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

医生协助自杀仍然是当今美国最具争议的问题之一，支持和反对这一想法的美国人数量大致相同。 俄勒冈州的选民两次批准了《尊严死亡法》，该法于1997年11月生效。从那时起，已有170多人利用法律结束了自己的生命。 2005-2006年最高法院的一个案件，冈萨雷斯诉俄勒冈州，上诉下级法院的决定，以维护俄勒冈州的法律，并提出了一个问题，谁应该决定医生协助自杀的问题：总检察长，根据国家标准的控制物质的使用，或50个州中的每一个。 因此，无论法院如何裁决，此案都有很大的可能激发和分裂公众舆论。虽然相当多的社会心理学研究表明，人们会接受法院的决定，因为他们通常认为最高法院的程序是公平的，但最近的研究表明，当人们对案件的结果有道德要求时，他们很少关心正当程序-也就是说，对医生协助自杀持强烈的态度，同样强烈的道德信念。 最近的研究表明，当人们有道德使命时，即使是公平的程序也不能平息人们在道德使命没有实现时所经历的愤怒感。本研究采用纵向面板设计，以全国代表性样本和来自俄勒冈州的参与者为样本，进一步探讨道德使命在何种程度上驱动人们在某些情况下的正义推理。 这项研究将使我们能够（a）进一步探索道德命令与其他强烈但非道德的态度之间的差异，（B）加深对道德命令与其他强烈但非道德的态度之间差异的理解，（c）对塑造机构合法性的具体和分散看法的因素提出新的见解，（4）探讨最高法院肯定或质疑人们道德信念的判决的后果，包括他们随后遵守相关和不相关法律的意愿。

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.