.2 Community Cohesion Community cohesion refers to a sense of collectiveness, solidarity, and cooperation

among groups of people within a given community or society (Stanley, 2003). Four items were

included in the COVID-19 Survey to measure how much respondents felt there was community

cohesion in their local area (e.g., ‘My local area is a place where people from different

backgrounds get on well together’). Again, items were measured on a 1=strongly disagree to

5=strongly agree scale, with higher scores indicating greater perceived social cohesion. A scale

was created from the means of the four items, with the overall mean suggesting that participants

believed their own local community was generally cohesive (Scale Mean = 3.69; SD = 0.80).

2.3 Informal Social Control Informal social control comprises the ability and willingness of citizens to monitor and

respond to issues of crime and disorder. While commonly used as a macro-level construct (see

e.g., Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997; Silver & Miller, 2004), at its core, informal social

control measures individual-level preparedness to take action to prevent crime or disorder in

one’s local area (Coleman, 1990). Efforts of both informal social control and agents of formal

social control (e.g., police) are embedded in a symbiotic relationship whereby both are

3.894.04

3.42

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Australian Identity Law-abiding Identity Identity with Community

How You See Yourself and Others

20

necessary for the effective functioning of a given society. Thus, it is the presence and

integration of mechanisms of informal and formal social control that have been found to

contribute to reduced levels of crime and disorder in local areas (Silver & Miller, 2004).

Four items were entered into the COVID-19 Survey to measure the perceived level of

general informal social control within participants’ own suburb (e.g., ‘The people who live in

my local area can be relied upon to call the police if someone is acting suspiciously’). Higher

mean scores on the 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale represents greater

agreement that informal social control is present in one’s community. Overall, participants

were somewhat in agreement that they or people in their local area could implement

mechanisms of informal social control (Scale Mean = 3.65; SD = 0.77).

Survey Section 3: Attitudes Towards Authority One of the major aims of the COVID-19 Survey was to gauge respondents’ attitudes

toward authority during the COVID-19 pandemic. To do so, a series of items was first included

to measure general attitudes towards the police in Australia. Included items were designed to

measure concepts such as identity/solidarity with police, trust and confidence in police, and

perceptions of their use of procedural and distributive justice. Survey participants were also

asked about their level of general defiance and compliance toward police and the law in

Australia, as well as their general level of support for various strategies police use to implement

their authority. Following this, Section 3 of the survey asked participants about their attitudes

and views regarding the Australian government. Like for the policing questions, general trust

and confidence in the government was measured. In the following sections, measures

regarding police will be covered first, followed by those pertaining to government.

3.1 General Attitudes towards Police As noted above, a number of survey questions were used to gauge Australians’ general

attitudes toward police. Participants were asked about their level of identification with police,

how much they trusted police, whether they felt police were morally aligned with the public,

whether police were perceived to be abusing their power, and whether they perceived police in

Australia to be both procedurally and distributively just. As can be seen in Table 9, police in

general were perceived quite positively by the Australian community. The sections below

discuss each of the scales that are presented in Table 9 and how they were measured.

21

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Various Attitudes to Police Scales

Scale Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly

Agree (5) Mean

Standard

Deviation

Identity/Solidarity with Police 3.10 1.11

General Trust and Confidence in Police 3.44 1.29

Procedural Justice: General 3.27 1.04

Distributive Justice: General 2.91 1.20

Bounded Authority: General* 2.57 1.11

Moral Alignment: Police 3.52 1.15

* a higher score on this scale indicates a less favourable assessment

3.1.1 Identity/Solidarity with Police

Three items were included in the survey to measure participants’ levels of identification

and solidarity with the police (e.g., ‘I feel a sense of solidarity with police’); higher scores on

the 3-item ‘identity with police’ scale indicated that participants identified more strongly with

police. The combined scale showed that participants neither identified nor dis-identified with

police (Scale Mean = 3.10; SD = 1.11; see Table 9).

3.1.2 General Trust and Confidence in Police

Public trust and confidence in police is crucial to ensuring people perceive police as

legitimate (Jackson & Bradford, 2010). A police agency that lacks legitimacy and is not trusted

by the public will struggle to gain the willing cooperation of members of the public (Murphy,

Mazerolle, & Bennett, 2014). Two survey items were included to measure participants’ general

trust and confidence in police (e.g., ‘I have trust and confidence in the police’). Again,

statements were answered on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale, and a higher

score on the trust scale is associated with stronger trust and confidence in police. The mean

scale score suggests that participants were slightly more trusting than not of police (Scale Mean

= 3.44; SD = 1.29; see Table 9).

22

3.1.3 Procedural Justice: General

A large body of empirical research shows that police use of procedural justice is crucial

for promoting trust in police as well as fostering perceptions that police are legitimate (e.g.,

Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy, Hinds, & Fleming, 2008; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler,

2006). Procedural justice denotes the fairness of the procedures used by authorities and the

treatment an individual experiences during an interaction with an authority (e.g., police).

Procedural justice can be measured by asking participants about actual experiences with police,

or via their general perceptions of how they think police treat individuals in the community.

Procedural justice is typically measured via four key concepts: opportunity for voice;

neutrality; fairness; and respect (Mazerolle et al., 2014). If police provide citizens with an

opportunity to voice their side of the story, if they treat citizens respectfully and with dignity,

if they communicate trustworthy motives, and if they are neutral in their decision-making then

police will be seen to be acting in a more procedurally just manner (Tyler & Degoey, 1996;

Tyler & Lind, 1992). The presence of each of these four elements of procedural justice

contributes to prolonged public commitment to valuing an authority and complying and

cooperating voluntarily with their rules and decisions.

Each of the four elements of procedural justice are represented by ten measures in the

COVID-19 Survey (e.g., ‘Police treat people with dignity and respect’). A higher score on the

overall procedural justice scale indicates that survey participants view police as more

procedurally just. The mean score on this scale for the total sample demonstrates that, on

average, participants perceived Australian police to be somewhat more procedurally just than

unjust, but the mean score fell close to the midpoint of the 5-point scale (Scale Mean = 3.27;

SD = 1.04; see Table 9).

3.1.4 Distributive Justice: General

Distributive justice is another important factor that can promote perceptions of police

legitimacy. It refers to the fairness and equitability of an authority’s distribution of services to

different segments of the community (Hinds & Murphy, 2007). If people perceive that police

are providing an equal and non-biased service to all groups in the community, they will be

perceived as more distributively just. Three items were included in the survey to measure

distributive justice (e.g., ‘Police treat everyone equally). A higher mean score on the

distributive justice scale demonstrates that participants believe the police act in a more

distributively just manner. On average, participants were slightly critical of the distributive

justice of police, with the mean score on the distributive justice scale falling slightly below the

23

midpoint of the 1 to 5 scale (Scale Mean = 2.91; SD = 1.20; see Table 9). As can be seen in

Table 9, police seem to be evaluated most critically on the distributive justice scale. This

suggests that police need to do more to ensure that they provide an equal service and treat all

people in society in the same way, regardless of race, religion or socio-economic status.

3.1.5 Bounded Authority: General

The concept of ‘bounded authority’ was also measured in the survey. Bounded authority

refers to the extent that police officers respect and adhere to the limits of their authoritative

powers. Developed by Huq, Jackson, and Trinkner (2017), this 4-item scale measures the

perceived frequency by which police officers are perceived to misuse their powers (e.g. ‘Please

indicate how often you think the police overstep the boundaries of their authority’). A higher

mean score on the scale represents a greater perception that police abuse their powers; that is,

they get involved in matters they have no right to be involved in and thus breach the boundaries

of their rightful authority. Relatively few participants reported that police in Australia acted

outside of their professional boundaries. On the whole, police in Australia were viewed to be

professional, working within the bounds of their authority (Scale Mean = 2.57; SD = 1.11; see

Table 9).

3.1.6 Moral Alignment: Police

Research finds that the more morally aligned people feel the police are with the

community, the more legitimate they are perceived to be by the public (Hough, Jackson,

Bradford, Tilley, & Sidebottom, 2017). To be morally aligned with the public means that the

authority shares the same sense of right and wrong as the public, and also shares the same

values as the public they serve. If moral alignment is low, then authorities will struggle to win

the support of the public. Hence, moral alignment is an important aspect to gauging the

perceived legitimacy of police. Three items were adapted from Hough et al. (2017) to measure

moral alignment in the COVID-19 Survey (e.g., ‘The police share the same values as people

like me’). A higher score on the scale suggests participants were more likely to agree that police

are morally aligned with the views of the public. An overall moral alignment scale was created

from the means of the three individual items. Overall, participants felt somewhat positively

that police were morally aligned with the community they serve (Scale Mean = 3.52; SD =

1.15; see Table 9).

24

3.1.7 Police as Representatives of the State

The policing literature makes assumptions about the way in which police represent

society. It is often argued that citizens perceive police as important representatives of the State

and society’s values. However, prior scholarship has not directly tested these assumptions

empirically. As such, four questions were included in the COVID-19 Survey to ascertain how

citizens perceive police and the groups they represent. As can be seen in Figure 3 below,

participants were in most agreement with the item ‘I see police as important representatives of

our nation's laws and rules’ (Mean = 3.99; SD = 1.18). Participants agreed least with the item

‘I see police as important representatives of the government’ (Mean = 3.65; SD = 1.28; see

Figure 3), but the mean score on this item was still well above the midpoint of the 5-point scale.

Figure 3. Mean Scores for Items Demonstrating Participants’ Perceptions that Police are

Important Representatives of the State

3.2 Defiance and Compliance An important element of civil society is for people to respect authority and comply

willingly with their decisions, rules and laws. A number of different scales were included in

the COVID-19 Survey to assess Australians’ willingness to obey police and to comply and/or

cooperate with police in informal social control by reporting crimes and victimisation to police.

3.65 3.673.47

3.99

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

I see police as important representatives of the

government

I see police as important representatives of society's

values

I see police as important representatives of the

nation

I see police as important representatives of our nation's laws and rules

Perceptions that Police are Important Representatives of the State

25

Also measured were two types of defiant attitudes people can express regarding police:

resistant defiance and dismissive defiance. Defiance refers to an individual’s psychological

position towards an authority, and can be a pre-cursor to subsequent compliant or non-

compliant behaviour (Braithwaite, 2003). Braithwaite (2003) suggests that those who are

resistant or disengaged are less likely to comply or cooperate with authorities as a way of

expressing defiance toward an authority. The following sections present how survey

participants responded to these measures. Table 10 presents the mean scores for these various

measures.

Table 10. Descriptive statistics for Defiance and Compliance Scales

Scale Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree

(5) Mean

Standard

Deviation

Moral obligation to obey police 3.61 1.08

Resistant defiance 3.66 0.81

Dismissive defiance 2.76 1.09

Willingness to cooperate with police 3.76 1.22

3.2.1 Moral Obligation to Obey Police

Feeling a strong moral obligation to obey police means that obedience with police does

not stem through fear of punishment for non-compliance, but rather from the belief that one

‘should’ obey authorities because it is the right thing to do. Feeling morally obligated to obey

police is a strong indicator that police have legitimacy. Three items were included in the

COVID-19 Survey to measure this concept. A combined mean scale was created from the mean

responses to each of the three items. A higher score on the scale suggests participants felt a

stronger moral obligation to obey the police. Overall, participants felt somewhat morally

obligated to obey police, but this score was not as high as one might expect (Mean Scale =

3.61; SD = 1.08; see Table 10).

3.2.2 Resistant Defiance

Resistant defiance refers to a doubt that the police will act professionally and

cooperatively with the public. As such, participants who express resistant defiance are more

likely to view the police with hostility and may be more inclined to support actions or

26

movements to reduce police powers (i.e., by taking a stand against police and resisting the

power they yield). Five items were used to measure resistant defiance (e.g., ‘As a society we

need more people willing to take a stand against rude police’). Higher scores on the scale

indicates greater levels of resistant defiance (see Table 10). When looking at the mean scores

for the resistant defiance scale, results show that participants were slightly resistant toward

police power (Scale Mean = 3.66; SD = 0.81).

3.2.3 Dismissive Defiance

Dismissive defiance also represents a form of defiance, but the key difference between

resistant and dismissive defiance is that dismissive defiers disengage from authority; they no

longer see a purpose in challenging an authority. Instead, they seek to separate themselves from

the influence of an authority. Here, they might avoid all contact with authorities or step outside

the system so that authorities do not have reach over their behaviour. Disengagers also believe

there will be little consequence to them for disobeying authorities or the law. The reality in the

policing context is that people are unlikely to be able to step outside the system of being

policed, but they can go about their lives avoiding contact with police. Four measures were

used to create the dismissive defiance scale (e.g., ‘I don’t really know what the police expect of

me and I’m not about to ask’). Higher scores on the scale indicates greater levels of dismissive

defiance (see Table 10). Mean scores show that participants did not express much dismissive

defiance toward police as the mean score falls below the midpoint of the scale (Scale Mean =

2.76; SD = 1.09).

3.2.3 Willingness to Cooperate with Police

The public’s willingness to cooperate voluntarily with police is essential. Police rely

heavily on members of the community to come forward and report crime and victimisation to

police. Without members of the public contacting police to report crime or victimisation, police

will be ineffective in their ability to solve crime (Murphy et al., 2008). Six items were included

in the COVID-19 Survey to measure participants’ willingness to cooperate with police. A

higher mean score on the cooperation scale indicates participants are more willing to cooperate

with police. Overall, participants were generally quite willing to cooperate with police (Scale

Mean = 3.76; SD = 1.22; see Table 10), although it should be noted that there was a lot of

variability in responses to this scale (as indicated by the large standard deviation). This means

that many participants in our survey were unwilling to cooperate with police.

27

3.3 Support for Authoritarian Policing Strategies Section 3.3 of the COVID-19 Survey asked participants a number of questions regarding their

support for authoritarianism. Specifically, support for police use of force, support for the use

of various surveillance technologies in policing, and support for authoritarian rule were

measured. Each of the following sections presents how respondents viewed these concepts.

3.3.1 Support for Police Use of Force

The recent Black Lives Matter movement across the globe has brought the abuse of police

use of force to the fore. Four items were included in the survey to measure participants’ support

for police use of force. As can be seen in Table 11, the public condones the use of force in

certain circumstance but opposes its use in other situations. Determining the circumstances by

which individuals are more or less likely to condone police use of force is a crucial component

of evaluations of police legitimacy (Bradford, Milani, & Jackson, 2017).

The individual mean scores to the four use of force questions are outlined in Table 11.

They demonstrate that participants were more supportive of police using force when police

were dealing with an individual who is armed and poses a threat to public safety (Mean = 3.92;

SD = 1.16) or is being violent toward police (Mean = 3.73; SD = 1.22). Participants were less

supportive of police use of force when an individual is handcuffed and in police custody (Mean

= 1.74; SD = 0.96) or when an individual is unarmed and not violently resisting (Mean = 1.46;

SD = 0.81). An overall support for police use of force scale was created by combining

responses to the four survey questions. Overall, police use of force was not generally supported

by the Australian public (Scale Mean = 2.71; SD = 0.77).

28

Table 11. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Support for Police Use of Force

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

How acceptable is it for police to... ...use deadly force against a person who is armed and believed to pose a threat to other people's lives?

3.92 1.16

How acceptable is it for police to... ...strike a citizen who uses his fists to attack a police officer?

3.73 1.22

How acceptable is it for police to... use physical force against an offender who is handcuffed and in police custody?

1.74 0.96

How acceptable is it for police to... use force to arrest an unarmed person

who is not offering violent resistance? 1.46 0.81

Overall Support for Police Use of Force Scale 2.71 0.77

3.3.2 Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance

At the commencement of the COVID-19 pandemic, discussions were held worldwide

about increasing police powers to ensure compliance with COVID-19 social distancing

measures. Advances in technology equip authorities with tools to ensure public adherence and

compliance with laws (Posch, Yesberg, Jackson, Bradford, & Kyprianides, 2020). As such,

two items were included in the COVID-19 Survey to measure participants’ support for two

policing powers that involve the use of modern technology. While these powers have not been

afforded to Australian authorities to handle the COVID-19 crisis, technology already exists

that would enable police to use facial recognition or drones to track people’s movements. As

shown in Table 12 participants were not supportive of police using facial recognition (Mean =

1.77; SD = 1.16) or drones (Mean = 1.96; SD = 1.18) to track people’s movements. Moreover,

when combining the means of the two items to create a scale, the scale mean score further

suggests participants were not supportive of intrusive police surveillance tactics (Scale Mean

= 1.87; SD = 1.11).

29

Table 12. Descriptive statistics for Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

How acceptable is it for police to... use facial recognition to track the movement of every citizen?

1.77 1.16

How acceptable is it for police to...use drones to track people's movements?

1.96 1.18

Overall Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance Scale 1.87 1.11

3.3.3 Support for Authoritarian Rule

Four items were included in the survey to measure support for authoritarian rule. These

items were included to determine the extent to which participants harboured more conservative

views towards governance and law and order (Altemeyer, 1998). As shown in Table 13,

participants did not agree with any of the four items, suggesting they did not support

authoritarian rule. Participants agreed least with the statement ‘What our country really needs

is a tough harsh dose of law and order’ (Mean = 2.00; SD = 1.30). A combined mean scale

was created, drawing on the four individual items. The mean score of the combined scale

further demonstrates that participants did not support authoritarian rule (Scale Mean = 2.53;

SD = 1.10).

Table 13. Descriptive statistics for Items Measuring Support for Authoritarian Rule

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

Authorities should be obeyed because they are in the best position to know what is good for our country

2.59 1.27

Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn

2.77 1.38

What our country really needs is a tough harsh dose of law and order 2.00 1.30

The facts on crime and disorder show we have to crack down harder on troublemakers if we are going to preserve law and order

2.63 1.42

Overall Support for Authoritarian Rule Scale 2.53 1.10

30

3.4 General Attitudes towards Government In addition to measuring attitudes towards police, the COVID-19 Survey also included a variety

of questions designed to assess Australians’ attitudes toward the Australian Government. Like

for police, questions measured general trust and confidence in government, and assessed how

morally aligned the Government was perceived to be with Australian values. Assessments of

both Federal and State Governments were measured. This was due to the fact that both the

Federal and State/Territory Governments in Australia were responsible for creating, amending,

and easing restrictions in response to the COVID-19 crisis. Table 14 presents the descriptive

statistics for how Australians viewed the Federal and State/Territory governments on these

measures. The sections to follow describe these measures and how they were constructed.

Table 14. Descriptive statistics for Attitudes to Government Scales

Scale Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

Moral Alignment: Federal Government 2.51 1.18

Moral Alignment: State/Territory Government 2.82 1.15

General Trust: Federal Government 2.31 1.26

General Trust: State/Territory Government 2.72 1.24

3.4.1 Moral Alignment: Federal and State/Territory Government

Three survey items were included to measure how much participants felt the Australian

Federal Government was morally aligned to the values of most Australians (e.g., ‘The

Australian Federal Government stands up for values that are important for people like me’).

Three additional survey items were included to measure how much participants felt the

State/Territory Government was morally aligned to the values of people in their own state (e.g.,

‘My State/Territory Government stands up for values that are important for people like me’).

Items comprising the two moral alignment scales were measured on a 1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree) scale. Higher mean scores indicate that participants felt the government was

more morally aligned with the public. As can be seen in Table 14 participants were more likely

to believe their State/Territory government was more morally aligned with the public than was

the Federal Government (Scale Mean = 2.82, SD = 1.15; and Scale Mean = 2.51, SD = 1.18,

respectively). However, mean scores on both of these scales fell below the midpoint of the 5-

31

point Likert response scale, suggesting in general the government was not seen to be morally

aligned with the values of the public. This is in contrast to police, who were seen more

positively on the moral alignment measure (3.52; SD = 1.15; see Table 9).

3.4.2 General Trust in Government

Like for the policing measures presented in Table 9, a series of items were also included

to measure general trust in both the Federal Government and State/Territory Governments.

Two items were included to measure participants’ trust in the Federal Government (e.g., ‘I

have trust and confidence in the Australian government’). A higher mean score on this scale

suggests participants are more trusting of the Federal Government. Results in Table 14

demonstrate that on average, participants were not very trusting of the Federal Government

(Scale Mean = 2.31; SD = 1.26). Two items were included to measure trust in the

State/Territory Government. A higher mean score on this scale suggests participants are more

trusting of their State/Territory Government. Results in Table 14 also demonstrate that on

average, participants were not very trusting of their own State/Territory Government (Scale

Mean = 2.72; SD = 1.24). Of note is the fact that people tend to be slightly more trusting of

their State/Territory Government than the Federal Government, but they are still less trusting

of government than they are of police (Scale Mean = 3.44; SD = 1.29; see Table 9).

