The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic sparked renewed interest in Universal Basic Income (UBI) as a public policy solution. UBI, a system providing a guaranteed minimum income to all citizens regardless of other income sources, has long been debated based on potential social and economic benefits and ethical principles. The pandemic seemed to make these arguments more compelling, with increased discussions in academia and media, and policy shifts in some countries (e.g., Spain's intention to implement a minimum income guarantee). However, it remained unclear whether this reflected broader public opinion shifts. This study aimed to determine if the pandemic increased UBI support among the general public in the UK and US and to explore the reasons behind any such changes. While previous polling data showed moderate to high UBI support in many developed countries, this support often waned when higher taxation or cuts to existing welfare programs were mentioned. Contradictory findings could be due to the weighting of perceived positive and negative consequences of UBI; these weights, the authors hypothesized, could be situationally dependent, with a policy suitable for normal times becoming less or more suitable during a crisis like a pandemic. The studies compared self-reported attitudes towards UBI during normal times (as if the pandemic hadn't occurred) to attitudes during and after the pandemic.

Existing literature reveals mixed public opinion on UBI. While surveys often demonstrate substantial support, particularly for arguments emphasizing security and reduced bureaucracy, this support diminishes when associated with higher taxes or welfare benefit reductions. Some studies suggest public opinion on UBI reflects a balance of perceived advantages and disadvantages, with the overall support influenced by the weights assigned to these factors. The authors posit that these weights are malleable, depending on the prevailing socio-economic climate. The studies aim to investigate how the perceived advantages and disadvantages of UBI shift in the context of a pandemic.

The research comprised three studies conducted in 2020 using online surveys on Prolific, a crowdsourcing platform. Study 1 (n=802, April 2020, UK and US) measured UBI support for normal and pandemic times using a 0-100 scale. Participants also rated the importance of nine propositions representing potential advantages or disadvantages of UBI in both contexts. Study 2 (n=400, May 2020, UK and US) compared preferences between UBI and a conditional targeted welfare system, again for normal and pandemic times, and assessed the importance of 16 desirable properties of social transfer systems. Participants also answered questions on pandemic-induced stress and anxiety. Study 3 (n=397, September 2020, UK only) replicated the central measures from studies 1 and 2 to examine the persistence of any pandemic-related effects. Statistical analyses included paired t-tests and regression models to analyze the data. All studies were pre-registered on OSF to ensure transparency and rigor.

Study 1 revealed significantly higher UBI support during the pandemic (mean 80.2, sd 24.89) compared to normal times (mean 62.4, sd 29.81), a large effect size (Cohen's d = 0.78). This shift was explained by increased importance assigned to efficiency, simplicity of administration, and stress reduction during the pandemic. Study 2 showed a smaller but still significant shift in preference towards UBI over a conditional scheme during the pandemic (Cohen's d = 0.34). UBI was preferred for its simplicity, suitability for unpredictable situations, and personal benefit. The increased importance of stress reduction and ease of administration during the pandemic are central factors explaining the shift in preference. Study 3, conducted six months later, replicated the findings but with attenuated effect sizes (Study 3a: d=0.50; Study 3b: d=0.25), indicating persistence but a decline in the strength of the effect. Sociodemographic factors such as political orientation (left-leaning individuals showed greater support) and subjective socioeconomic status (lower status associated with higher support) were consistent across studies, although their explanatory power was relatively modest. In study 2, the perceived increase in stress and anxiety among those not previously receiving welfare payments was a significant predictor of the shift towards UBI preference.

The findings demonstrate that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased public support for UBI, both in terms of overall favorability and preference over conditional schemes. This increase stems from a situational shift in the importance assigned to specific features of social transfer systems; factors like administrative simplicity and stress reduction gain prominence during crises. The persistence of this shift, even six months into the pandemic, underscores its significance. The results align with the authors' hypothesis suggesting that intuitive political preferences are context-dependent, shaped by the perceived demands and challenges of the current situation. The pandemic acted as a natural experiment, highlighting how large-scale societal events can drastically alter public opinion on policy. The research contributes to a more nuanced understanding of public attitudes towards UBI, showing that support isn't solely driven by individual characteristics but is highly responsive to socio-economic contexts.

This study provides strong evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a marked increase in support for UBI in the UK and US. This increase is largely attributable to a situational shift in perceived priorities, emphasizing factors like administrative ease and stress reduction. The findings highlight the dynamic nature of public opinion and its susceptibility to major socio-economic shifts. Future research could explore similar effects on other social policies and examine the long-term impacts of the pandemic on UBI support.

The studies employed non-representative samples recruited from online platforms. Generalizability to the broader population might be limited. The self-reported nature of the data introduces potential biases. The lack of pre-pandemic baseline data prevents a true longitudinal analysis; the comparison with a hypothetical 'normal' time relies on participants' retrospective assessments. Finally, the study's focus on the UK and US might not reflect attitudes in other countries with different welfare systems and cultural contexts.