Public Reactions to Gonzales v. Oregon: The Role of Attitude Strength, Moral Mandates, and Procedural Fairness in Assessments of Institutional Legitimacy

点击翻译按钮获取中文摘要

Physician-assisted suicide remains one of the most divisive issues in the U.S. today, with about equal numbers of Americans who support and oppose the idea. Oregon voters approved the Death with Dignity Act twice, and it went into effect in November 1997. Since then, over 170 people have made use of the law to end their lives. A 2005-2006 Supreme Court case, Gonzales v. Oregon, appeals lower court decisions to uphold the Oregon law and poses the question of who should decide the question of physician-assisted suicide: the attorney general, pursuant to a national standard of the use of controlled substances, or each of the 50 states. Therefore, this case has considerable potential to galvanize and divide public opinion irrespective of how the Court decides. Although considerable social psychological research suggests that people will accept the Court decision because they generally perceive the procedures of the Supreme Court to be fair, recent research indicates that people care very little about due process when they have a moral mandate about the outcome of the case -- that is, a strong attitude held with equally strong moral conviction about physician-assisted suicide. Recent research suggests that when people have a moral mandate, even fair procedures do not appease the sense of outrage that people experience when their morally mandated outcome is not achieved. This study conducts a survey using a longitudinal panel design with a national representative sample as well as an over-sample of participants from the State of Oregon to further explore the extent to which moral mandates drive people's justice reasoning in some contexts. This research will allow us to (a) further explore how moral mandates differ from otherwise strong, but non-moral attitudes, (b) gain an increased understanding of why they differ from otherwise strong, but non-moral attitudes, (c) shed new light on the factors that shape both specific and diffuse perceptions of institutional legitimacy, and (d) explore the consequences of Supreme Court decisions that either affirm or challenge people's moral convictions, including their subsequent willingness to obey both related and unrelated laws.