Survey Section 4: Authority Responses to COVID-19 A key component of the COVID-19 Survey was to canvas Australian attitudes towards

measured introduced by the Australian Government to respond to the COVID-19 crisis. The

following section overviews the key findings from a series of questions that sought to

determine participants’ opinions towards powers granted to police and courts in Australia to

help deal with the current COVID-19 crisis.

4.1 Support for COVID-19 Measures Eleven items were included in the COVID-19 Survey to gauge the extent to which

participants supported or opposed granting authorities a range of powers to respond to the

COVID-19 crisis. Higher mean scores on each item indicate that participants were more

supportive of each measure. As shown in Figure 4, participants were most supportive of the

following power: ‘Make it a criminal offence to spread false information about contagious

diseases’ (Mean = 3.55; SD = 1.44). They were least supportive of the following power:

32

‘Forcing people to download a COVID-19 contact tracing app on their mobile phones’ (Mean

= 1.86; SD = 1.18).

Figure 4. Participants’ Level of Support for Various COVID-19 Measures

When examining how participants responded to each item, the majority of participants

opposed most of the measures, with the exception of ‘Making is a criminal offence to spread

false information about contagious diseases’. The majority of participants (61.9%) supported

or strongly supported the notion of creating an offence for spreading false information about

contagious diseases (see Figure 5). Moreover, the majority of participants supported or strongly

supported the following two measures: ‘Set up checkpoints during lockdowns to ensure that

people are only out with good reason’ (50.6%) and ‘Issue an on-the-spot fine to people they

find out of their homes without justification’ (51.4%). Only 12.5% supported or strongly

supported the government ‘Forcing people to download the COVID-19 contact tracing app on

their mobile phone’.

3.14

2.11

2.45

3.09

2.02

1.99

2.07

3.55

2.02

2.77

1.86

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Issue an on-the-spot fine to people they find out of their homes without justification

Use force to make people return to their homes if they are out without justification

Use facial recognition technology to track people who are out of their homes

Set up checkpoints during lockdowns to ensure that people are only out with good reason

Track people's mobile phones to ensure they are only out of their homes for a good reason

Suspend trial by jury and allow judges to decide cases on their own

Use drones to track people's movements to ensure that they socially isolate

Make it a criminal offence to spread false information about contagious diseases

Impose a curfew from 5pm to 5am for everyone but key workers

Ban all protests marches demonstrations and mass gatherings

Forcing people to download a COVID-19 contact tracing app on their mobile phones

Support for COVID-19 Measures

33

Figure 5. Stacked Graph showing Participant support for each COVID-19 Measure

4.2 Confidence in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis Eight items were included in the survey to measure how much confidence participants

had in the authorities’ abilities to handle the COVID-19 crisis. Questions asked about

confidence in the Federal Government, State/Territory governments, health authorities, police,

courts and media to handle the COVID-19 crises. Higher mean scores on each measure

suggests that participants had more confidence in each institution. Upon examination of the

results in Figure 6, it can be seen that participants had the most confidence in the National

Health Department (Mean = 3.48; SD = 1.25) and the State/Territory Health Department (Mean

= 3.48; SD = 1.25), and the least amount of confidence in the media (Mean = 1.88; SD = 0.96).

Surprisingly, Australians had little confidence in the World Health Organisation (see Figure

6).

19.9

29.8

46.9

22.8

50.7

48.2

47.9

16

45.9

32.5

56.2

16.7

27.1

20.6

12.4

20.2

21.4

20.4

9.2

25.6

14.1

18.1

12

18.4

12.9

14.2

11.2

16.3

14.2

12.9

13.5

13.9

13.2

32.2

17.4

13.4

34.4

12.2

10.7

12

27.7

11.1

22.7

8.3

19.2

7.3

6.3

16.2

5.7

3.3

5.5

34.2

3.9

16.8

4.2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Issue an on-the-spot fine to people they find out of their homes without justification

Use force to make people return to their homes if they are out without justification

Use facial recognition technology to track people who are out of their homes

Set up checkpoints during lockdowns to ensure that people are only out with good reason

Track people's mobile phones to ensure they are only out of their homes for a good reason

Suspend trial by jury and allow judges to decide cases on their own

Use drones to track people's movements to ensure that they socially isolate

Make it a criminal offence to spread false information about contagious diseases

Impose a curfew from 5pm to 5am for everyone but key workers

Ban all protests marches demonstrations and mass gatherings

Forcing people to download a COVID-19 contact tracing app on their mobile phones

Support for COVID-19 Measures

Strongly Oppose Oppose Neither Oppose nor Support Support Strongly Support

34

Figure 6. Mean Scores Demonstrating Participants’ Confidence in Authorities to Handle

the COVID-19 Crisis

When examining how participants responded to each item, participants had some level

of confidence for most authorities and institutions. However, 26.4% of participants had no

confidence at all in The World Health Organisation and 44.9% had no confidence in the media

(44.9%). In contrast, 23.1% of participants had a lot of confidence the National Health

Department and 22.9% had a lot of confidence in their respective State/Territory Health

Departments (see Figure 7).

3.023.29

3.48 3.48

2.843.03

2.86

1.88

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Confidence in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis

35

Figure 7 Stacked Graph Outlining Participant Responses to Each Item About their

Confidence in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis

4.3 Communication from Authorities Regarding the COVID-19 Crisis Throughout the COVID-19 crisis, State/Territory Government leaders as well as

Australia’s Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, have played a significant role in communicating

Australia’s handling of the COVID-19 crisis. Part of their communication strategy has been to

communicate which restrictions have been introduced to limit the spread of the virus, which

restrictions will be eased and when, and why Australians should comply with restrictions. A

series of questions were created for the purpose of the COVID-19 Survey to determine whether

participants perceived that authorities had communicated effectively about the COVID-19

crisis and the measures in place to stem the spread of the virus. Participants were asked whether

the government had provided clear or conflicting advice and were asked to agree or disagree

with statements. Figure 8 presents how participants responded to the governments’

communication strategies.

44.9

14.6

15.1

26.4

10.4

10.4

12.4

16.1

30.1

21.7

17.1

14.3

11.6

10.8

14.4

19.3

17.9

33.5

28.5

20.3

20.4

21.8

23.6

25

6.5

23.8

29

27.2

34.7

33.9

31

26

0.6

6.3

10.4

11.8

22.9

23.1

18.6

13.7

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

The media

Courts

Police

World Health Organisation

State/Territory Health Department

National Health Department

State/Territory Government

Australian Federal Government

Confidence in Authorities to Handle the COVID-19 Crisis

No confidence at all Not much confidence Some confidence

A fair amount of confidence A lot of confidence

36

Figure 8. Participants’ Perceptions that Authorities have Communicated Effectively

During the COVID-19 Crisis

4.4 Duty to Obey Authorities’ During COVID-19 Restrictions Compliance with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions is critical to limiting the

spread of the virus. Australia has fared very well in this respect. In March 2020, the Australian

government issued strict orders for Australians to remain at home during the initial lockdown

period of the pandemic. These orders limited Australians’ ability to socialise with friends or

family. People were only allowed to leave their house to attend medical appointments or to

attend work, and they were not allowed to travel beyond their local area for leisure purposes.

Five items were included in the COVID-19 Survey to measure participants’ feelings of

duty to obey authorities’ restrictions during the COVID-19 crisis. Participants were asked the

extent to which they believed it was everybody’s duty to support the government by NOT

engaging in the five behaviours outlined in Table 15. Higher mean scores for each item suggest

a greater sense of duty to support the authorities’ restrictions. Participants felt a stronger duty

to support NOT ‘Going out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you have

3.39

3.24

3.14

3.32

3.18

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

The Australian Federal Government has provided clear messaging around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis

My State/Territory Government has provided clear messaging around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis

The Australian Federal Government has given conflicting advice around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis

My State/Territory government has given conflicting advice around what I need to do during the Coronavirus

crisis

Both the Federal Government and the State/Territory Governments are giving conflicting advice from each other around what I need to do during the Coronavirus

crisis

Communication from Authorities Regarding the COVID-19 Crisis

37

COVID-19 symptoms’ (Mean = 4.34; SD = 1.33) and NOT ‘Socialising in person with friends

or relatives whom you don't live with’ (Mean = 4.00; SD = 1.36).

In addition to examining the items individually, an overall duty to the authorities’

restrictions scale was created by combining responses to all five items. Higher scores on this

scale indicate a stronger duty to obey authorities. The overall mean score suggests that

participants felt a high level of duty to obey the restrictions (Scale Mean=3.79; SD=1.17).

Table 15. Participants’ Feelings of Duty to Support Government’s COVID-19

Restrictions

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Not At All Everybody’s Duty (1) to

Completely Everybody’s Duty (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

Socialising in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with 4.00 1.36

Leaving the house without a really good reason 3.84 1.46

Traveling for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go for a walk) 3.32 1.57

Going out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you have COVID-19 symptoms

4.34 1.33

Going out shopping for non-essential items when you do NOT have COVID-19 symptoms

3.47 1.49

Overall Duty to Obey Authorities’ restrictions Scale 3.79 1.17

4.5 Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions Participants were also asked a series of questions to gauge if they were complying with

COVID-19 restrictions listed above in Table 17. Each of the activities was restricted by the

Australian Government during the preliminary stages of the COVID-19 pandemic and were

enforced during the lockdown period in March, April and May 2020 (Note: restrictions were

eased by each State/Territory separately depending on success in reducing COVID-19 cases,

with WA easing some of the restrictions on April 27th, 2020). Respondents were asked to reply

to each behaviour on a 1 (never) to 5 (very often) scale, to indicate how often they had engaged

in the behaviour. When comparing mean scores for each individual item (see Table 17 and

Figure 9), participants reported that they were complying with the restrictions often or very

often. The item that participants complied the least with was ‘Going out shopping for non-

essential items when you do NOT have COVID-19 symptoms’ (Mean = 3.96; SD = 1.15). Table

38

16 also outlines the percentage of participants who reported that they had never engaged in any

of the behaviours, thereby demonstrating complete compliance with the restrictions. Across all

individual items except one, between 42.8% and 60.4% of participants reported that they

complied fully with each behaviour. Moreover, when combining the five items into an overall

compliance scale, a frequency distribution demonstrates that just over one-fifth of participants

complied fully with all five restrictions (21.2%; see also Figure 10).

Table 16. Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Never (1) to Very Often (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

% Fully

Complied*

Socialised in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with

4.17 1.02 49.7

Left the house without a really good reason 4.23 1.05 54.5

Travelled for leisure (e.g. driven somewhere to go for a walk)

4.23 1.13 60.4

Gone out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you had COVID-19 symptoms

4.88 0.56 94.1

Gone out shopping for non-essential items when you did NOT have COVID-19 symptoms

3.96 1.15 42.8

Overall Self-reported compliance with COVID-19 restrictions Scale

4.30 0.75 21.2

*The figures refer to the percentage of participants who selected “Never” to engaging in any

of the behaviours.

39

Figure 9 Mean Scores Demonstrating Participants’ Levels of Self-reported Compliance

with COVID-19 Restrictions

Participants were also asked whether they were following the recommendations from

authorities to prevent the spread of COVID-19. The majority of participants reported that they

followed the recommendations as much as possible (51.0%), followed by those who reported

they were following the recommendations “very much so” (28.2%; see Figure 10).

4.3

3.96

4.88

4.23

4.23

4.17

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions Scale

Gone out shopping for non-essential items when you did NOT have COVID-19 symptoms

Gone out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you had COVID-19 symptoms

Travelled for leisure (e.g. driven somewhere to go for a walk)

Left the house without a really good reason

Socialised in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with

Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions

40

Figure 10. Extent to Which Participants are Following Recommendations from

Authorities to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19

4.6 Personal Morality Five questions were also included in the COVID-19 Survey to determine the extent to

which participants believed it was morally wrong during lockdown to engage in each of the

five behaviours presented in Table 16. Items were measured on a 1 (not at all wrong) to 5

(seriously wrong) scale. Higher mean scores on the items indicate that participants perceived

that engaging in each behaviour during the lockdown was perceived to be more morally wrong.

As can be seen from Figure 11, when examining the mean scores for each item individually,

participants perceived ‘Go out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you have

COVID-19 symptoms’ as the most morally wrong behaviour (Mean = 4.63; SD = 0.95).

Participants viewed ‘Travel for leisure (e.g., drive somewhere to go for a walk)’ as the least

morally wrong (Mean = 2.62; SD = 1.51; see Figure 11). In addition to examining the items

individually, an overall personal morality scale was created from all the five items. Overall

mean sores suggest participants perceive it is morally wrong to engage in the behaviours

outlined in Figure 11 (Mean = 3.24; SD = 1.11).

2.54.8

13.5

28.2

51.0

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

Not at all A little bit To some extent Very much so As much as possibe

Perc

enta

ge o

f Par

ticip

ants

who

Res

pond

edExtent to Which Participants are Following the

Recommendations from Authorities to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19

41

Figure 11. Participants’ Belief that it is Morally Wrong to Engage in these COVID-19

Restrictions

4.7 Perceived Sanction Risk In addition to including a series of items to measure compliance with the restrictions and

personal morality of engaging in the restricted activities, five survey items were added to the

COVID-19 Survey to gauge participants’ perceived risk of attracting a sanction from engaging

in the five behaviours prohibited under the lockdown restriction measures put in place by the

Australian Government. Items were answered on a 1 (not at all likely) to (very likely) scale. A

higher mean score on each item suggests that participants were more likely to believe that a

person engaging in each behaviour would get caught and sanctioned by police. Individual mean

scores for each item indicate that participants perceived that people would be more likely to

get caught and sanctioned for ‘Going out shopping for essential or non-essential items when

they have COVID-19 symptoms’ (Mean = 2.49; SD = 1.12). Participants were least likely to

believe that a person would be caught and sanctioned for ‘Going out shopping for non-essential

items when they do NOT have COVID-19 symptoms’ (Mean = 1.98; SD = 0.88). The low mean

scores indicate that participants did not believe it likely that a person would be caught and

sanctioned for any of the behaviours outlined in Figure 12. This is confirmed by examining the

overall risk sanction scale, where all items were combined (Scale Mean = 3.19; SD = 0.79).

3.15 3.07

2.62

4.63

2.72

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Socialise in person with friends or

relatives whom you don't live with

Leave the house without a really good

reason

Travel for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to

go for a walk)

Go out shopping for essential or non-

essential items when you have COVID-19

symptoms

Go out shopping for non-essential items when you do NOT have COVID-19

symptoms

Personal Morality During COVID-19 Crisis

42

Figure 12. Participants’ Perceptions of Sanction Risk

4.8 Specific Informal Social Control While survey items asked participants about their compliance with COVID-19

restrictions during the lockdown period, they were also asked what they would do if they

observed others flouting social distancing and isolation rules. These items gauged the

likelihood of people engaging in informal social control specific to the COVID-19 crisis. Table

17 presents the items used to assess these behaviours. Participants were most likely to say they

would do nothing (Mean = 3.38; SD = 1.39) if they observed someone breaking the rules. They

were least likely to say they would use social media to publicly shame people breaking the

rules (Mean = 1.71; SD = 1.04; see Table 17). On overall informal social control scale was

created by combining scores to these four items. As can be seen in Table 17, on average, people

said they would be unlikely to report or call-out problematic behaviour (Scale Mean = 2.17,

SD = 0.97).

2.13 2.12 2.252.49

1.98

3.19

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Socialising in person with friends or

relatives whom they don't live

with

Leaving the house without a really

good reason

Traveling for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go

for a walk)

Going out shopping for

essential or non-essential items when they have

COVID-19 symptoms

Going out shopping for non-

essential items when they do

NOT have COVID-19 symptoms

Perceived Sanction Risk

Scale

Perceived Sanction Risk

43

Table 17. Specific Informal Social Control pertaining to the COVID-19 Crisis

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Not At All Likely (1) to Very Likely (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing how likely would you be to do the following? - Shout at them to go home

1.84 1.08

If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing how likely would you be to do the following? - Use social media to publicly shame them

1.71 1.04

If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing how likely would you be to do the following? - Call the police to report them

2.49 1.40

If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing how likely would you be to do the following? - I would do nothing*

2.62 1.39

Overall COVID-19 Informal Social Control Scale 2.17 0.97

4.9 Support for Police During COVID-19 Crisis A series of questions in Section 4 of the COVID-19 Survey asked participants about their

views on how police have been handling the pandemic crisis. The following sections detail

how respondents replied to a number of key concepts, including: support for enhanced police

powers during COVID-19, peoples’ trust and confidence in police using their power

appropriately, and their overall level of satisfaction with police during the initial phase of the

pandemic crisis.

4.9.1 Support for Increased Police Powers During COVID-19 Crisis

To handle the COVID-19 crisis, police in States and Territories across Australia were

given enhanced powers, including being able to issue infringement notices and fines to those

caught flouting social distancing restrictions. Two items were included in the survey that asked

participants the extent to which they agreed or disagreed that police should have been given

the power to issue infringement notices for this purpose. Table 18 (see also Figure 13) presents

how participants responded to this power.

44

Table 18. Support for Police Enhanced Powers During COVID-19 Crisis

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

The police in my State/Territory should have the power to issue fines to people flouting social distancing rules

3.62 1.42

I believe that the police in my State/Territory should be issuing fines to those who flout social distancing rules

3.52 1.43

Figure 13 below shows that 62.4% of participants believed that the police in their

State/Territory should have the power to issue fines to people flouting social distancing rules,

while 26.0% disagreed with the statement.

4.9.2 Trust in Police to Enforce Laws Appropriately

Participants were asked to respond to three statements pertaining to their trust in police

to enforce COVID-19 restrictions appropriately. As shown in Figure 13, of the three

statements, participants agreed the most with the statement ‘I trust police in my State/Territory

to use their discretion appropriately when issuing fines to people flouting social distancing

rules’ (Mean = 3.13; SD = 1.39). They also agreed the least with the statement ‘I support the

way police in my State/Territory have issued fines to people flouting social distancing rules,

even if I don’t understand or agree with their decisions’ (Mean = 3.10; SD = 1.37; see Table

19). An overall trust scale was created by combining scores to each of the three trust items. On

average, it can be seen from Table 19 that Australians generally trust the police to use their

enhanced powers appropriately (Scale Mean = 3.10, SD = 1.29), although the standard

deviation indicates there is a lot of variability in how participants reply to this set of items. In

other words, some people trust the police a great deal with these enhanced powers, while others

are much less trusting.

45

Figure 13. Participants’ Level of Support for Police Enhanced Powers During the

COVID-19 Crisis

Table 19. Trust in Police to Enforce COVID-19 Restrictions Appropriately

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

I support the way police in my State/Territory have issued fines to people flouting social distancing rules, even if I don’t understand or agree with their decisions

3.07 1.32

I have confidence in the police in my State/Territory to use their power appropriately when issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules

3.10 1.37

I trust police in my State/Territory to use their discretion appropriately when issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules

3.13 1.39

Overall Trust in Police during COVID-19 Scale 3.10 1.29

15.1

15.7

18.4

18.4

18.1

9.2

10.3

17.2

18.0

14.4

8.5

11.5

15.6

16.0

25.2

33.4

30.7

30.7

31.0

27.1

33.9

31.8

18.2

16.6

15.2

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

The police in my State/Territory should have the power to issue fines to people flouting social distancing rules

I believe that the police in my State/Territory should be issuing fines to those who flout social distancing rules

I trust police in my State/Territory to use their discretion appropriately when issuing fines to people

flouting social distancing rules

I have confidence in the police in my State/Territory to use their power appropriately when issuing fines to

people flouting social distancing rules

I support the way police in my State/Territory have issued fines to people flouting social distancing rules, even if I don’t understand or agree with their decisions

Support for Police Enhanced Powers During COVID-19 Crisis

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Strongly agree

46

4.9.3 Bounded Authority Concerns regarding COVID-19 powers

In Section 3 of the COVID-19 Survey, participants were asked about general concerns

regarding police overstepping the bounds of their rightful authority. In Section 4 of the Survey,

four items were also included to measure specific bounded authority concerns relating to police

enforcement of COVID-19 restrictions (e.g., ‘By issuing fines to people the police in my

State/Territory are getting involved in situations they have no right to be in’). Of interest was

to see whether police were seen to be abusing their powers and whether it was an area that

citizens believed police had no right to be involved in. Items were measured on a 1 (strongly

disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) scale, with higher scores indicating that citizens had boundary

concerns. An overall 4-item bounded authority scale was created. It was found that the mean

score on the bounded authority scale fell just below the midpoint of the scale (Scale Mean =

2.98; SD = 0.89), suggesting that Australians did not have concerns about police overstepping

their authority in this situation.

4.9.4 Specific Police Procedural Justice when Enforcing COVID-19 Restrictions

Eight items were used to measure perceptions of police as procedurally just in their

enforcement of social distancing restrictions. Average responses to all eight items fell below

the midpoint of the 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree scale) suggesting that procedural

justice from police was seen to be lacking (see Table 20). An overall procedural justice scale

was created by combining responses to these eight items. It was found that in general, police

were viewed as not being procedurally just when issuing fines to people flouting restrictions

(Scale Mean = 2.88, SD = 0.99).

47

Table 20. Specific Procedural Justice Assessments of Police Enforcing the COVID-19

Restrictions

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from Strongly Disagree (1) to Strongly Agree (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in my State/Territory have… Made fair and impartial decisions in the cases they have dealt with

2.92 1.38

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Treated people with dignity and respect 2.92 1.38

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Displayed compassion and understanding 2.88 1.33

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Made their decisions based upon facts not

personal biases

2.89 1.39

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Taken account of people’s explanations for

why they are where they are before issuing a fine

2.88 1.37

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Treated people fairly when issuing fines 2.89 1.36

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Treated people from all walks of life equally 2.79 1.29

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in

my State/Territory have… Enforced the rules consistently across

different people

2.85 1.29

Overall Procedural Justice in Enforcement Scale 2.88 0.99

4.9.5 Satisfaction with Police during COVID-19 Crisis

Participants were also asked to report how satisfied they were with how police in their

State/Territory had handled themselves during the COVID-19 crisis. As can be seen in Figure

14, the majority of participants were in strong agreement that they were satisfied with how the

police in their State/Territory had handled themselves during the COVID-19 crisis (33.5%),

followed by those who strongly disagreed (22.3%).

48

Figure 14. Frequency Distribution Outlining Participants’ Level of Satisfaction with How

Police Handled Themselves During the COVID-19 Crisis

4.9.6 Contact with Police During COVID-19 Crisis

A series of questions asked participants whether they had had any contact with police

(police-initiated and/or citizen-initiated) at any time during the COVID-19 crisis. A small sub-

set of the sample had been approached by police (police-initiated contact: n = 158; 9.9%) or

approached police themselves (citizen-initiated contact: n = 171; 10.7%) during the COVID-

19 crisis. Participants who indicated they had had some form of contact with police were then

asked a series of follow-up questions pertaining to how they had been treated by police.

Participants who had been approached by police were asked four follow-up questions

about their perceptions that they had received procedurally just treatment by the police. An

overall mean score scale was created from the four items and demonstrated that participants

felt they had received procedural justice during the police-initiated interaction (Scale Mean =

3.73; SD = 1.35).

A further three items were included to measure perceptions of procedural justice in the

citizen-initiated interaction. An overall mean scale was created from the three items, which

showed that participants agreed strongly that the police were procedurally just during their

citizen-initiated interaction (Scale Mean = 4.16; SD = 1.15).

355

22.3%336

21.1%

179

11.2%

193

12.1%

532

33.5%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree Strongly agree

Satisfaction with How Police Handled Themselves During COVID-19 Crisis

49

A further three questions asked participants if they had been a victim of crime in the four

weeks prior to completing the survey. A small sub-set of the sample reported that they had

been a victim of crime in the previous four-week period (n = 53; 3.3% of the total sample). The

53 participants who reported they had been victimised were asked two follow up questions.

The first asked if they had told the police about the crime, of which 33 reported they had

(62.3%). Of these 33 who reported their victimisation to police, the majority were happy or

very happy with how the police dealt with the crime (57.6%).

4.10 Miscellaneous Questions regarding COVID-19 Restrictions Section 4 of the COVID-19 Survey also contained a series of individual questions asking

participants about their views regarding the relaxing of social distancing restrictions, opinions

about Australia’s border closures, views on whether schools should remain open during the

pandemic and worry about freedoms never returning to normal. Part 4 of this Technical Report

details how people responded to these single item questions. Readers interested in those issues

are directed to the codebook at the back of this report.

Survey Section 5: The Effects of COVID-19 on Participants Section 5 of the COVID-19 Survey contained numerous questions about how the COVID-

19 pandemic had impacted on participants’ lives. Questions pertaining to the perceived risk of

catching the virus through to perceived seriousness of the virus were asked. Many of the items

were single item questions. Thus the breakdown of responses to many of the questions can be

found in the Codebook at the back of this Technical Report. In the sections to follow are

specific questions that give an indication of the impact of the virus on Australians’ lives.

In Section 5, participants were also asked to identify if they were fulfilling any of the

government’s identified ‘key worker’ roles. Five categories of key worker roles were listed in

the survey, and participants also had the option to respond ‘other’ and write out a qualitative

response outlining the key worker role they performed if they did not fit within the five

identified categories. The majority of participants (68.7%) reported that they were not

performing a key worker role. Of the categories outlined by the research team, the majority of

participants reported working as a support worker in the health care sector (n = 89; 5.6%),

followed by health care workers (e.g., doctors, nurses, paramedics; 4.7%) and schoolteachers

(3.9%). The qualitative responses of those who selected ‘other’ were examined and further

50

categories were created (see the Codebook in Part 4 of this report for more details). The roles

identified by the remaining 84 participants in the ‘other’ category were ambiguous.

5.1 Experience of Having COVID-19 In Section 5 of the Survey participants were first asked if they or a family member or

acquaintance had been diagnosed with COVID-19. None of the participants in the sample

reported that they had been diagnosed with COVID-19, but 102 (6.4%) believed they may have

had it but had not been formally diagnosed. Eighty-four participants (5.3%) knew of a family

member or acquaintance who had been diagnosed with COVID-19, and a further 96 (6.0%)

believed a family member or acquaintance had contracted COVID-19 but had not been

diagnosed (see Table 21).

Table 21. Participants’ Experiences of Having COVID-19

Experience of Having COVID-19 Participant Participant’s Family

Member or Acquaintance

Freq. % Freq. % Yes – Diagnosed with a Test 0 0.00 84 5.3

Maybe – Not formally diagnosed 102 6.4 96 6.0

No 1493 93.6 1415 88.7

5.2 Knowledge of COVID-19 An item was included in the survey to measure participants’ self-reported knowledge of

COVID-19. Knowledge of a disease has been shown in past research to be an important

indicator of peoples’ willingness to take a disease seriously (Bish & Michie, 2010). COVID-

19 has also dominated news stories since its emergence in Australia in late January 2020. The

majority of participants reported that they had good (48.5%) or excellent (40.1%) knowledge

of COVID-19. A small proportion of the sample reported having bad (0.1%) or poor (0.4%)

knowledge of COVID-19 (see Figure 15).

51

Figure 15. Participants’ Self-reported Knowledge of COVID-19

5.3 Concern regarding contracting COVID-19 An item was included in the survey that measured the level of concern participants had

regarding contracting COVID-19. The majority of the sample expressed feeling concerned

(35.5%) or very concerned (11.4%) about contracting COVID-19. The remainder of the sample

reported feeling not really concerned (24.0%), neither concerned nor unconcerned (14.7%) or

not concerned at all (14.3%; see Figure 16).

1

0.1%6

0.4%

176

11.0%

773

48.5%639

40.1%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Bad Poor Fair Good Excellent

Self-Reported Knowledge of COVID-19

52

Figure 16. Participants' Concern about Contracting COVID-19

5.4 Perceived threat of COVID-19 A series of items were included in the survey to measure participants’ perceptions that

COVID-19 posed different types of threat. Items were measured on a 1 (no threat) to 5 (very

high threat) scale. Overall, mean scores for each item suggests that participants perceived

COVID-19 to be the greatest threat to the world’s economy (Mean = 4.40; SD = 0.83) and

Australia’s economy (Mean = 4.27; SD = 0.85; see Table 22). Participants perceived COVID-

19 to pose the least threat to participants’ jobs (Mean = 2.43; SD = 1.53) and participants’

personal mental health (Mean = 2.80; SD = 1.23; see also Figure 17).

228

14.3%

383

24.0

235

14.7%

567

35.5%

182

11.4%

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Not concerned at all Not really concerned Neither concerned nor unconcerned

Concerned Very concerned

Perceived Susceptibility to Contract COVID-19

53

Table 22. Perceived Threat of COVID-19

Survey Item Measured on a 5-point Likert Scale from No Threat (1) to Very High Threat (5)

Mean Standard

Deviation

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… your personal

physical health 3.09 1.15

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to…your personal

mental health 2.80 1.23

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… your job 2.43 1.53

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… a loved one’s job 3.27 1.39

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… a loved one’s

physical health 3.29 1.23

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… a loved one’s

mental health 3.03 1.32

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… Australia’s

economy 4.27 0.85

How much of a threat does COVID-19 pose to… the world’s

economy 4.40 0.83

How serious a threat do you think the COVID-19 virus poses for

the health of all Australians 3.49 1.18

54

Figure 17. Perceived Threat of COVID-19 to Different Aspects of Participants’ Lives

5.5 Adverse Life Outcomes Experienced Because of COVID-19 Participants were asked a series of questions regarding the nature and extent of adverse

outcomes they had experienced as a result of COVID-19. As shown in Figure 18, the majority

of participants reported experiencing none of the adverse outcomes outlined in the survey

(60.8%; n = 970). Almost one-fifth of the sample (19.1%; n = 305) reported that they had lost

their job or been unable to do paid work, followed by those who had a household member lose

their job or were unable to do paid work (14.8%; n = 236). Ninety-nine participants reported

that they had been unable to access sufficient food (6.2%), followed by those who had been

evicted or lost their accommodation (5.6%; n = 90).

3.092.8

2.43

3.27 3.293.03

4.27 4.4

3.49

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Your personal physical health

Your personal mental health

Your job A loved one’s job

A loved one’s

physical health

A loved one’s

mental health

Australia’s economy

The world’s economy

The health of all

Australians

Threat COVID-19 Poses To...

55

Figure 18. Adverse Outcomes Experienced by Participants as a Result of COVID-19

5.6 Emotional Wellbeing During COVID-19 Lockdown A series of items were included in Section 5 of the COVID-19 Survey to measure

participants’ emotional wellbeing during the COVID-19 lockdown. These items were included

because prior research has found that feeling isolated can be associated with lower overall

feelings of well-being (Waite & Cornwell, 2009). Well-being was measured in the COVID-19

Survey by asking participants whether they had felt various positive and negative emotions

since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia. The following sections present the

results.

305

236

87

1390

99

105

970

Adverse Outcomes Experienced Because of COVID-19

Lost your job/been unable to do paid work

Other member of your household lost their job or was unable to do paid work

Unable to pay bills

Evicted/lost accommodation

Unable to access sufficient food

Unable to access required medication

Somebody close to you is in hospital with COVID-19

You lost somebody close to you to COVID-19

None of the above

56

5.6.1 Positive Affect

Four items were included to measure positive affect (e.g., happiness, satisfaction,

hopefulness, relief). On average, participants felt a more frequent sense of happiness (Mean =

3.26; SD = 0.88) but a less frequent sense of relief (Mean = 2.63; SD = 0.92; see Figure 19).

In addition, a combined positive affect scale was created that combined the mean scores of the

four positive affect items. Overall, participants reported being neither high nor low on positive

affect since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak (Scale Mean = 3.01; SD = 0.77).

Figure 19. Positive Emotions Experienced Since the Start of the COVID-19 Crisis

5.6.2 Negative Affect

A further five items were included to measure negative affect (e.g., worry, fear,

powerlessness, anger, annoyance). On average, participants reported feeling more frequently

worried (Mean = 3.20; SD = 1.03) and annoyed (Mean = 3.16; SD =1.06), but less frequently

fearful (Mean = 2.50; 1.14; see Figure 20). A combined negative affect scale was created that

combined the mean scores for each of the five negative effect items. Overall, participants

reported not feeling negative emotions since the outbreak (Scale Mean = 2.88; SD = 0.86). Of

course, this may change as we see the pandemic progress overtime.

3.263.01

3.14

2.63

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Happiness Satisfaction Hopefulness Relief

Positive Affect

57

Figure 20. Negative Emotions Experienced Since the Start of the COVID-19 Crisis

Summary The preceding sections of this Technical Report provided a snapshot of how Australians

were feeling during the initial period of the COVID-19 pandemic, and specifically at the height

of the restrictive lockdown period. As such, only descriptive statistics were provided for each

measure in the COVID-19 Survey. The relationships between various variables will be

examined in subsequent publications and reports. For example, an initial publication has been

prepared to examine factors predicting compliance with the government’s lockdown

restrictions. The title of the paper is ‘Morals, duty or risk?: Examining predictors of

compliance with COVID-19 social distancing restrictions’. (for a link to this paper see:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341638809_Morals_duty_or_risk_Examining_predic

tors_of_compliance_with_COVID-

19_social_distancing_restrictions?channel=doi&linkId=5ecc7bb4458515626ccc60e0&showFullt

ext=true).

When predicting compliance with ‘social distancing’ restrictions we found that women

were more likely than men to abide by the restrictions. Surprisingly, older Australians (i.e.,

those at greater health risk from COVID-19) were more likely to comply than younger

Australians, but this effect disappeared when including other attitudinal variables into the

analysis. The perceived health risk posed by COVID-19 and the perceived risk of being caught

3.2

2.5

2.92.64

3.16

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Worry Fear Powerlessness Anger Annoyance

Negative Affect

58

and fined by police for breaching social distancing restrictions also predicted higher levels of

compliance. However, personal morality (believing it is wrong to flout the restrictions) and

duty to obey authorities were the stronger predictors of compliance compared to the risk of

sanction or the health risk posed by COVID-19. Analyses similar to this will be undertaken on

different topics into the future.

Part 3 of this Technical Report is presented next. It brings together all of the individual

survey items that were used to construct the multi-item scales presented in Part 2 of this report.

It also presents the reliability statistics for each scale. Following Part 3 of the report is the

Reference section and Appendix. This will be followed by Part 4 of the report, which details

the survey codebook (that is, the survey instrument and data on how participants responded to

each survey item).

59

Part 3: Construction of Scales The Attitudes to Authority During COVID-19 Survey included a range of variables that

measured key concepts of interest, such as identity; attitudes to authorities; perceptions of

COVID-19 measures; attitudes towards authorities’ handling of COVID-19; and items related

to the impacts of COVID-19 on participants. Questions were also included to measure

participants’ demographic backgrounds.

As can be seen in Part 2 of the report, several scales were constructed using multiple

survey items. Scale construction involves using individual measures and combining them to

form an overall scale measuring a concept of interest. Part 3 of this report presents the

individual variables used to construct each scale. Many of the items used to construct the scales

were taken and adapted from previous research. The source of the scale is detailed in this

section of the report. An asterisk (*) after an item indicates the item has been reverse-recoded

before constructing the scale. Reliability analyses were run to determine the Cronbach’s Alpha

scores for each multi-item scale. Cronbach alpha scores can range from 0.0 to 1.0; those closer

to 1.0 are considered the most reliable. Cronbach alpha scores greater than 0.80 are considered

strong scales, while those between 0.70 to 0.8, and those less than 0.60 are considered to have

medium and weak reliability, respectively.

Survey Section 1: Participant Background No scales were measured in this section. Please refer to the Part 4 Codebook of this technical

report for a list of all demographic variables measured.

Survey Section 2: How You See Yourself and Others Identity with Different Groups Australian Identity

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant identifies more

strongly with their Australian identity. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of

Murphy, Murphy, and Mearns (2010).

60

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Law-abiding Identity

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant identifies more

strongly as a law-abiding citizen. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of

Murphy, Cherney, Sargeant, Bradford, and Williamson (2019).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Identity with One’s Community

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant identifies more with

their community. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy et al. (2010).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

How strongly do you agree or disagree about the following statements regarding how you see yourself?

• I am proud to be an Australian

• I identify strongly with being an Australian

• Being an Australian is important to the way I think of myself as a person

How strongly do you agree or disagree about the following statements regarding how you see yourself?

• I identify strongly as a law-abiding person

• Being a law-abiding person is important to the way I think of myself as a person

• I am proud to be a law-abiding person

• It is important for me to be seen by others as a law-abiding person

61

Community Cohesion Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant believes people living

within their community are cohesive. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of

Mazerolle et al. (2012).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Informal Social Control Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more likely to

engage in acts of informal social control. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work

of Mazerolle et al. (2012).

Thinking about my local area in general...

• I identify strongly with my community

• I feel similar to people living in my community

• I feel a sense of solidarity with people in my community

Still thinking about your local area in general to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

• People in my area can be trusted

• People act with courtesy to each other in public space in my area

• You can see from the public space in my local area that people take pride in their

environment

• My local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get on well

together

62

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Survey Section 3: Your Attitudes Towards Authority Identity/Solidarity with the Police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant identifies more and

feels greater solidarity with the police. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of

Prati and Pietrantoni (2009) and Radburn, Stott, Bradford, and Robinson (2018).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Still thinking about your local area in general to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

• Local people and authorities have control over the public space in my local area

• If I sensed trouble whilst in my local area I could get help from people who live

here

• The people who live in my local area can be relied upon to call the police if someone

is acting suspiciously

• If any of the children or young people in my area are causing trouble local people

will tell them off together

In answering the questions think about police in your local area. Thinking about the police in my local area in general...

• I identify strongly with the police

• I feel similar to the police

• I feel a sense of solidarity with the police

• The values of most police officers are very similar to my own

63

General Trust and Confidence in Police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more trusting of

police. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy et al. (2019).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Procedural Justice: General Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceives the police

to be more procedurally just. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy

and colleagues (2004; 2011).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

In answering the questions think about police in your local area. Thinking about the police in my local area in general...

• I trust police to act in the best interests of the community

• I have confidence in police

Thinking about the police in your local area to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about the police?

• Police make fair impartial decisions in the cases they deal with

• Police explain their decisions to the people they deal with

• Police treat people with dignity and respect

• Police let people speak before they make decisions

• Police care about people

• Police are polite to people

• Police make their decisions based upon facts not personal biases

• Police treat people fairly

• Police are approachable and friendly

64

Distributive Justice: General Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant believes police are

more distributively just. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy et al.

(2010).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Bounded Authority: General Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant more strongly

believes that the police overstep the boundaries of their authority. Items used for this scale were

adapted from the work of Huq et al. (2017).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Again thinking about the police in your local area to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about the police?

• Police treat everyone equally

• Police provide the same quality of service to all citizens

• Police enforce the law consistently when dealing with people

Thinking about the police in your local area to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about the police?

• The police often get involved in situations that they have no right to be in

• The police often arrest people for no good reason

• The police often overstep the boundaries of their authority

• The police often violate people’s personal freedoms

65

Moral Alignment: Police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant feels that police are

more morally aligned with the values of the Australian public. Items used for this scale were

adapted from the work of Hough et al. (2017).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Moral Obligation to Obey Police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all my

duty; 2 = somewhat my duty; 3 = undecided; 4 = somewhat my duty; 5 = completely my duty).

A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant has more of a moral obligation to

obey police. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Hough et al. (2017).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the police in your local area?

• I support the way the police usually act

• The police usually act in ways that are consistent with my own ideas about what is

right and wrong

• The police stand up for values that are important for people like me

To what extent is it your moral duty to...

• Obey the police

• Support the decisions of police officers even if you disagree with them

• Do what the police tell you even if you don't understand or agree with the reasons

66

Resistant Defiance Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more resistant to

police. Items used for this scale were adapted by Murphy (2016) from the original work of

Braithwaite (2003, 2009).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Dismissive Defiance Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more dismissive of

police authority. Items used for this scale were adapted by Murphy (2016) from the original

work of Braithwaite (2003, 2009).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about police?...

• It is important not to let the police push you around

• As a society we need more people willing to take a stand against rude police

• It is important that people lodge formal complaints against disrespectful police

• If police were disrespectful toward me I would not cooperate with them

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about police?...

• I try to avoid contact with police at all costs

• Even if I needed help from police I would prefer to avoid making contact with them

• If I find out that I'm not doing what police want I'm not going to lose sleep over it

67

Willingness to Cooperate with Police Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

likely; 2 = not very likely; 3 = neither likely nor unlikely; 4 = fairly likely; 5 = very likely). A

higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more willing to cooperate with the

police. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Sunshine and Tyler (2003) and

Murphy et al. (2008).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Support for Police Use of Force Cronbach’s alpha = 0.71; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

acceptable; 2 = not very acceptable; 3 = neither acceptable nor unacceptable; 4 = fairly

acceptable; 5 = very acceptable). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant was

more supportive of police use of force. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work

of Bradford et al. (2017).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

If the situation arose how likely would you be to...

• Call the police to report a crime you witnessed

• Report dangerous or suspicious activity near your house to the police

• Provide information to the police to help find a suspected criminal

• Call the police if you were a victim of crime

• Call the police if you needed help

• Willingly assist the police if asked

Thinking about the police in your local area how acceptable is it for police to...

• ...use deadly force against a person who is armed and believed to pose a threat to

other people's lives?

• ...strike a citizen who uses his fists to attack a police officer?

• ...use physical force against an offender who is handcuffed and in police custody?

• ...use force to arrest an unarmed person who is not offering violent resistance?

68

Support for Intrusive Police Surveillance Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

acceptable; 2 = not very acceptable; 3 = neither acceptable nor unacceptable; 4 = fairly

acceptable; 5 = very acceptable). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant was

more supportive of police use of intrusive surveillance tactics. Items used for this scale were

adapted from the work of Posch et al. (2020).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Support for Authoritarian Rule Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant is more supportive of

authoritarian rule. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Rattazzi, Bobbio,

and Canova (2007).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Thinking about the police in your local area how acceptable is it for police to...

• ...use facial recognition to track the movement of every citizen?

• ... use drones to track people's movements?

Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with each of these statements.

• Authorities should be obeyed because they are in the best position to know what is

good for our country

• Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should

learn

• What our country really needs is a tough harsh dose of law and order

• The facts on crime and disorder show we have to crack down harder on

troublemakers if we are going to preserve law and order

69

General Attitudes towards Government Moral Alignment: Federal Government

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant felt more morally

aligned with the Australian Federal Government. Items used for this scale were adapted from

the South African Social Attitudes Survey (2012).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Moral Alignment: State/Territory Government

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant felt more morally

aligned with their State/Territory Government. Items used for this scale were adapted from the

South African Social Attitudes Survey (2012).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Government?

• I generally support the decisions made by the Australian Federal Government

• The Australian Federal Government usually acts in ways that are consistent with

my own ideas about what is right and wrong

• The Australian Federal Government stands up for values that are important for

people like me

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Government?

• I generally support the decisions made by my State/Territory Government

• My State/Territory Government usually acts in ways that are consistent with my own

ideas about what is right and wrong

• My State/Territory Government stands up for values that are important for people

like me

70

General Trust in Federal Government

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant has more trust in the

Australian Federal Government. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of

Murphy et al. (2019).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

General Trust in State/Territory Government

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant has more trust in their

State/Territory Government. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy

et al. (2019).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Government?

• I trust the Australian Federal Government to act in the best interests of all

Australians

• I have confidence in the Australian Federal Government

Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Government?

• I trust my State/Territory Government to act in the best interests of all Australians

• I have confidence in my State/Territory Government

71

Survey Section 4: Responses to COVID-19 Duty to Obey Authorities during COVID-19 Restrictions Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

everybody’s duty; 2 = somewhat not everybody’s duty; 3 = undecided; 4 = somewhat

everybody’s duty; 5 = completely everybody’s duty). A higher score on this scale indicates that

the participant believe it is everybody’s duty to obey authorities by adhering to COVID-19

restrictions. Items used for this scale were developed specifically for the purposes of this

survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Self-reported Compliance with COVID-19 Restrictions Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 =

rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = very often). A higher score on this scale indicates that the

participant was more compliant with COVID-19 restrictions. Items used for this scale were

developed specifically for the purposes of this survey.

To what extent do you think that it is everybody's duty to support the Government by NOT engaging in the following behaviours?

• Socialising in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with

• Leaving the house without a really good reason

• Traveling for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go for a walk)

• Going out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you have COVID-19

symptoms

• Going out shopping for non-essential items when you do NOT have COVID-19

symptoms

72

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Personal Morality Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not at all wrong;

2 = only a little wrong; 3 = somewhat wrong; 4 = quite wrong; 5 = seriously wrong). A higher

score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived certain behaviours to be more

morally wrong during the COVID-19 outbreak. Items used for this scale were developed

specifically for the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

How morally wrong do you think it is to engage in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak?

• Socialise in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with

• Leave the house without a really good reason

• Travel for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go for a walk)

• Go out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you have COVID-19

symptoms

• Go out shopping for non-essential items when you do NOT have COVID-19

symptoms

How often during the past week have you engaged in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak? Remember your responses are completely anonymous. We do not know who you are.

• Socialised in person with friends or relatives whom you don't live with

• Left the house without a really good reason*

• Travelled for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go for a walk)*

• Gone out shopping for essential or non-essential items when you had COVID-19

symptoms*

• Gone out shopping for non-essential items when you did NOT have COVID-19

symptoms*

73

Perceived Sanction Risk Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

likely; 2 = not very likely; 3 = neither likely nor unlikely; 4 = fairly likely; 5 = very likely). A

higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived it more likely that a person

would get caught and sanctioned if they engaged in certain behaviours during the COVID-19

outbreak. Items used for this scale were developed specifically for the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Specific Informal Social Control Cronbach’s alpha = 0.79; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all

likely; 2 = not very likely; 3 = neither likely nor unlikely; 4 = fairly likely; 5 = very likely). A

higher score on this scale indicates that participants were more likely to engage in acts of

informal social control if they saw people breaking social distancing rules. Items used for this

scale were developed specifically for the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

How likely is it that someone would get caught and sanctioned should they engage in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak?

• Socialising in person with friends or relatives whom they don't live with

• Leaving the house without a really good reason

• Travelling for leisure (e.g. drive somewhere to go for a walk)

• Going out shopping for essential or non-essential items when they have COVID-19

symptoms

• Going out shopping for non-essential items when they do NOT have COVID-19

symptoms

If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing (e.g. congregating in a large group at a park or in someone's house) how likely would you be to do the following?

• Shout at them to go home Leaving the house without a really good reason

• Use social media to publicly shame them Going out shopping for essential or non-

essential items when they have COVID-19 symptoms

• Call the police to report them

• I would do nothing*

74

Support for Police During COVID-19 Crisis Support for Increased Police Powers During COVID-19 Crisis

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant was more supportive

of police having enhanced powers during COVID-19. Items used for this scale were developed

specifically for the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Trust in Police to Enforce Laws Appropriately

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant had more trust in

police to enforce laws appropriately. Items used for this scale were developed specifically for

the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements...

• The police in my State/Territory should have the power to issue fines to people

flouting social distancing rules

• I believe that the police in my State/Territory should be issuing fines to those who

flout social distancing rules

To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements...

• I trust police in my State/Territory to use their discretion appropriately when

issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules

• I have confidence in the police in my State/Territory to use their power

appropriately when issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules

• I support the way police in my State/Territory have issued fines to people flouting

social distancing rules, even if I don’t understand or agree with their decisions

75

Bounded Authority Concerns Regarding COVID-19 Powers

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.60; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived the police

to overstep the boundaries of their authority generally and in the context of COVID-19. Items

used for this scale that are marked with a ⸰ were adapted from the work of Huq and colleagues

(2017). The remaining items were developed specifically for the purposes of this survey.

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Specific Police Procedural Justice when Enforcing COVID-19 Restrictions

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived the police

to be more procedurally just when issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules in

their State/Territory. Items used for this scale were adapted from the work of Murphy and

colleagues (2004; 2011).

How much do you agree with the following statements...

• The police often get involved in situations that they have no right to be in⸰

• The police often arrest people for no good reason⸰

• The police often overstep the boundaries of their authority⸰

• The police often violate people’s personal freedoms⸰

• By issuing fines to people the police in my State/Territory are getting involved in

situations they have no right to be in

• Some of the police in my State/Territory issue fines to people for no good reason

• By issuing fines to people the police violate people’s personal freedom

76

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Procedural Justice – Police-Initiated Contact Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived the police

to be more procedurally just during a police-initiated encounter. Items used for this scale were

adapted from the work of Murphy and colleagues (2004; 2011).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules police in my State/Territory have..

• Made fair and impartial decisions in the cases they have dealt with

• Treated people with dignity and respect

• Displayed compassion and understanding

• Made their decisions based upon facts not personal biases

• Taken account of people’s explanations for why they are where they are before

issuing a fine

• Treated people fairly when issuing fines

• Treated people from all walks of life equally

• Enforced the rules consistently across different people

When you were approached by the police would you say that they

• …were polite

• …treated you with dignity and respect

• …explained why they approached you

• …carefully listened to what you said

77

Procedural Justice – Citizen-Initiated Contact Cronbach’s alpha = 0.95; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly

disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 =

strongly agree). A higher score on this scale indicates that the participant perceived the police

to be more procedurally just during a citizen-initiated encounter. Items used for this scale were

adapted from the work of Murphy and colleagues (2004; 2011).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Survey Section 5: The Effects of COVID-19 Emotional Well-being During COVID-19 Lockdown Positive Affect

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 =

rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always). A higher score on this scale indicates that the

participant had more positive emotions since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Items used

for this scale were adapted from the work of Krehbiel and Cropanzano (2000).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

When you approached or contacted the police, they…

• …were polite

• …treated you with respect

• …carefully listened to what you said

Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia how often have you felt the following emotions?

• Happiness

• Satisfaction

• Hopefulness

• Relief

78

Negative Affect

Cronbach’s alpha = 0.82; each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = never; 2 =

rarely; 3 = sometimes; 4 = often; 5 = always). A higher score on this scale indicates that the

participant had more negative emotions since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak. Items used

for this scale were adapted from the work of Krehbiel and Cropanzano (2000).

The questions included in the survey were asked as follows:

Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia how often have you felt the following emotions?

• Worry

• Fear

• Powerlessness

• Anger

• Annoyance

79

References Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In Advances in experimental

social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47-92): Elsevier.

Bish, A., & Michie, S. (2010). Demographic and attitudinal determinants of protective

behaviours during a pandemic: A review. British journal of health psychology, 15(4),

797-824.

Bradford, B., Milani, J., & Jackson, J. (2017). Identity, legitimacy and “making sense” of police

use of force. Policing: an international journal.

Braithwaite, V. A. (2003). Dancing with Tax Authorities: Motivational Postures and Non-

compliant Actions. In V. Braithwaite (Ed.), Taxing Democracy: Understanding Tax

Avoidance and Evasion (pp. 15-40). Aldershot, UK.: Ashgate.

Braithwaite, V. A. (2009). Defiance in taxation and governance: Resisting and dismissing

authority in a democracy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Brickman Bhutta, C. (2012). Not by the book: Facebook as a sampling frame. . Sociological

Methods & Research, 41(1), 57-88.

Cartwright, D. (2020). Queensland COVID-19 fines now exceed $2 million. . Brisbane Times.

Retrieved from https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/queensland-

covid-19-fines-now-exceed-2-million-20200503-p54pb5.html

Coleman, J. C. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Forgasz, H., Tan, H., Leder, G., & McLeod, A. (2017). Enhancing survey participation:

Facebook advertisements for recruitment in educational research. International Journal

of Research & Method in Education, 41(3), 257-270.

Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to

improve police legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1),

27-42.

Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Tilley, N., & Sidebottom, A. (2017). Policing, procedural

justice and prevention. Handbook of crime prevention and community safety, 274-293.

Huo, Y. J. (2003). Procedural justice and social regulation across group boundaries: Does

subgroup identity undermine relationship-based governance? Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 29(3), 336-348.

80

Huq, A. Z., Jackson, J., & Trinkner, R. (2017). Legitimating practices: Revisiting the predicates

of police legitimacy. British Journal of Criminology, 57(5), 1101-1122.

Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2010). What is trust and confidence in the police? Policing: A

journal of policy and practice, 4(3), 241-248.

Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability and

emotion. Social justice research, 13(4), 339-360.

Mazerolle, L., Sargeant, E., Cherney, A., Bennett, S., Murphy, K., Antrobus, E., & Martin, P.

(2014). Procedural justice and legitimacy in policing: Springer.

Mazerolle, L., Wickes, R., Cherney, A., Murphy, K., Sargeant, E., & Zahnow, R. (2012).

Community Variations in Crime: A Spatial and Ecometric Analysis Wave 3. . Retrieved

from Brisbane:

Murphy, K. (2004). The role of trust in nurturing compliance: A study of accused tax avoiders.

Law and Human Behavior, 28, 187-209.

Murphy, K. (2016). Turning defiance into compliance with procedural justice: Understanding

reactions to regulatory encounters through motivational posturing. Regulation &

Governance, 10(1), 93-109.

Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011). Understanding cooperation with police in a diverse society.

The British Journal of Criminology, 52(1), 181-201.

Murphy, K., Cherney, A., Sargeant, E., Bradford, B., & Williamson, H. (2019). The Sydney

Immigrant Survey: Final Technical Report. Retrieved from Brisbane, Australia:

Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for

police. Policing & Society, 18(2), 136-155.

Murphy, K., Mazerolle, L., & Bennett, S. (2014). Promoting trust in police: Findings from a

randomised experimental field trial of procedural justice policing. Policing and society,

24(4), 405-424.

Murphy, K., Murphy, B., & Mearns, M. (2010). Working Paper No. 17: ‘The 2009 crime,

safety and policing in Australia survey’: survey methodology and preliminary findings’.

Retrieved from

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.679.8653&rep=rep1&type

=pdf

Pedersen, E. R., & Kurz, J. (2016). Using Facebook for health-related research study

recruitment and program delivery. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 38-43.

Posch, K., Yesberg, J., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., & Kyprianides, A. (2020). What makes

Britons trust police to enforce the lockdown fairly? LSE COVID-19 Blog.

81

Prati, G., & Pietrantoni, L. (2009). Elaborating the police perspective: The role of perceptions

and experience in the explanation of crowd conflict. European Journal of Social

Psychology, 39(6), 991-1001.

Radburn, M., Stott, C., Bradford, B., & Robinson, M. (2018). When is policing fair? Groups,

identity and judgements of the procedural justice of coercive crowd policing. Policing

and society, 28(6), 647-664.

Ramo, D. E., & Prochaska, J. J. (2012). Broad reach and targeted recruitment using Facebook

for an online survey of young adult substance use. Journal of medical Internet research,

14(1), e28.

Rattazzi, A. M. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the Right-Wing

Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1223-

1234.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A

multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.

Samuels, D. J., & Zucco, C. (2013). Using Facebook as a subject recruitment tool for survey-

experimental research. SSRN Paper. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2101458

Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods.

Criminology, 42(3), 551-584.

SocialMediaNews.com.au. (2020). Social Media Statistics Australia – May 2020. Retrieved

from https://www.socialmedianews.com.au/social-media-statistics-australia-may-

2020/

South African Social Attitudes Survey. (2012). South African Social Attitudes Survey.

Retrieved from Pretoria, South Africa:

Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the

federal government's social cohesion research network. Canadian Journal of

Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 5-17.

Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping

public support for policing. Law & society review, 37(3), 513-548.

Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

Tyler, T. R., & Degoey, P. (1996). Trust in organizational authorities. Trust in organizations:

Frontiers of theory and research, 331-356.

Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115-191): Elsevier.

82

Zagon, C. (2020). Coronavirus Victoria: state rakes in millisons from fines for restriction

breaches. . 9 News. Retrieved from https://www.9news.com.au/national/coronavirus-

victoria-state-rakes-in-millions-fines-restriction-breaches/d33bf9f0-9f41-4e1f-918c-

a238c15487d7.

83

Appendix A: Facebook Advertisement Materials

Facebook Ad Text: Researchers from Griffith University are recruiting participants aged 18 or over living in Australia to complete a survey about their attitudes towards recent public health and social isolation measures put in place by the Australian Government and police during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) crisis. All participants can go into the draw to win 1 of 2 $100 Coles vouchers.

84

Part 4: Survey Codebook Part 4 of this Technical report presents a codebook of the responses to each item in the Attitudes

to Authority During COVID-19 Survey. The codebook is structured in the same format as the

original survey and presents each question as well as the responses to each question.

Specifically, the number of respondents who answered each question is outlined, the missing

data is presented, as well as how many responded to each available response option. The means

and standard deviations of each item are also presented. As mentioned in Part 1 of this report,

a total of 1,595 completed the survey, after accounting for 1,402 cases that were partially

completed and a further 178 cases that contained incorrect responses to the two validation

check questions. The following codebook data is based on a sample size of n=1,595.

85

The Attitudes to Authority During COVID-

19 Survey Instrument

86

Attitudes to Authority During COVID-19 Survey

Q1. [Q1.1] What is your age? [see Codebook Appendix A]

Mean 49.82 Std Dev 14.47

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q2. [Q1.2] What is your gender?

n %

Male ......................................................................................... 1 679 42.6

Female ...................................................................................... 2 901 56.5

Other ......................................................................................... 3 15 0.9

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q3. [Q1.3] Were you born in Australia?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 1231 77.2

No ............................................................................................. 2 364 22.8

Total Valid 1595 [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q4. [Q1.4] If you were not born in Australia, how long have you lived in Australia?

n %

Less than 1 year ........................................................................ 1 3 0.8

1-3 years ................................................................................... 2 10 2.7

3-6 years ................................................................................... 3 18 4.9

More than 6 years ..................................................................... 4 332 91.2

Not applicable. I was born in Australia .................................... 5 1 0.3

Total Valid [364] [100.0]

Missing Data (1231) (77.2)

SECTION 1: ABOUT YOU

This section asks about yourself. These are important so that we can see how different

people in different situations respond to questions.

87

Q5. [Q1.5] Do you have Australian citizenship?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 1512 94.8

No ............................................................................................. 2 83 5.2

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q6. [Q1.6] Please select the option which best describes your ethnic/racial group:

n %

Caucasian ................................................................................. 1 1489 93.4

Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander .................................. 2 25 1.6

Asian (e.g., Chinese; Japanese) ................................................ 3 24 1.5

South Asian (e.g., Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, etc.) .......... 4 2 0.1

Middle Eastern (e.g., Lebanese, Syrian, etc.) ........................... 5 4 0.3

Black African (e.g., Sudanese, Kenyan) .................................. 6 1 0.1

Pacific Islander (e.g., Tongan, Fijian, Maori) .......................... 6 3 0.2

Other [see Codebook Appendix B] ........................................ 7 46 2.9

Total Valid [###] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q7. [Q1.7] What is the highest level of education you have completed?

n %

Did not have any or much formal schooling ............................ 1 2 0.1

Primary school ......................................................................... 2 3 0.2

Junior secondary/intermediate/form 4/year 10 ......................... 3 56 3.5

Senior secondary/leaving/form 6/year 12 ................................ 4 186 11.7

Trade/Technical certificate ....................................................... 5 191 12.0

Diploma or Advanced Diploma ............................................... 6 262 16.4

Bachelor’s degree ..................................................................... 7 440 27.6

Graduate Certificate or Graduate Diploma .............................. 8 180 11.3

Postgraduate Degree (Masters or Doctorate) ........................... 9 275 17.2

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q8. [Q1.8] What is your current employment status?

n %

Working full time ..................................................................... 1 472 29.6

Working part time or casually .................................................. 2 305 19.1

Retired ...................................................................................... 3 312 19.6

Unemployed but seeking work ................................................ 4 119 7.5

Unemployed but not seeking work .......................................... 5 51 3.2

Home duties ............................................................................. 6 59 3.7

Studying full time ..................................................................... 7 78 4.9

Studying and working .............................................................. 8 65 4.1

88

Carer ......................................................................................... 9 5 0.3

Pension ................................................................................... 10 29 1.8

Unable to work ....................................................................... 11 12 0.8

Home schooling ..................................................................... 12 2 0.1

Self-employed ........................................................................ 13 42 2.6

Other [see Codebook Appendix C] ...................................... 14 44 2.8

Total Valid 1595 [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q9. [Q1.9] Do you own or rent your accommodation?

n %

Own .......................................................................................... 1 1038 65.1

Rent .......................................................................................... 2 557 34.9

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q10. [Q1.10] Which state or territory do you live in?

n %

ACT .......................................................................................... 1 43 2.7

NSW ......................................................................................... 2 417 26.1

NT ............................................................................................ 3 8 0.5

QLD ......................................................................................... 4 517 32.4

SA ............................................................................................. 5 104 6.5

TAS .......................................................................................... 6 85 5.3

VIC ........................................................................................... 7 282 17.7

WA ........................................................................................... 8 139 8.7

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q11. [Q1.11] What is your postcode _________________ [See Codebook Appendix D]

Q12. [Q1.12] What best describes your living arrangements?

n %

I live alone ................................................................................ 1 269 16.9

I live with family members ...................................................... 2 1187 74.4

I live with friends or flatmates ................................................. 3 139 8.7

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q13. [Q1.13] Do you have children under 18?

n %

Yes, my children are under 18 ................................................. 1 436 27.3

No, I do not have children ........................................................ 2 563 35.3

I have children, but they are older than 18 ............................... 3 595 37.4

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

89

Q14. [Q1.14] Some people talk about "left" (e.g. Australian Labour Party; Greens), "right" (e.g. Liberal National Party;

One Nation), and "centre" to describe political parties and politicians. With this in mind, where would you

place yourself in terms of your support for political parties?

n %

1 Very left-wing ....................................................................... 1 208 13.0

2 ................................................................................................ 2 312 19.5

3 ................................................................................................ 3 289 18.1

4 Centre .................................................................................... 4 430 27.0

5 ................................................................................................ 5 211 13.2

6 ................................................................................................ 6 109 6.8

7 Very right-wing ..................................................................... 7 36 2.3

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q14. [Q2.1] How strongly do you agree or disagree about the following statements regarding how you see yourself?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Somewhat

agree Strongly

agree

a. [Q2.1a] I am proud to be an

Australian ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.98 n 77 98 275 467 678 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 4.8 6.1 17.2 29.3 42.5 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q2.1b] I identify strongly

with being Australian .................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.09 n 61 93 235 451 755 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.09 % 3.8 5.8 14.7 28.3 47.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q2.1c] Being an Australian is

important to the way I think of

myself as a person ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.61 n 129 154 394 459 459 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.22 % 9.1 9.7 24.7 28.8 28.8 [100.0] (0.0)

SECTION 2: HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF AND OTHERS

Before we ask you about your thoughts on how the Government and police are handling the

Coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, we would first like to ask you some questions about you

and your community. These will help us examine how general attitudes shape specific views

regarding COVID-19. There are no right or wrong answers.

90

d. [Q2.1d] I identify strongly as

a law-abiding person ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.30 n 35 71 146 468 875 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 2.2 4.5 9.2 9.2 54.9 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q2.1e] Being a law-abiding

person is important to the way I

think of myself as a person ........... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.98 n 76 100 274 469 676 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 4.8 6.3 17.2 29.4 42.4 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q2.1f] I am proud to be a

law-abiding person ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.03 n 52 75 353 402 713 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.07 % 3.3 4.7 22.1 25.2 44.7 [100.0] (0.0) g. [Q2.1g] It is important for me

to be seen by others as a law-

abiding person ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.84 n 54 111 423 453 554 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.08 % 3.4 7.0 26.5 28.4 34.7 [100.0] (0.0)

Q15. [Q2.2] Thinking about my local area, in general...

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Somewhat

agree Strongly

agree

a. [Q2.2a] …I identify strongly

with my community ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.55 n 75 201 375 653 291 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.07 % 4.7 12.6 23.5 40.9 18.2 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q2.2b] …I feel similar to

people living in my community ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.28 n 106 272 440 627 150 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.05 % 6.6 17.1 27.6 39.3 9.4 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q2.2c] …I feel a sense of

solidarity with people in my

community ................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.43 n 92 218 407 665 213 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.06 % 5.8 13.7 25.5 41.7 13.4 [100.0] (0.0)

91

Q16. [Q2.3] Still thinking about your local area, in general, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the following

statements?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor

disagree Somewhat

agree Strongly

agree

a. [Q2.3a] People in my area

can be trusted ............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.53 n 55 184 395 775 186 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 3.4 11.5 24.8 48.6 11.7 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q2.3b] People act with

courtesy to each other in public

space in my area ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.84 n 54 139 172 867 363 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.98 % 3.4 8.7 10.8 54.4 22.8 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q2.3c] You can see from

the public space in my local

area that people take pride in

their environment ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.68 n 69 180 276 730 340 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.06 % 4.3 11.3 17.3 45.8 21.3 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q2.3d] My local area is a

place where people from

different backgrounds get on

well together ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.68 n 46 160 355 732 302 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.99 % 2.9 10.0 22.3 45.9 18.9 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q2.3e] Local people and

authorities have control over the

public space in my local area ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.69 n 45 147 345 776 282 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 2.8 9.2 21.6 48.7 17.7 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q2.3f] If I sensed trouble

whilst in my local area, I could

get help from people who live

here ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.78 n 72 130 285 705 403 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.06 % 4.5 8.2 17.9 44.2 25.3 [100.0] (0.0) g. [Q2.3g] The people who live

in my local area can be relied

upon to call the police if

someone is acting suspiciously .. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.83 n 41 137 294 703 420 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.00 % 2.6 8.6 18.4 44.1 26.3 [100.0] (0.0)

92

h. [Q2.3h] If any of the children

or young people in my area are

causing trouble, local people

will tell them off ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.31 n 95 242 502 577 178 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.05 % 6.0 15.2 31.5 36.2 11.2 [100.0] (0.0)

Q17. [Q3.1] In answering the questions, think about police in your local area. Thinking about the police in my local area, in

general...

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.1a] …I identify strongly with the

police ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.19 n 215 214 472 448 246 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.24 % 13.5 13.4 29.6 28.1 15.4 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.1b] …I feel similar to the police ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.83 n 278 296 560 334 127 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 17.4 18.6 35.1 20.9 8.0 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.1c] …I feel a sense of solidarity

with the police ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.19 n 218 223 418 517 219 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.24 % 13.7 14.0 26.2 32.4 13.7 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.1d] …The values of most police

officers are very similar to my own ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.22 n 206 211 440 510 228 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.22 % 12.9 13.2 27.6 32.0 14.3 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.1e] …I trust police to act in the

best interests of the community .................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.46 n 200 210 208 618 359 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.31 % 12.5 13.2 13.0 38.7 22.5 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [3.1f] …I have confidence in police ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.43 n 211 219 210 589 366 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.33 % 13.2 13.7 13.2 36.9 22.9 [100.0] (0.0)

SECTION 3: YOUR ATTITUDES TOWARDS AUTHORITY

We now turn to questions that ask you about your general thoughts about police and government.

93

Q18. [Q3.2] Thinking about the police in your local area, to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about the police?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.2a] Police make fair, impartial

decisions in the cases they deal with ........... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.19 n 180 277 376 591 171 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 11.3 17.4 23.6 37.1 10.7 [100.0] (0.0) b. [Q3.2b] Police explain their decisions to

the people they deal with ............................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.17 n 184 250 454 526 181 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.17 % 11.5 15.7 28.5 33.0 11.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.2c] Police treat people with dignity

and respect .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.29 n 173 247 346 610 219 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.20 % 10.8 15.5 21.7 38.2 13.7 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.2d] Police let people speak before

they make decisions .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.01 n 202 294 529 434 136 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.14 % 12.7 18.4 33.2 27.2 8.5 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.2e] Police care about people ........... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.51 n 139 150 373 619 314 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.16 % 8.7 9.4 23.4 38.8 19.7 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q3.2f] Police are polite to people ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.44 n 126 185 406 617 261 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 7.9 11.6 25.5 38.7 16.4 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q3.2g] Police make their decisions

based upon facts, not personal biases ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.08 n 196 313 429 478 179 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.20 % 12.3 19.6 26.9 30.0 11.2 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q3.2h] Police treat people fairly .......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.21 n 180 256 394 580 185 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 11.3 16.1 24.7 36.4 11.6 [100.0] (0.0)

i. [Q3.2i] Police are approachable and

friendly ........................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.55 n 127 189 298 634 347 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 8.0 11.8 18.7 39.7 21.8 [100.0] (0.0)

j. [Q3.2j] Please select ‘Somewhat agree’

to answer this question. This is a validation

check ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.00 n 0 0 0 1595 0 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.00 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 [100.0] (0.0)

94

Q19. [Q3.3] Again thinking about the police in your local area, to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements

about the police?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.3a] Police treat everyone equally ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.87 n 247 444 325 421 158 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.24 % 15.5 27.8 20.4 26.4 9.9 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.3b] Police provide the same quality

of service to all citizens ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.92 n 249 428 304 423 191 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.28 % 15.6 26.8 19.1 26.5 12.0 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.3c] Police enforce the law

consistently when dealing with people ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.93 n 248 414 331 410 192 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.27 % 15.5 26.0 20.8 25.7 12.0 [100.0] (0.0)

Q20. [Q3.4] Thinking about the police in your local area, to what extent do you agree or disagree with these statements about

the police?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.4a] When the police deal with

people they almost always behave

according to the law .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.57 n 109 213 299 604 370 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 6.8 13.4 18.7 37.9 23.2 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.4b] The police often get involved in

situations that they have no right to be in ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.54 n 328 485 462 235 85 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 20.5 30.4 29.0 14.7 5.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.4c] The police often arrest people

for no good reason ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.28 n 489 494 354 186 72 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.15 % 30.7 31.0 22.2 11.7 4.5 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.4d] The police often overstep the

boundaries of their authority ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.76 n 332 391 375 317 180 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.29 % 20.8 24.5 23.5 19.9 11.3 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.4e] The police often abuse their

power ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.72 n 381 352 367 316 179 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.32 % 23.9 22.1 23.0 19.8 11.2 [100.0] (0.0)

95

f. [Q3.4f] The police often violate

peoples’ personal freedoms ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.68 n 408 359 354 288 186 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.34 % 25.6 22.5 22.2 18.1 11.7 [100.0] (0.0)

Q21. [Q3.5] Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the police in your local area?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.5a] I support the way the police

usually act ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.68 n 106 160 284 629 416 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.16 % 6.6 10.0 17.8 39.4 26.1 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.5b] The police usually act in ways

that are consistent with my own ideas

about what is right and wrong ..................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.46 n 151 240 279 569 356 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 9.5 15.0 17.5 35.7 22.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.5c] The police stand up for values

that are important for people like me .......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.44 n 163 207 353 514 358 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 10.2 13.0 22.1 32.2 22.4 [100.0] (0.0)

Q21. [Q3.6] How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the police in general?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.6a] I see police as important

representatives of the government .............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.65 n 147 187 240 518 503 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.28 % 9.2 11.7 15.0 32.5 31.5 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.6b] I see police as important

representatives of society’s values .............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.67 n 156 173 220 540 506 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.29 % 9.8 10.8 13.8 33.9 31.7 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.6c] I see police as important

representatives of the nation ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.47 n 195 194 309 455 442 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.34 % 12.2 12.2 19.4 28.5 27.7 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.6d] I see police as important

representatives of our nation’s laws and

rules ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.99 n 108 96 180 524 687 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 6.8 6.0 11.3 32.9 43.1 [100.0] (0.0)

96

Q22. [Q3.7] To what extent is it your moral duty to...

Not at all my duty

Somewhat my duty Undecided

Somewhat my duty

Completely my duty

a. [Q3.7a] …obey the police ............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.04 n 116 27 136 719 597 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.09 % 7.3 1.7 8.5 45.1 37.4 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.7b] …support the decisions of

police officers, even if you disagree

with them ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.25 n 323 90 301 634 247 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.35 % 20.3 5.6 18.9 39.7 15.5 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.7c] …do what the police tell

you even if you don’t understand or

agree with the reasons ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.55 n 215 78 285 653 364 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.27 % 13.5 4.9 17.9 40.9 22.8 [100.0] (0.0)

Q23. [Q3.8] To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements about police?...

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.8a] It is important not to let the

police push you around ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.68 n 79 169 346 593 408 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.11 % 5.0 10.6 21.7 37.2 25.6 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.8b] As a society we need more

people willing to take a stand against rude

police ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.65 n 102 185 312 543 453 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.19 % 5.4 11.6 19.6 34.0 28.4 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.8c] It is important that people lodge

formal complaints against disrespectful

police ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.38 n 18 46 130 526 875 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.84 % 1.1 2.9 8.2 33.0 54.9 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.8d] If police were disrespectful

toward me I would not cooperate with

them ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.93 n 171 460 454 325 185 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 10.7 28.8 28.5 20.4 11.6 [100.0] (0.0)

97

e. [Q3.8e] I try to avoid contact with

police at all costs ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.04 n 334 230 394 306 331 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.42 % 20.9 14.4 24.7 19.2 20.8 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q3.8f] Even if I needed help from

police I would prefer to avoid making

contact with them ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.21 n 723 352 140 230 150 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 45.3 22.1 8.8 14.4 9.4 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q3.8g] If I find out that I’m not doing

what police want, I’m not going to lose

sleep over it ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.02 n 205 362 466 322 240 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.24 % 12.9 22.7 29.2 20.2 15.0 [100.0] (0.0)

Q24. [Q3.9] If the situation arose, how likely would you be to...

Not at all likely

Not very likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Fairly likely

Very likely

a. [Q3.9a] Call the police to report a crime

you witnessed .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.82 n 98 452 58 20 967 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.52 % 6.1 28.3 3.6 1.3 60.6 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.9b] Report dangerous or suspicious

activity near your house to the police ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.54 n 116 507 77 38 857 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.54 % 7.3 31.8 4.8 2.4 53.7 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.9c] Provide information to the

police to help find a suspected criminal ...... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.78 n 128 442 42 31 952 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.55 % 8.0 27.7 2.6 1.9 59.7 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.9d] Call the police if you were a

victim of crime ............................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.96 n 97 357 74 19 1038 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.47 % 6.1 23.0 4.6 1.2 65.1 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.9e] Call the police if you needed

help .............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.65 n 172 408 104 34 877 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.58 % 10.8 25.5 6.5 2.1 55.0 [100.0] (0.0)

98

f. [Q3.9f] Willingly assist the police if

asked ........................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.69 n 149 453 52 31 910 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.58 % 9.3 28.4 3.3 1.9 57.1 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q3.9g] Please answer 'Fairly likely' to

this question. This is a validation check ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.00 n 0 0 0 1595 0 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.00 % 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 [100.0] (0.0)

Q25. [Q3.10] Thinking about the police in your local area, how acceptable is it for police to...

Not at all acceptable

Not very acceptable

Neither acceptable

nor acceptable

Fairly acceptable

Very acceptable

a. [Q3.10a] ...use deadly force

against a person who is armed and

believed to pose a threat to other

people's lives? .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.92 n 74 171 180 546 624 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.16 % 4.6 10.7 11.3 34.2 39.1 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.10b] ...strike a citizen who

uses his fists to attack a police

officer? ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.73 n 103 207 213 561 511 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.22 % 6.5 13.0 13.4 35.2 32.0 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.10c] ...use physical force

against an offender who is

handcuffed and in police custody? ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.74 n 836 485 153 82 29 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 52.4 30.4 10.2 5.1 1.8 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.10d] ...use force to arrest an

unarmed person who is not offering

violent resistance? .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.46 n 1087 350 99 44 15 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.81 % 68.2 21.9 6.2 2.8 0.9 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.10e] ...use facial recognition

to track the movement of every

citizen? ............................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.77 n 979 254 173 127 62 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.16 % 61.4 15.9 10.8 8.0 3.9 [100.0] (0.0)

99

f. [Q3.10f] ...use drones to track

people's movements? ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.96 n 804 322 259 143 67 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 50.4 20.2 16.2 9.0 4.2 [100.0] (0.0)

Q26. [Q3.11] Below are some statements about authorities in general. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with

each of these statements.

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.11a] Authorities should be obeyed

because they are in the best position to

know what is good for our country ............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.59 n 443 351 294 438 69 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.27 % 27.8 22.0 18.4 27.5 4.3 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q3.11b] Obedience and respect for

authority are the most important virtues

children should learn ................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.77 n 419 310 268 420 178 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.38 % 25.3 19.4 16.8 26.3 11.2 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.11c] What our country really needs

is a tough, harsh dose of law and order ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.14 n 733 324 223 216 99 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.30 % 46.0 20.3 14.0 13.5 6.2 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.11d] The facts on crime and

disorder show we have to crack down

harder on troublemakers, if we are going to

preserve law and order ................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.63 n 514 276 272 346 187 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.42 % 32.2 17.3 17.1 21.7 11.7 [100.0] (0.0)

Now some general questions about what you think of the Australian Federal Government and your own State/Territory Government.

Q27. [Q3.12] Do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the Government?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q3.12a] I generally support the

decisions made by the Australian Federal

Government ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.74 n 333 408 297 461 96 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 20.9 25.6 18.6 28.9 6.0 [100.0] (0.0)

100

b. [Q3.12b] The Australian Federal

Government usually acts in ways that are

consistent with my own ideas about what

is right and wrong ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.42 n 482 444 262 337 70 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.24 % 30.2 27.8 16.4 21.1 4.4 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q3.12c] The Australian Federal

Government stands up for values that are

important for people like me ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.39 n 533 385 271 335 71 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.26 % 33.4 24.1 17.0 21.0 4.5 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q3.12d] I trust the Australian Federal

Government to act in the best interests of

all Australians ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.28 n 630 373 200 303 89 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.31 % 39.5 23.4 12.5 19.0 5.6 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q3.12e] I have confidence in the

Australian Federal Government .................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.35 n 587 369 217 341 81 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.30 % 36.8 23.1 13.6 21.4 5.1 [100.0] (0.0) f. [Q3.12f] I generally support the

decisions made by my State/Territory

Government ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.95 n 236 367 329 565 98 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.19 % 14.8 23.0 20.6 35.4 6.1 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q3.12g] My State/Territory

Government usually acts in ways that are

consistent with my own ideas about what

is right and wrong ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.78 n 301 384 357 465 88 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.21 % 18.9 24.1 22.4 29.2 5.5 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q3.12h] My State/Territory

Government stands up for values that are

important for people like me ....................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.74 n 333 371 365 436 90 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.22 % 20.9 23.3 22.9 27.3 5.6 [100.0] (0.0)

i. [Q3.12i] I trust my State/Territory

Government to act in the best interests of

all Australians ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.64 n 398 377 322 390 108 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.28 % 25.0 23.6 20.2 24.5 6.8 [100.0] (0.0)

101

j. [Q3.12j] I have confidence in my

State/Territory Government ........................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.80 n 352 334 315 469 125 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.29 % 22.1 20.9 19.7 29.4 7.8 [100.0] (0.0)

Q28. [Q4.1] Can you tell me whether you support or oppose granting the authorities the following powers?

Strongly oppose Oppose

Neither oppose

nor support Support

Strongly Support

a. [Q4.1a] Issue an on-the-spot fine to

people they find out of their homes

without justification .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.14 n 318 266 191 514 306 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.43 % 19.9 16.7 12.0 32.2 19.2 [100.0] (0.0) b. [Q4.1b] Use force to make people

return to their homes if they are out

without justification .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.45 n 475 433 294 277 116 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.28 % 29.8 27.1 18.4 17.4 7.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.1c] Use facial recognition

technology to track people who are out of

their homes .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.11 n 748 329 205 213 100 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.30 % 46.9 20.6 12.9 13.4 6.3 [100.0] (0.0) d. [Q4.1d] Set up checkpoints during

lockdowns to ensure that people are only

out with good reason ................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.09 n 364 197 227 548 259 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.42 % 22.8 12.4 14.2 39.4 16.2 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.1e] Track people's mobile phones to

ensure they are only out of their homes for

a good reason .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.02 n 809 322 178 195 91 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.27 % 50.7 20.2 11.2 12.2 5.7 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q4.1f] Suspend trial by jury, and allow

judges to decide cases on their own ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.99 n 769 342 260 171 53 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.17 % 48.2 21.4 16.3 10.7 3.3 [100.0] (0.0)

SECTION 4: RESPONSES TO COVID-19

We would like to hear your opinions regarding a range of issues related to the COVID-19 crisis. Below is a list of powers granted to police and courts in Australia to help deal with the current COVID-19 (Coronavirus) crisis, or which other countries have considered or already

have in place.

102

g. [Q4.1g] Use drones to track people's

movements to ensure that they socially

isolate .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.07 n 764 325 227 192 87 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.26 % 47.9 20.4 14.2 12.0 5.5 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q4.1h] Make it a criminal offence to

spread false information about contagious

diseases ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.55 n 255 146 206 442 546 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.44 % 16.0 9.2 12.9 27.7 34.2 [100.0] (0.0)

i. [Q4.1i] Impose a curfew from 5pm to

5am for everyone but key workers .............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.02 n 732 408 215 177 63 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 45.9 25.6 13.5 11.1 3.9 [100.0] (0.0)

j. [Q4.1j] Ban all protests, marches,

demonstrations, and mass gatherings .......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.77 n 518 225 222 362 268 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.51 % 32.5 14.1 13.9 22.7 16.8 [100.0] (0.0)

k. [Q4.1k] Forcing people to download a

COVID-19 contact tracing app on their

mobile phones ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.86 n 896 288 211 133 67 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.18 % 56.2 18.1 13.2 8.3 4.2 [100.0] (0.0)

Q29. [Q4.2] How much confidence do you have in the ability of the following institutions to handle the COVID-19 crisis?

No confidence

at all Not much confidence

Some confidence

A fair amount of confidence

A lot of confidence

a. [Q4.2a] Australian Federal

Government ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.02 n 256 308 399 414 218 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.28 % 16.1 19.3 25.0 26.0 13.7 [100.0] (0.0) b. [Q4.2b] My State/Territory

Government ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.29 n 198 229 377 494 297 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.27 % 12.4 14.4 23.6 31.0 18.6 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.2c] National Health

Department ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.48 n 166 173 348 540 368 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 10.4 10.8 21.8 33.9 23.1 [100.0] (0.0)

103

d. [Q4.2d] My State/Territory

Health Department .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.48 n 166 185 325 553 366 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 10.4 11.6 20.4 34.7 22.9 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.2e] World Health

Organisation .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.84 n 421 228 323 434 189 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 26.4 14.3 20.3 27.2 11.8 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q4.2f] Police .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.03 n 241 272 454 462 166 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.22 % 15.1 17.1 28.5 29.0 10.4 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q4.2g] Courts ............................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.86 n 233 346 535 380 101 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 14.6 21.7 33.5 23.8 6.3 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q4.2h] The media ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.88 n 716 480 286 104 9 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 44.9 30.1 17.6 6.5 0.6 [100.0] (0.0)

Q30. [Q4.3] Now a few questions about the information you have received from the Government and health authorities during the COVID-19 crisis. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.3a] The Australian Federal

Government has provided clear messaging

around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.39 n 298 148 293 351 505 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.48 % 18.7 9.3 18.4 22.0 31.7 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.3b] My State/Territory Government

has provided clear messaging around what

I need to do during the Coronavirus crisis .. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.24 n 431 184 163 263 574 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.65 % 27.0 10.3 10.2 16.5 36.0 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.3c] The Australian Federal

Government has given conflicting advice

around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.14 n 449 201 157 246 542 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.66 % 28.2 12.6 9.8 15.4 34.0 [100.0] (0.0)

104

d. [Q4.3d] My State/Territory

Government has given conflicting advice

around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.32 n 253 266 232 402 442 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.44 % 15.9 16.7 14.5 25.2 27.7 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.3e] Both the Federal Government

and State/Territory Governments are

giving conflicting advice from each other

around what I need to do during the

Coronavirus crisis ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.18 n 390 303 123 193 586 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.65 % 24.5 19.0 7.7 12.1 36.7 [100.0] (0.0)

Q31. [Q4.4] To what extent do you think that it is everybody's duty to support the Government by NOT engaging in the following behaviours?

Not at all everybody’s

duty

Somewhat not

everybody’s duty Undecided

Somewhat everybody’s

duty

Completely everybody’s

duty

a. [Q4.4a] Socialising in

person with friends or

relatives whom you don't live

with ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.00 n 167 118 116 345 849 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.36 % 10.5 7.4 7.3 21.6 53.2 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.4b] Leaving the house

without a really good reason . 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.84 n 218 139 114 339 785 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.46 % 13.7 8.7 7.1 21.3 49.2 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.4c] Traveling for

leisure (e.g. drive somewhere

to go for a walk) .................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.32 n 338 214 210 272 561 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.57 % 21.2 13.4 13.2 17.1 35.2 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.4d] Going out

shopping for essential or non-

essential items when you

have COVID-19 symptoms ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.34 n 179 37 53 112 1214 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.33 % 11.2 2.3 3.3 7.0 76.1 [100.0] (0.0)

105

e. [Q4.4e] Going out

shopping for non-essential

items when you do NOT

have COVID-19 symptoms ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.47 n 274 203 176 387 555 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.49 % 17.2 12.7 11.0 24.3 34.8 [100.0] (0.0)

Q32. [Q4.5] How often during the past week have you engaged in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak? Remember, your responses are completely anonymous. We do not know who you are.

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Very often

a. [Q4.5a] Socialised in person with

friends or relatives whom you don't

live with ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.82 n 792 457 223 85 38 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.02 % 49.7 28.7 14.0 5.3 2.4 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.5b] Left the house without a

really good reason ................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.77 n 870 413 175 84 53 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.06 % 54.5 25.9 11.0 5.3 3.3 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.5c] Travelled for leisure (e.g.

driven somewhere to go for a walk) ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.77 n 936 260 209 103 60 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.13 % 60.4 16.3 13.1 6.5 3.8 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.5d] Gone out shopping for

essential or non-essential items when

you had COVID-19 symptoms ............. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.12 n 1501 40 23 16 15 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.56 % 94.1 2.5 1.4 1.0 0.9 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.5e] Gone out shopping for non-

essential items when you did NOT

have COVID-19 symptoms ................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.04 n 682 435 279 128 71 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.15 % 42.8 27.3 17.5 8.0 4.5 [100.0] (0.0)

Q33. [Q4.6] How morally wrong do you think it is to engage in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak?

Not at all wrong

Only a little wrong

Somewhat wrong

Quite wrong

Seriously wrong

a. [Q4.6a] Socialise in person with

friends or relatives whom you don't

live with ............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.15 n 343 230 255 378 389 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.48 % 21.5 14.4 16.0 23.7 24.4 [100.0] (0.0)

106

b. [Q4.4b] Leave the house without a

really good reason .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.07 n 352 219 297 418 309 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.43 % 22.1 13.7 18.6 26.2 19.4 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.6c] Travel for leisure (e.g.

drive somewhere to go for a walk) .... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.62 n 561 269 238 262 265 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.51 % 35.2 16.9 14.9 16.4 16.6 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.6d] Go out shopping for

essential or non-essential items when

you have COVID-19 symptoms ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.63 n 65 27 57 135 1311 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.95 % 4.1 1.7 3.6 8.5 82.2 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.6e] Go out shopping for non-

essential items when you do NOT

have COVID-19 symptoms ................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.72 n 445 297 314 345 194 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 27.9 18.6 19.7 21.6 12.2 [100.0] (0.0)

Q34. [Q4.7] How likely is it that someone would get caught and sanctioned should they engage in each of the following behaviours during the COVID-19 outbreak?

Not at all

likely Not very

likely Neither likely nor unlikely

Fairly likely

Very likely

a. [Q4.7a] Socialising in person with

friends or relatives whom they don't

live with ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.13 n 369 824 259 115 28 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.91 % 23.1 51.7 16.2 7.2 1.8 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.7b] Leaving the house without a

really good reason ................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.12 n 355 850 258 105 27 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.89 % 22.3 53.3 16.2 6.6 1.7 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.7c] Traveling for leisure (e.g.

drive somewhere to go for a walk) ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.25 n 326 766 309 161 33 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.96 % 20.4 48.0 19.4 10.1 2.1 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.7d] Going out shopping for

essential or non-essential items when

they have COVID-19 symptoms ........... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.49 n 277 679 304 244 91 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.12 % 17.4 42.6 19.1 15.3 5.7 [100.0] (0.0)

107

e. [Q4.7e] Going out shopping for

non-essential items when they do NOT

have COVID-19 symptoms ................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.98 n 493 771 229 81 21 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.88 % 30.9 48.3 14.4 5.1 1.3 [100.0] (0.0)

Q35. [Q4.8] If you saw people breaking the rules on social distancing (e.g. congregating in a large group at a park or in someone’s house), how likely would you be to do the following?

Not at all likely

Not very likely

Neither likely nor unlikely

Fairly likely

Very likely

a. [Q4.8a] Shout at them to go home 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.84 n 837 393 191 138 36 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.08 % 52.5 24.6 12.0 8.7 2.3 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.8b] Use social media to

publicly shame them .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 1.71 n 952 329 171 108 35 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.04 % 59.7 20.6 10.7 6.8 2.2 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.8c] Call the police to report

them .................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.49 n 569 307 248 307 164 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.40 % 35.7 19.2 15.5 19.2 10.3 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.8d] I would do nothing ......... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.38 n 234 226 265 445 425 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 14.7 14.2 16.6 27.9 26.6 [100.0] (0.0)

Q36. [Q4.9] Do you think the current social distancing restrictions should be relaxed?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 577 36.2

No ............................................................................................. 2 1018 63.8

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q37. [Q4.10] Please consider the following questions around relaxing current social distancing restrictions. How much do you agree or disagree with the following…

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.10a] I think the current social

distancing restrictions in my

State/Territory should be relaxed ................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.70 n 449 431 141 290 284 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.49 % 28.2 27.0 8.8 18.2 17.8 [100.0] (0.0)

108

b. [Q4.10b] I would support relaxing the

current social distancing restrictions to get

the economy back on track ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.79 n 426 377 210 267 315 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.49 % 26.7 23.6 13.2 16.7 19.7 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.10c] I would support keeping the

current social distancing restrictions as

they are to prevent more COVID-related

deaths .......................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.63 n 228 176 133 481 577 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.43 % 14.3 11.0 8.3 30.2 36.2 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.10] It is not worth relaxing current

social distancing restrictions because of the

risk to lives this will cause .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.42 n 276 204 184 436 495 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.47 % 17.3 12.8 11.5 27.3 31.0 [100.0] (0.0)

Q38. [Q4.11] I think schools should remain open for all students to attend.

Mean 2.97

Std Dev 1.41

n %

Strongly disagree ...................................................................... 1 361 22.6

Somewhat disagree .................................................................. 2 234 14.7

Neither agree nor disagree ....................................................... 3 389 24.4

Somewhat agree ....................................................................... 4 316 19.8

Strongly agree .......................................................................... 5 295 18.5

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q39. [Q4.12] I believe we should keep the borders to Australia closed until the COVID-19 virus is proven to be contained.

Mean 2.04

Std Dev 1.61

n %

Strongly disagree ...................................................................... 1 1067 66.9

Somewhat disagree .................................................................. 2 69 4.3

Neither agree nor disagree ....................................................... 3 87 5.5

Somewhat agree ....................................................................... 4 77 4.8

Strongly agree .......................................................................... 5 295 18.5

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

109

Q40. [Q4.13] How much do you worry that after the whole Coronavirus crisis ends, our freedoms will never return to what

they were before the Coronavirus outbreak?

Mean 2.86

Std Dev 1.56

n %

Not at all worried ..................................................................... 1 468 29.3

A little worried ......................................................................... 2 284 17.8

Somewhat worried ................................................................... 3 240 15.0

Very worried ............................................................................ 4 214 13.4

Extremely worried .................................................................... 5 389 24.4

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q41. [Q4.14] Due to the COVID-19 crisis, the police have been granted additional powers to fine people who are flouting social distancing restrictions. To what extent do you disagree or agree with the following statements.

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.14a] The police in my

State/Territory should have the power to

issue fines to people flouting social

distancing rules ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.62 n 241 146 136 532 540 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.42 % 15.1 9.2 8.5 33.4 33.9 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.14b] I believe that the police in my

State/Territory should be issuing fines to

those who flout social distancing rules ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.52 n 251 164 184 489 507 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.43 % 15.7 10.3 11.5 30.7 31.8 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.14c] I trust police in my

State/Territory to use their discretion

appropriately when issuing fines to people

flouting social distancing rules ................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.13 n 293 274 249 489 290 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 18.4 17.2 15.6 30.7 18.2 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.14d] I have confidence in the

police in my State/Territory to use their

power appropriately when issuing fines to

people flouting social distancing rules ........ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.10 n 293 287 255 495 265 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.37 % 18.4 18.0 16.0 31.0 15.6 [100.0] (0.0)

110

e. [Q4.14e] I support the way police in my

State/Territory have issued fines to people

flouting social distancing rules, even if I

don’t understand or agree with their

decisions ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.07 n 288 230 402 432 243 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.32 % 18.1 14.4 25.2 27.1 15.2 [100.0] (0.0)

Q42. [Q4.15] When answering the following questions, think about how police in your State/Territory have been issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules. How much do you agree with the following statements…..

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.15a] Some police in my

State/Territory have abused their authority

when issuing fines to people. ...................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.93 n 227 584 223 203 358 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.40 % 14.2 36.6 14.0 12.7 22.4 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q4.15b] By issuing fines to people, the

police in my State/Territory are getting

involved in situations they have no right to

be in ............................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.04 n 179 353 494 362 207 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.19 % 11.2 22.1 31.0 22.7 13.0 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.15c] Some of the police in my

State/Territory issue fines to people for no

good reason ................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.92 n 210 537 315 233 300 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.33 % 13.2 33.7 19.7 14.6 18.8 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.15d] By issuing fines to people,

the police violate people’s personal

freedoms ...................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.02 n 234 260 566 307 228 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.23 % 14.7 16.3 35.5 19.2 14.3 [100.0] (0.0)

Q43. [Q4.16] When issuing fines to people flouting social distancing rules, police in my State/Territory have…..

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.16a] Made fair and impartial

decisions in the cases they have dealt with. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.92 n 187 672 160 232 344 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.38 % 11.7 42.1 10.0 14.5 21.6 [100.0] (0.0)

111

b. [Q4.16b] Treated people with dignity

and respect .................................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.92 n 181 695 146 216 357 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.38 % 11.3 43.6 9.2 13.5 22.4 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q4.16c] Displayed compassion and

understanding .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.88 n 164 717 168 242 304 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.33 % 10.3 45.0 10.5 15.2 19.1 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q4.16d] Made their decisions based

upon facts, not personal biases .................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.89 n 198 694 153 191 359 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 12.4 43.5 9.6 12.0 22.5 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q4.16e] Taken account of people’s

explanations for why they are where they

are before issuing a fine .............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.88 n 170 738 152 181 354 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.37 % 10.7 46.3 9.5 11.3 22.2 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q4.16f] Treated people fairly when

issuing fines ................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.89 n 183 694 171 213 334 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.36 % 11.5 43.5 10.7 13.4 20.9 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q4.16g] Treated people from all walks

of life equally .............................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.79 n 195 698 210 235 257 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.29 % 12.2 43.8 13.2 14.7 16.1 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q4.16h] Enforced the rules

consistently across different people ............ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.85 n 174 673 228 258 262 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.29 % 10.9 42.2 14.3 16.2 16.4 [100.0] (0.0)

Q44. [Q4.17] Overall, I am satisfied with how the police in my State/Territory have handled themselves during the COVID-19 crisis. Mean 3.13 Std Dev 1.59

n %

Strongly disagree ...................................................................... 1 355 22.3

Somewhat disagree .................................................................. 2 336 21.1

Neither agree nor disagree ....................................................... 3 179 11.2

Somewhat agree ....................................................................... 4 193 12.1

Strongly agree .......................................................................... 5 532 33.4

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

112

Q45. [Q4.18] Overall, I am proud of how the police in my State/Territory have handled themselves during the COVID-19

crisis.

Mean 2.94

Std Dev 1.51

n %

Strongly disagree ...................................................................... 1 331 20.8

Somewhat disagree .................................................................. 2 454 28.5

Neither agree nor disagree ....................................................... 3 196 12.3

Somewhat agree ....................................................................... 4 200 12.5

Strongly agree .......................................................................... 5 414 26.0

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q46. [Q4.19] In the past 4 weeks, did the police approach you, stop you or make contact with you for any reason?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 158 9.9

No ............................................................................................. 2 1437 90.1

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q47. [Q4.20] When you were approached by the police, would you say that they…

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.20a] ...were polite. .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.66 n 24 20 14 28 72 [158] (1437) Std Dev 1.52 % 15.2 12.7 8.9 17.7 45.6 [100.0] 90.1)

b. [Q4.20b] ...treated you with respect ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.61 n 28 19 12 27 72 [158] (1437) Std Dev 1.57 % 17.7 12.0 7.6 17.1 4.5 [100.0] (90.1)

c. [Q4.20c] ...explained why they

approached you ........................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.08 n 15 10 6 43 84 [158] (1437) Std Dev 1.30 % 9.5 6.3 3.8 27.2 53.2 [100.0] (90.1)

d. [Q4.20d] …carefully listened to what

you said ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.58 n 26 22 16 23 71 [158] (1437) Std Dev 1.56 % 16.5 13.9 10.1 14.6 44.9 [100.0] (90.1)

113

Q48. [Q4.21] In the past 4 weeks, have you approached or contacted the police for any reason?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 171 10.7

No ............................................................................................. 2 1424 89.3

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q49. [Q4.22] When you approached or contacted the police, they...

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Somewhat agree

Strongly agree

a. [Q4.22a] ...were polite. .......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.26 n 9 8 16 35 103 [171] (1424) Std Dev 1.14 % 5.3 4.7 9.4 20.5 60.2 [100.0] (89.3)

b. [Q4.22b] ...treated you with respect ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.18 n 11 10 13 40 97 [171] (1424) Std Dev 1.20 % 6.4 5.8 7.6 23.4 56.7 [100.0] (89.3)

c. [Q4.22c] ...carefully listened to what

you said ....................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.04 n 14 14 15 37 91 [171] (1424) Std Dev 1.30 % 8.2 8.2 8.8 21.6 53.2 [100.0] (89.3)

Q50. [Q4.23] In the past 4 weeks, have you have you personally been a victim of crime?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 53 3.3

No ............................................................................................. 2 1542 96.7

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q51. [Q4.24] For victims, did you tell the police about this crime?

n %

Yes ........................................................................................... 1 33 62.3

No ............................................................................................. 2 20 37.7

Total Valid [53] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

114

Q52. [Q4.25] How happy were you with the way the police dealt with this crime?

Mean 3.19

Std Dev 1.36

n %

Very unhappy ........................................................................... 1 10 18.9

Unhappy ................................................................................... 2 2 3.8

Neither happy nor unhappy ...................................................... 3 21 39.6

Happy ....................................................................................... 4 8 15.1

Very happy ............................................................................... 5 12 22.6

Total Valid [53] [100.0]

Missing Data (1542) (96.7)

Q53. [Q5.1] Have you had COVID-19 (Coronavirus)?

n %

Yes, I was diagnosed by a medical test .................................... 1 0 0.0

I think I may have, but it was not diagnosed ........................... 2 102 6.4

No ............................................................................................. 3 1493 93.6

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q54. [Q5.2] Has a family member or acquaintance of yours had COVID-19?

n %

Yes, they were diagnosed by a medical test ............................. 1 84 28.3

I think they may have, but it was not diagnosed ...................... 2 96 10.9

No ............................................................................................. 3 1415 88.7

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q55. [Q5.3] What is your current isolation situation?

n %

I am living my life as normal ................................................... 1 451 28.3

I am self-isolating alone ........................................................... 2 174 10.9

I am self-isolating with family or flatmates ............................. 3 970 60.8

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

115

Q56. [Q5.4] Are you following the recommendations from authorities to prevent the spread of COVID-19?

Mean 4.20

Std Dev 1.01

n %

Not at all ................................................................................... 1 40 2.5

A little bit ................................................................................. 2 76 4.8

To some extent ......................................................................... 3 216 13.5

Very much so ........................................................................... 4 450 28.2

As much as possible ................................................................. 5 813 51.0

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q57. [Q5.5] How would you rate your knowledge of COVID-19?

Mean 4.28

Std Dev 0.67

n %

Bad ........................................................................................... 1 1 0.1

Poor .......................................................................................... 2 6 0.4

Fair ........................................................................................... 3 176 11.0

Good ......................................................................................... 4 773 48.5

Excellent ................................................................................... 5 639 40.1

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q58. [Q5.6] How concerned are you about getting COVID-19?

Mean 3.06

Std Dev 1.27

n %

Not concerned at all ................................................................. 1 228 14.3

Not really concerned ................................................................ 2 383 24.0

Neither concerned nor unconcerned ......................................... 3 235 14.7

Concerned ................................................................................ 4 567 35.5

Very concerned ........................................................................ 5 182 11.4

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

116

Q59. [Q5.7] How much of a threat do you think COVID-19 poses to the following:

No threat

Very little threat

Some threat

High threat

Very high threat

a. [Q5.7a] Your personal physical health. . 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.09 n 138 353 553 324 227 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.15 % 8.7 22.1 34.7 20.3 14.2 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q5.7b] Your personal mental health ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.80 n 274 394 486 256 185 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.23 % 17.2 24.7 30.5 16.1 11.6 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q5.7c] Your job .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.43 n 696 227 226 185 261 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.53 % 43.6 14.2 14.2 11.6 16.4 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q5.7d] A loved one’s job. .................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.27 n 256 201 398 336 404 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.39 % 16.1 12.6 25.0 21.1 25.3 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q5.7e] A loved one’s physical health ... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.29 n 150 262 488 369 326 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.23 % 9.4 16.4 30.6 23.1 20.4 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q5.7f] A loved one’s mental health ...... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.03 n 273 275 463 303 281 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.32 % 17.1 17.2 29.0 19.0 17.6 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q5.7g] Australia’s economy. ................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.27 n 15 32 227 555 766 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.85 % 0.9 2.0 14.2 34.8 48.0 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q5.7h] The world’s economy ............... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.40 n 17 28 165 476 909 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.83 % 1.1 1.8 10.3 29.8 57.0 [100.0] (0.0)

Q60. [Q5.8] How serious a threat do you think the COVID-19 virus poses for the health of all Australians?

Mean 3.49

Std Dev 1.18

n %

No threat ................................................................................... 1 71 4.5

A little bit of a threat to all ....................................................... 2 304 19.1

Somewhat of a threat to all ...................................................... 3 393 24.6

Quite a bit of a threat to all ...................................................... 4 427 26.8

A significant threat to all .......................................................... 5 400 25.1

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

117

Q61. [Q5.9] In the past 7 days, on how many days have you...

Never

On one or two days

On three or four

days

On four or five days Everyday

a. [Q5.9a] Been self-isolating (not leaving

the house). ................................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.06 n 309 301 242 465 278 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.40 % 19.4 18.9 15.2 29.2 17.4 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q5.9b] Been outside for 15 minutes or

more ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.96 n 50 261 206 271 807 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.25 % 3.1 16.4 12.9 17.0 50.6 [100.0] (0.0)

c. [Q5.9c] Had face-to face contact with a

person in your household for 15 minutes or

more ............................................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 4.19 n 253 50 37 58 1197 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.51 % 15.9 3.1 2.3 3.6 75.0 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q5.9d] Had face-to face contact with a

person who does not live with you for 15

minutes or more. ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.15 n 578 589 158 146 124 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.23 % 36.2 36.9 9.9 9.2 7.8 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q5.9e] Had a phone or video call with

another person for 15 minutes or more ....... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.01 n 199 520 288 241 347 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.36 % 12.5 32.6 18.1 15.1 21.8 [100.0] (0.0)

Q62. [Q5.10] Are you currently fulfilling any of the government’s identified ‘key worker’ roles (listed below)?

n %

Health care worker (doctor, nurse, paramedic) ........................ 1 75 4.7

Support worker in the health care sector .................................. 2 89 5.6

Emergency service worker (police, firefighter) ....................... 3 20 1.3

School teacher .......................................................................... 4 63 3.9

Supermarket and essential food worker ................................... 5 40 2.5

No ............................................................................................. 6 1096 68.7

Additional Categories Below Were Added Due to Participants Self-Specifying in the ‘Other’ Category:

Retail ........................................................................................ 7 8 0.5

Defence personnel .................................................................... 8 3 0.2

Childcare .................................................................................. 9 7 0.4

Transport ................................................................................ 10 11 0.7

Government personnel ........................................................... 11 21 1.3

118

Banking .................................................................................. 12 3 0.2

School support ........................................................................ 13 13 0.8

Cleaning ................................................................................. 14 3 0.2

Construction/infrastructure .................................................... 15 15 0.9

Criminal justice personnel ..................................................... 16 12 0.8

Legal ....................................................................................... 17 4 0.3

Agriculture ............................................................................. 18 8 0.5

Support for emergency services ............................................. 19 3 0.2

Mining .................................................................................... 20 4 0.3

Animal care ............................................................................ 21 3 0.2

Vocational training ................................................................. 22 8 0.5

Media ..................................................................................... 23 2 0.1

Other [see Codebook Appendix E] ...................................... 24 84 5.3

Total Valid [1595] [100.0]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Please answer some further questions regarding how the COVID-19 outbreak might have affected your life.

Q63. [Q5.11] Have you experienced any of the following since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia? (Please

select all that applies)

n %

Lost your job/been unable to do paid work .............................. 1 305 19.1

Other member of your household lost their job/unable to do

paid work .................................................................................. 2 236 14.8

Unable to pay bills ................................................................... 3 87 5.5

Evicted/lost accommodation .................................................... 4 13 0.8

Unable to access sufficient food .............................................. 5 90 5.6

Unable to access required medication ...................................... 6 99 6.2

Somebody close to you is in hospital with COVID-19 ............ 7 10 0.6

You lost somebody close to you to COVID-19 ....................... 8 5 0.3

None of the above .................................................................. 9 970 60.8

Total Valid [1815]

Missing Data (0) (0.0)

Q64. [Q5.12] Since the start of the COVID-19 outbreak in Australia, how often have you felt the following emotions?

Never Rarely Sometimes Often Always

a. [Q5.12a] Worry ...................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.20 n 108 269 544 551 123 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.03 % 6.8 16.9 34.1 34.5 7.7 [100.0] (0.0)

b. [Q5.12b] Fear ......................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.50 n 391 395 483 254 61 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.14 % 24.5 24.8 30.3 16.6 3.8 [100.0] (0.0)

119

c. [Q5.12c] Powerlessness ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.90 n 276 316 462 380 161 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.23 % 17.3 19.8 29.0 23.8 10.1 [100.0] (0.0)

d. [Q5.12d] Anger. ..................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.64 n 352 388 446 308 101 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.20 % 22.1 24.3 28.0 19.3 6.3 [100.0] (0.0)

e. [Q5.12e] Annoyance ............................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.16 n 116 290 553 491 145 [1595] (0) Std Dev 1.06 % 7.3 18.2 34.7 30.8 9.1 [100.0] (0.0)

f. [Q5.12f] Happiness ................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.26 n 52 237 612 626 68 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.88 % 3.3 14.9 38.4 39.2 4.3 [100.0] (0.0)

g. [Q5.12g] Satisfaction ............................. 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.01 n 102 344 625 483 41 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.94 % 6.4 21.6 39.2 30.3 2.6 [100.0] (0.0)

h. [Q5.12h] Hopefulness. ........................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 3.14 n 86 313 608 469 119 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.99 % 5.4 19.6 38.1 29.4 7.5 [100.0] (0.0)

i. [Q5.12i] Relief ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Total

Valid

Missing

Data

Mean 2.63 n 191 483 670 229 22 [1595] (0) Std Dev 0.92 % 12.0 30.3 42.0 14.4 1.4 [100.0] (0.0)

That is the conclusion of the survey. We would like to thank you for taking the time to participate in our research. We know the survey was very long, but your responses are

important to help us inform policy. To submit your answers read the following information and click on the SUBMIT button below. After you hit the submit button you will be directed

to a link where you can enter the prize draw. We intend to repeat this survey on several occasions over the next 12 months to see how people’s attitudes change during the course of the COVID-19 crisis. You can participate

again in these surveys if you see them advertised on Facebook, but there is no obligation to do so. If you think you may be interested in participating in our follow-up surveys we ask

you to answer the following two questions that may allow us to link your survey responses in the current survey to your follow-up survey responses. This information will not enable us to

identify who you are, but it may allow us to link responses between surveys.

Q65. What is your date of birth? Include day, month and year: [data not presented] Q66. What is your mother's first name? [data not presented]

SECTION 6: CONCLUSION OF THE SURVEY

120

Codebook Appendix

Appendix A: Age Variable

Q1.1_What is your age? [Q1.1]

Age n % 17 3 0.2 18 10 0.6 19 7 0.4 20 17 1.1 21 14 0.9 22 18 1.1 23 16 1.0 24 22 1.4 25 14 0.9 26 15 0.9 27 20 1.3 28 13 0.8 29 21 1.3 30 15 0.9 31 22 1.4 32 18 1.1 33 21 1.3 34 23 1.4 35 20 1.3 36 15 0.9 37 18 1.1 38 28 1.8 39 22 1.4 40 37 2.3 41 29 1.8 42 31 1.9 43 25 1.6 44 34 2.1 45 40 2.5 46 30 1.9 47 37 2.3 48 39 2.4

121

49 41 2.6 50 29 1.8 51 22 1.4 52 31 1.9 53 43 2.7 54 43 2.7 55 34 2.1 56 39 2.4 57 41 2.6 58 53 3.3 59 66 4.1 60 42 2.6 61 42 2.6 62 38 2.4 63 44 2.8 64 36 2.3 65 42 2.6 66 32 2.0 67 30 1.9 68 35 2.2 69 20 1.3 70 17 1.1 71 21 1.3 72 9 0.6

73 18 1.1 74 6 0.4 75 5 0.3 76 8 0.5 77 3 0.2 78 3 0.2 79 2 0.1 80 1 0.1 81 1 0.1 84 2 0.1 85 1 0.1 89 1 0.1 Total 1595 100.0 Missing 0 0.0 Grand Total 1595 100.0

122

Appendix B: Ethnic/Racial Group String Variable

Q1.6_Please select the option which best describes your ethnic/racial group…. other [Q1.6_other]

Group n % 5th Generation Australian of multi cultural origions I am a Jewish throw back 1 0.1

African European Ashkenazi 1 0.1 Anglo - Aboriginal heritage 1 0.1 Anglo-Burmese 1 0.1 Anglo-Lankan 1 0.1 Armenian 1 0.1 australian 5 0.4 Australian 2 0.1 Australian born Maltese/ Egyptian 1 0.1 Australian Great Great Grandparents came here from several European / Cornish etc 1 0.1

Bi-racial (Japanese/Australian) 1 0.1 British Descent 1 0.1 Caucasian and Asian 1 0.1 Chinese/Australian 1 0.1 don't be racist 1 0.1 European 2 0.1 European and Aboriginal 1 0.1 European descent Australian 1 0.1 gay Caucasian 1 0.1 Half Asian half south Asian 1 0.1 Half caucasian half Asian 1 0.1 Hispanic 1 0.1 Hispanic/Latino 1 0.1 Human 1 0.1 Hungarian/Hispanic 1 0.1 I am Caucasian of Aboriginal decent 1 0.1 Japanese/Australian 1 0.1 Jewish 1 0.1 Latino 1 0.1 Mixed 2 0.1 Mixed Asian/Caucasian 1 0.1 Mixed Chinese and Causasian 1 0.1 Mixed race 1 0.1

123

Mixed white African and Asian races 1 0.1 Mostly European ancestors 1 0.1 Portuguese 1 0.1 Slavic 1 0.1 Somalia 1 0.1 Southern European (Portuguese) 1 0.1 Total 50 2.8 Missing 1545 97.2 Grand Total 1595 100.0

124

Appendix C: Employment String Variable Q1.8_ What is your current employment status?.....other [Q1.8_other] Employment Status n %t Agriculture/Farming 1 0.1 Also studying and other work 1 0.1 Business Owner 3 0.1 Business owner of a business that can't trade 1 0.1 Carer 5 0.1 Carer 1 0.1 Casually employed but stood down 1 0.1 Company director 1 0.1 Contract 1 0.1 Contract work 1 0.1 Disability 2 0.1 Disability 1 0.2 Disability pension 1 0.1 Disability pension 3 0.1 Disability pension 1 0.1 disability pensioner 1 0.1 Disability pensioner 1 0.1 Disability Spt Pension not working studying part time 1 0.1 Disability support pension 3 0.1 Disability Support Pensioner 1 0.1 Disabilty Pension 1 0.1 Disabled 4 0.1 Disabled 2 0.4 disabled fulltime carer and fulltime student 1 0.1 disabled pension 1 0.1 Disabled pensioner 2 0.1 Don’t work due to chronic illness 1 0.1 DSP 4 0.1 DSP CENTRELINK 1 0.3 Employed but stood down 1 0.1 Farmer 1 0.1 Farming 1 0.1 Farming and part time work ( unable to due to Covid) 1 0.1 Fired cov19 1 0.1 Freelance work 1 0.1 Full time carer 1 0.1 Full time contract on reduced hours as a result of COVID-19 1 0.1 Full time volunteer 3 0.1

125

Fulltime Carer 1 0.2 Had just finished degree and was seeking work. Now unable toneek work to to home educating children 1 0.1

Home and volunteer at a food charity. 1 0.1 Home duties and studying 1 0.1 Home tutoring grandkids 1 0.1 Homeschooling Mum 1 0.1 Income protection 1 0.1 Income protection claim 1 0.1 Invalid pensioner 1 0.1 Jobkeeper 1 0.1 Long service leave 2 0.1 lost casual job due to pandemic 1 0.1 Made redundant 6 weeks ago finally secured a new job today and will start Monday 4th May 1 0.1

Maternity leave 2 0.1 medically unfit to work 1 0.1 Not working due to Covid 19 temporarily 1 0.1 On corona leave 1 0.1 On hiatus until my work opens again 1 0.1 On jobkeeper normally full time 1 0.1 On Medical exemption from looking for work seeking doctoral scholarship 1 0.1

Own business working from home & home schooling 1 0.1 Own my own business but have not been able to take in clinets or get required medication or First Aid which is required for work in my Field. 1

0.1

Part time employment study home duties 1 0.1 Pensioner 1 0.1 Recovering from injuries 1 0.1 Recovering from major surgery on work vover 1 0.1 Redundant 1 0.1 Retired 1 0.1 Retired and carer 1 0.3 retired social worker 1 0.7 Retired with own small business 1 0.1 Seeking study 1 0.1 self employed 14 0.1 Self employed 4 0.1 Self employed - searching for business 1 0.1 Self employed artist 1 0.2 self employed but affected by covid19 1 0.1 self employed covid effected 1 0.1

126

Self employed full time 2 0.1 Self employed full time 1 0.1 Self employed part time 2 0.1 Self employed- full time 1 0.1 Self-employed 1 0.1 Self-employed and working full time but not being paid 1 0.1 Self-isolating due to current environment and genetic lung disorder 1 0.1 Sick leave 1 0.1 small business owner shop closed due to restrictions 1 0.1 Sole Trader impacted by COVID19 1 0.1 Sole Trader not working 1 0.1 sole trader with no customers thanks to covid 1 0.1 stood daown 1 0.1 Stood down 1 0.1 Study. unpaid intern and parent 1 0.1 Studying and on corona lockdown from work 1 0.1 Studying from home 1 0.1 Studying part-time and on welfare 1 0.1 Temporarily stood down 1 0.1 Unable to work due to chronic illness 1 0.1 unable to work due to disability 1 0.1 Unemployed due to Mandatory Vaccination 1 0.1 unemployed while home schooling children 1 0.1 Unpaid occasional work 1 0.1 Unpaid sick leave 1 0.1 Usually employed in real estate currently in cancer treatment 1 0.1 Very casually 1 0.1 Volunteer 1 0.1 Volunteer - Pastoral Care 1 0.1 Work on farm with husband 1 0.1 Working author/historian 1 0.1 Working full time and studying part time 1 0.1 Working unpaid 1 0.1 Total 139 100 Missing 1456 91.3 Grand Total 1595 100

127

Appendix D: Postcode String Variable Q11_What is your postcode? ……other [Q1.11]

Postcode n % 800 1 0.1 810 1 0.1 818 1 0.1 822 1 0.1 832 1 0.1 840 1 0.1 846 1 0.1 870 1 0.1 875 1 0.1 1835 1 0.1 2000 2 0.1 2008 1 0.1 2009 1 0.1 2010 1 0.1 2016 1 0.1 2017 1 0.1 2018 1 0.1 2020 2 0.1 2021 1 0.1 2024 1 0.1 2026 1 0.1 2030 1 0.1 2031 3 0.2 2032 1 0.1 2034 3 0.2 2035 1 0.1 2036 1 0.1 2037 3 0.2 2039 1 0.1 2042 4 0.3 2043 1 0.1 2044 1 0.1 2047 1 0.1 2048 2 0.1 2049 1 0.1 2062 1 0.1 2064 1 0.1 2065 2 0.1

128

2070 2 0.1 2071 2 0.1 2075 1 0.1 2076 1 0.1 2077 1 0.1 2081 1 0.1 2086 1 0.1 2093 2 0.1 2094 1 0.1 2099 1 0.1 2100 1 0.1 2101 3 0.2 2106 1 0.1 2107 1 0.1 2112 3 0.2 2113 3 0.2 2115 1 0.1 2117 1 0.1 2118 1 0.1 2121 2 0.1 2122 3 0.2 2126 1 0.1 2131 3 0.2 2135 2 0.1 2137 1 0.1 2142 1 0.1 2145 2 0.1 2147 1 0.1 2148 2 0.1 2152 1 0.1 2153 2 0.1 2154 1 0.1 2155 2 0.1 2156 1 0.1 2162 1 0.1 2166 2 0.1 2170 2 0.1 2171 1 0.1 2179 1 0.1 2193 2 0.1 2199 1 0.1 2200 1 0.1 2203 2 0.1

129

2204 2 0.1 2207 2 0.1 2208 1 0.1 2209 1 0.1 2210 2 0.1 2211 1 0.1 2213 1 0.1 2216 1 0.1 2221 1 0.1 2230 2 0.1 2232 5 0.3 2234 3 0.2 2250 12 0.8 2251 2 0.1 2257 2 0.1 2259 6 0.4 2260 2 0.1 2261 5 0.3 2262 1 0.1 2263 2 0.1 2264 1 0.1 2265 1 0.1 2280 4 0.3 2283 1 0.1 2285 2 0.1 2287 1 0.1 2289 1 0.1 2290 1 0.1 2291 1 0.1 2297 1 0.1 2298 2 0.1 2299 1 0.1 2300 4 0.3 2303 1 0.1 2305 1 0.1 2316 2 0.1 2318 1 0.1 2320 1 0.1 2321 1 0.1 2323 3 0.2 2324 3 0.2 2325 3 0.2 2326 1 0.1

130

2330 1 0.1 2340 3 0.2 2343 1 0.1 2347 2 0.1 2350 1 0.1 2352 1 0.1 2354 1 0.1 2357 1 0.1 2358 1 0.1 2360 2 0.1 2370 1 0.1 2371 1 0.1 2400 3 0.2 2404 1 0.1 2420 1 0.1 2428 4 0.3 2430 3 0.2 2439 1 0.1 2440 2 0.1 2444 4 0.3 2445 1 0.1 2446 1 0.1 2450 5 0.3 2453 1 0.1 2454 1 0.1 2455 3 0.2 2456 2 0.1 2460 3 0.2 2469 1 0.1 2470 2 0.1 2473 1 0.1 2474 1 0.1 2478 1 0.1 2479 1 0.1 2480 10 0.6 2481 2 0.1 2482 1 0.1 2483 1 0.1 2484 4 0.3 2485 2 0.1 2486 5 0.3 2487 1 0.1 2488 1 0.1

131

2500 2 0.1 2515 1 0.1 2516 1 0.1 2517 3 0.2 2518 3 0.2 2525 1 0.1 2526 2 0.1 2528 1 0.1 2530 3 0.2 2533 2 0.1 2535 2 0.1 2536 2 0.1 2539 2 0.1 2540 3 0.2 2550 2 0.1 2557 1 0.1 2558 1 0.1 2560 4 0.3 2570 1 0.1 2572 1 0.1 2573 2 0.1 2577 4 0.3 2580 7 0.4 2582 1 0.1 2583 2 0.1 2587 1 0.1 2600 3 0.2 2602 3 0.2 2604 1 0.1 2605 1 0.1 2606 2 0.1 2607 1 0.1 2611 1 0.1 2612 3 0.2 2614 7 0.4 2615 6 0.4 2617 4 0.3 2618 1 0.1 2620 3 0.2 2621 1 0.1 2628 1 0.1 2630 3 0.2 2640 3 0.2

132

2641 1 0.1 2647 1 0.1 2650 6 0.4 2665 1 0.1 2669 1 0.1 2700 1 0.1 2701 1 0.1 2710 1 0.1 2720 2 0.1 2730 1 0.1 2745 1 0.1 2747 2 0.1 2749 1 0.1 2750 6 0.4 2752 1 0.1 2754 1 0.1 2756 2 0.1 2759 1 0.1 2760 1 0.1 2768 1 0.1 2773 1 0.1 2774 2 0.1 2777 2 0.1 2778 1 0.1 2780 3 0.2 2786 1 0.1 2787 1 0.1 2790 1 0.1 2794 1 0.1 2795 5 0.3 2799 1 0.1 2800 4 0.3 2810 1 0.1 2829 1 0.1 2847 1 0.1 2850 2 0.1 2880 1 0.1 2902 2 0.1 2903 1 0.1 2905 1 0.1 2906 1 0.1 2912 1 0.1 2913 3 0.2

133

2914 1 0.1 3000 4 0.3 3004 1 0.1 3006 1 0.1 3011 4 0.3 3012 1 0.1 3015 1 0.1 3024 2 0.1 3025 2 0.1 3028 3 0.2 3030 4 0.3 3031 1 0.1 3039 1 0.1 3044 1 0.1 3046 1 0.1 3047 1 0.1 3052 1 0.1 3054 2 0.1 3055 1 0.1 3056 4 0.3 3058 2 0.1 3067 1 0.1 3068 1 0.1 3072 1 0.1 3073 2 0.1 3074 1 0.1 3075 1 0.1 3076 2 0.1 3081 1 0.1 3083 5 0.3 3084 1 0.1 3088 3 0.2 3089 1 0.1 3101 2 0.1 3102 1 0.1 3103 2 0.1 3104 1 0.1 3113 1 0.1 3121 2 0.1 3122 4 0.3 3123 1 0.1 3125 1 0.1 3127 1 0.1

134

3130 1 0.1 3131 1 0.1 3132 1 0.1 3133 3 0.2 3136 2 0.1 3140 2 0.1 3141 3 0.2 3142 1 0.1 3145 1 0.1 3146 1 0.1 3147 1 0.1 3149 3 0.2 3150 1 0.1 3151 1 0.1 3152 1 0.1 3156 2 0.1 3161 1 0.1 3162 2 0.1 3163 1 0.1 3165 1 0.1 3166 1 0.1 3182 5 0.3 3183 3 0.2 3184 2 0.1 3185 1 0.1 3186 2 0.1 3187 1 0.1 3188 1 0.1 3192 1 0.1 3194 1 0.1 3195 2 0.1 3196 3 0.2 3199 4 0.3 3200 2 0.1 3201 1 0.1 3204 1 0.1 3206 1 0.1 3207 2 0.1 3212 1 0.1 3214 2 0.1 3215 1 0.1 3216 1 0.1 3217 3 0.2

135

3219 1 0.1 3220 3 0.2 3228 1 0.1 3240 1 0.1 3241 1 0.1 3250 1 0.1 3260 1 0.1 3281 1 0.1 3337 1 0.1 3338 1 0.1 3340 2 0.1 3350 7 0.4 3352 1 0.1 3356 1 0.1 3357 1 0.1 3363 1 0.1 3364 1 0.1 3370 1 0.1 3379 1 0.1 3418 1 0.1 3429 1 0.1 3435 1 0.1 3437 1 0.1 3442 2 0.1 3444 2 0.1 3450 3 0.2 3463 1 0.1 3468 1 0.1 3478 1 0.1 3480 1 0.1 3500 1 0.1 3512 1 0.1 3525 1 0.1 3550 7 0.4 3551 2 0.1 3555 2 0.1 3561 1 0.1 3564 1 0.1 3584 1 0.1 3617 1 0.1 3621 1 0.1 3630 1 0.1 3631 1 0.1

136

3634 1 0.1 3644 2 0.1 3666 1 0.1 3677 1 0.1 3683 1 0.1 3690 4 0.3 3691 2 0.1 3698 2 0.1 3700 1 0.1 3717 1 0.1 3730 1 0.1 3741 1 0.1 3747 1 0.1 3752 1 0.1 3756 1 0.1 3765 1 0.1 3767 1 0.1 3775 1 0.1 3777 1 0.1 3782 1 0.1 3788 1 0.1 3796 1 0.1 3797 2 0.1 3799 1 0.1 3805 2 0.1 3806 2 0.1 3809 1 0.1 3810 1 0.1 3814 1 0.1 3820 3 0.2 3822 1 0.1 3824 1 0.1 3825 2 0.1 3840 1 0.1 3842 2 0.1 3844 1 0.1 3850 1 0.1 3851 1 0.1 3856 1 0.1 3870 1 0.1 3871 1 0.1 3892 1 0.1 3909 1 0.1

137

3910 2 0.1 3912 1 0.1 3915 1 0.1 3922 1 0.1 3926 1 0.1 3930 1 0.1 3931 1 0.1 3936 1 0.1 3939 1 0.1 3966 1 0.1 3975 1 0.1 3977 1 0.1 3978 1 0.1 3995 3 0.2 3996 1 0.1 4000 5 0.3 4005 1 0.1 4007 2 0.1 4012 2 0.1 4014 1 0.1 4017 2 0.1 4018 3 0.2 4019 1 0.1 4020 2 0.1 4021 1 0.1 4030 1 0.1 4031 3 0.2 4032 1 0.1 4034 3 0.2 4036 2 0.1 4051 4 0.3 4053 2 0.1 4054 2 0.1 4055 3 0.2 4060 1 0.1 4061 2 0.1 4064 1 0.1 4065 1 0.1 4067 2 0.1 4068 4 0.3 4069 5 0.3 4070 1 0.1 4073 3 0.2

138

4074 3 0.2 4075 2 0.1 4076 2 0.1 4077 1 0.1 4101 5 0.3 4103 1 0.1 4104 2 0.1 4105 5 0.3 4107 1 0.1 4108 2 0.1 4109 4 0.3 4110 1 0.1 4113 3 0.2 4114 1 0.1 4115 2 0.1 4116 4 0.3 4118 2 0.1 4122 3 0.2 4124 3 0.2 4125 2 0.1 4127 1 0.1 4128 2 0.1 4129 2 0.1 4130 1 0.1 4133 3 0.2 4151 1 0.1 4152 8 0.5 4154 1 0.1 4159 2 0.1 4160 2 0.1 4161 2 0.1 4163 1 0.1 4164 1 0.1 4165 4 0.3 4170 2 0.1 4171 2 0.1 4173 3 0.2 4178 4 0.3 4184 3 0.2 4200 1 0.1 4207 5 0.3 4208 1 0.1 4209 10 0.6

139

4210 6 0.4 4211 9 0.6 4212 3 0.2 4213 4 0.3 4214 6 0.4 4215 8 0.5 4216 9 0.6 4217 3 0.2 4218 5 0.3 4220 1 0.1 4221 7 0.4 4223 3 0.2 4224 2 0.1 4225 1 0.1 4226 8 0.5 4227 2 0.1 4272 4 0.3 4280 1 0.1 4285 2 0.1 4300 10 0.6 4301 1 0.1 4304 7 0.4 4305 16 1.0 4306 3 0.2 4311 2 0.1 4314 1 0.1 4340 1 0.1 4342 1 0.1 4350 11 0.7 4352 2 0.1 4355 2 0.1 4358 1 0.1 4363 1 0.1 4370 1 0.1 4380 2 0.1 4385 2 0.1 4415 1 0.1 4421 2 0.1 4454 1 0.1 4478 1 0.1 4500 5 0.3 4501 2 0.1 4503 4 0.3

140

4504 2 0.1 4505 3 0.2 4506 2 0.1 4507 4 0.3 4508 1 0.1 4510 5 0.3 4511 1 0.1 4514 2 0.1 4520 6 0.4 4521 1 0.1 4550 2 0.1 4551 3 0.2 4553 1 0.1 4555 1 0.1 4556 3 0.2 4557 2 0.1 4558 2 0.1 4560 5 0.3 4561 1 0.1 4562 1 0.1 4563 2 0.1 4564 2 0.1 4565 1 0.1 4567 1 0.1 4570 5 0.3 4575 1 0.1 4580 2 0.1 4600 1 0.1 4610 5 0.3 4615 2 0.1 4650 2 0.1 4655 8 0.5 4659 2 0.1 4660 1 0.1 4670 7 0.4 4674 2 0.1 4677 1 0.1 4680 4 0.3 4700 5 0.3 4701 2 0.1 4702 4 0.3 4703 1 0.1 4717 2 0.1

141

4720 4 0.3 4737 1 0.1 4740 5 0.3 4741 2 0.1 4744 1 0.1 4750 1 0.1 4751 1 0.1 4802 1 0.1 4807 1 0.1 4810 3 0.2 4812 2 0.1 4814 2 0.1 4815 1 0.1 4816 1 0.1 4817 7 0.4 4818 2 0.1 4824 1 0.1 4825 1 0.1 4850 1 0.1 4860 1 0.1 4865 2 0.1 4868 1 0.1 4869 1 0.1 4870 7 0.4 4873 4 0.3 4877 3 0.2 4878 3 0.2 4879 3 0.2 4880 1 0.1 4883 1 0.1 4884 1 0.1 4885 1 0.1 4895 1 0.1 5000 2 0.1 5006 2 0.1 5007 1 0.1 5008 1 0.1 5010 1 0.1 5011 1 0.1 5013 1 0.1 5016 1 0.1 5023 1 0.1 5025 2 0.1

142

5034 1 0.1 5035 1 0.1 5037 1 0.1 5038 5 0.3 5039 1 0.1 5041 2 0.1 5042 3 0.2 5043 1 0.1 5045 2 0.1 5049 1 0.1 5051 1 0.1 5062 1 0.1 5069 1 0.1 5072 1 0.1 5074 2 0.1 5076 1 0.1 5096 1 0.1 5097 1 0.1 5108 3 0.2 5109 1 0.1 5110 1 0.1 5112 1 0.1 5113 3 0.2 5114 1 0.1 5118 1 0.1 5122 1 0.1 5125 2 0.1 5127 2 0.1 5153 1 0.1 5154 1 0.1 5156 1 0.1 5158 1 0.1 5159 2 0.1 5162 2 0.1 5164 1 0.1 5169 1 0.1 5170 1 0.1 5171 1 0.1 5211 1 0.1 5212 1 0.1 5223 2 0.1 5234 1 0.1 5241 1 0.1

143

5243 1 0.1 5250 1 0.1 5251 1 0.1 5252 2 0.1 5253 2 0.1 5255 1 0.1 5268 1 0.1 5276 2 0.1 5277 1 0.1 5278 1 0.1 5280 1 0.1 5291 1 0.1 5333 1 0.1 5341 1 0.1 5343 1 0.1 5351 1 0.1 5360 1 0.1 5373 1 0.1 5417 1 0.1 5453 1 0.1 5501 1 0.1 5540 1 0.1 5606 1 0.1 5608 1 0.1 5609 1 0.1 5700 1 0.1 5733 1 0.1 6000 3 0.2 6006 1 0.1 6007 1 0.1 6008 2 0.1 6009 1 0.1 6010 1 0.1 6012 1 0.1 6014 1 0.1 6018 2 0.1 6019 1 0.1 6020 1 0.1 6021 1 0.1 6024 3 0.2 6025 1 0.1 6026 1 0.1 6027 2 0.1

144

6028 1 0.1 6030 2 0.1 6038 1 0.1 6041 2 0.1 6051 3 0.2 6053 4 0.3 6054 2 0.1 6055 1 0.1 6056 2 0.1 6057 1 0.1 6058 1 0.1 6059 2 0.1 6060 1 0.1 6061 1 0.1 6065 3 0.2 6069 1 0.1 6070 1 0.1 6071 1 0.1 6074 1 0.1 6076 3 0.2 6082 1 0.1 6084 1 0.1 6103 1 0.1 6105 1 0.1 6107 4 0.3 6108 2 0.1 6110 3 0.2 6111 1 0.1 6112 6 0.4 6122 1 0.1 6124 1 0.1 6149 1 0.1 6151 2 0.1 6152 2 0.1 6155 1 0.1 6157 1 0.1 6162 1 0.1 6163 5 0.3 6164 4 0.3 6167 2 0.1 6172 1 0.1 6210 7 0.4 6212 1 0.1

145

6215 1 0.1 6220 1 0.1 6225 1 0.1 6230 5 0.3 6233 2 0.1 6244 1 0.1 6260 1 0.1 6262 1 0.1 6280 1 0.1 6284 1 0.1 6285 1 0.1 6306 1 0.1 6311 1 0.1 6315 1 0.1 6323 1 0.1 6330 7 0.4 6430 2 0.1 6432 1 0.1 6532 1 0.1 6725 1 0.1 7000 8 0.5 7004 1 0.1 7005 3 0.2 7007 1 0.1 7008 2 0.1 7009 1 0.1 7010 3 0.2 7011 2 0.1 7018 4 0.3 7020 1 0.1 7022 1 0.1 7024 1 0.1 7030 1 0.1 7052 1 0.1 7054 1 0.1 7109 4 0.3 7112 3 0.2 7113 2 0.1 7150 1 0.1 7162 2 0.1 7173 1 0.1 7209 1 0.1 7215 2 0.1

146

7248 2 0.1 7249 2 0.1 7250 7 0.4 7253 2 0.1 7290 1 0.1 7301 1 0.1 7303 1 0.1 7307 1 0.1 7310 5 0.3 7315 3 0.2 7320 3 0.2 7321 1 0.1 7325 6 0.4 7390 1 0.1 7467 1 0.1

Total 1592 99.9 Missing 3 0.1

Grand Total 1595 100.0

147

Appendix E: ‘Key Worker’ Role String Variable Q6.2 Are you currently fulfilling any of the government's identified 'key worker' roles?..... other [Q5.10_other] Role n % 'Essential' retail Officeworks 1 0.5 "Working in retail but not as ""normal ""until this week after 3 weeks 1 0.5

a Minister of Religion without a parish I put encouraging messages and 1 0.5

Admin for Aged Care - redeployment within the local council I work for. 1 0.5

Admin for essential services 1 0.5 Admin/Marketing Allied Health from home 1 0.5 Administrator in Estate Planning 1 0.5 Administrive position in the disability field. 1 0.5 Agriculture/ Food 1 0.5 Agriculture/farm worker 1 0.5 Airline Pilot 1 0.5 Animal carer - I am working full time outside of my home. 1 0.5 Bank officer 1 0.5 Banking 1 0.5 Banking & Finance 1 0.5 Big box store retail worker - my employer claims they have 'essential' 1 0.5

broadcasting 1 0.5 Bus driver 1 0.5 Business owner for transport company supplying hospitals and pharmacies 1 0.5

Cater/tutor 1 0.5 centrelink agent 1 0.5 Chemical manufacturing 1 0.5 Child care 1 0.5 Child minding for working parents 1 0.5 Child protection admin 1 0.5 Child Safety / Social Worker 1 0.5 Childcare worker 2 0.9 Civilian Emergency Service worker (admin) 1 0.5 classed as essential 1 0.5 Cleaner 1 0.5

148

Community recovery 1 0.5 Compassion carer 1 0.5 Construction 6 2.8 Construction (considered an essential service) 1 0.5 Council contractor 1 0.5 counsellor 1 0.5 Court services Victoria 1 0.5 Criminal justice system worker 1 0.5 Currently on leave (from pre-COVID 19) 1 0.5 Customs 1 0.5 Defence 1 0.5 Defence organisation 1 0.5 Defense worker 1 0.5 Dept if Education HPS Team 1 0.5 domestic cleaner via the council 1 0.5 Domestic violence worker 1 0.5 drug and alcohol tester 1 0.5 Early Childhood Educator 1 0.5 Education leader 1 0.5 Educator/Childcare worker 1 0.5 Electrical 1 0.5 Emergency relief/charity worker 1 0.5 Energy provider 1 0.5 Essential but not listed 1 0.5 Essential infrastructure work 1 0.5 Essential retail 1 0.5 Essential Services (Construction) 1 0.5 Essential worker within a federal agency 1 0.5 Extractive resources 1 0.5 Facilities Management plant & equipment 1 0.5 Family violence worker 1 0.5 farmer 1 0.5 Farmer 3 1.4 Farming 2 0.9 Federal government 1 0.5 Federal government employee 1 0.5 Firewood sales 2 0.9 Government worker 1 0.5

149

Grandparent caring for school teacher's children 1 0.5 Health and essential food work 1 0.5 Home tutoring grandkids 1 0.5 Homeless outreach worker 1 0.5 Hotel accommodation cleaner 1 0.5 I am a Human Movement and Health Scientist if my skills could be used I 1 0.5

I have a job 1 0.5 I retored from nursing during COVID 1 0.5 I support my family so I am their key worker. I make my own decisions. 1 0.5

I work for a food growing business 1 0.5 I work for Centrelink. 1 0.5 I'm a delivery driver 1 0.5 IT manager at secondary school 1 0.5 Justice of Peace. 5 days last week 1 0.5 Justice worker 1 0.5 Kindergartens 1 0.5 Lawyer 1 0.5 Lecturer 1 0.5 Legal 1 0.5 legal - barrister in criminal court hearings 1 0.5 Local Gov 1 0.5 Local government 1 0.5 Local Govt essential worker AND emergency services SES 1 0.5 Maintenance 1 0.5 Manufacturing 1 0.5 Mechanic 1 0.5 medical researcher 1 0.5 mining 1 0.5 Mining 3 1.4 My place of employ was instructed to continue but is non of the above 1 0.5

NDIS 1 0.5 No - I cannot work 1 0.5 No but my presence has been required for key workers 1 0.5 Non-designated health professional 1 0.5 None of the above but work for the state government and considered an e 1 0.5

Not since Mandatory Vaccination was imposed 1 0.5

150

Not working Business closed 1 0.5 On long service leave 1 0.5 Other 1 0.5 Other key worker 1 0.5 Payroll dept. for health and carers 1 0.5 Pensioner 1 0.5 Person with a job as per PM description of a key worker 1 0.5 Petrol station 1 0.5 postal contractor 1 0.5 Power company 1 0.5 Primary industry lab worker 1 0.5 Property Manager 1 0.5 Psychologist & school counsellor 1 0.5 public servant 1 0.5 Public servant 2 0.9 Public Servant 2 0.9 public servant helping roll out JobKeeper 1 0.5 Public transport 2 0.9 Public transport driver 1 0.5 Public Transport Worker 1 0.5 Recovering from an accident and falling between the cracks in welfare 1 0.5

Rescuing injured animals 1 0.5 Residential supervisor at a school's boarding house. 1 0.5 Retail 1 0.5 Retail trade worker 1 0.5 Retail worker 2 0.9 Retired 1 0.5 RN1 who can't work due to genetic lung condition 1 0.5 Road pilot working in Victoria 1 0.5 Safety Supervisor (including covid safety procedure) in film 1 0.5 School - non teaching staff 1 0.5 School bus driver 1 0.5 school crossing supervisor 1 0.5 School psychologist 1 0.5 School Services Officer 1 0.5 School staff 1 0.5 School Teaching Assistant 1 0.5

151

School Transport 1 0.5 Scientist 1 0.5 Semi-retired priest 1 0.5 Serigrapher 1 0.5 Service station worker 1 0.5 Single parent home schooling and mmm ot working because 2 children retu 1 0.5

social worker 1 0.5 Social worker 1 0.5 Social worker in community (not in health) 1 0.5 Social worker on maternity leave 1 0.5 Still working our signwriting business from home 1 0.5 supply chain 1 0.5 Support worker in a school 1 0.5 Tafe teacher 1 0.5 TAFE teacher 2 0.9 Teachers aide 1 0.5 Teaching nursing students 1 0.5 Telecommunications 2 0.9 The Government has declared all Public Servants as essential so I am st 1 0.5

Trade 2 0.9 Train Driver 1 0.5 Transport 3 1.4 Transport Driver 1 0.5 Unemployed 1 0.5 University lecturer (casual) 1 0.5 University teacher 1 0.5 University worker 1 0.5 Utilities 1 0.5 Vocational trainer 1 0.5 Volunteer Ambulance Officer St John WA 1 0.5 Volunteer chaplain to the homeless 1 0.5 Volunteer firefighter 1 0.5 Volunteer food deliverer 1 0.5 volunteer with community radio 1 0.5 Was volunteer in aged care 1 0.5 Water and sewer worker. Why isn't this in your list????? 1 0.5 Water treatment 1 0.5

152

Wholesale 1 0.5 Wildlife rescuer RSPCA 1 0.5 work for an essential service provider but not on the above categories 1 0.5

Work for construction industry in admin 1 0.5 Work in construction 1 0.5 Work in water quality for NSW Government 1 0.5 Worker in broadcast media 1 0.5 Working 1 0.5 Working in a retail store that is allowed to trade 1 0.5 Yeh earning a living which has been denied to millions of other Austral 1 0.5

yes - public servant 1 0.5 Youth Justice Caseworker 1 0.5 Total 211 13.2 Missing 1384 86.8 Grand Total 1595 100.0