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分歧的问题之一，支持和反对这一想法的美国人人数大致相等。俄勒冈州选民两次批准了《尊严致死法案》，并于1997年11月生效。从那时起，已有170多人利用这项法律结束了自己的生命。2005-2006年最高法院的一个案件，Gonzales v.Oregon，对下级法院维持俄勒冈州法律的裁决提出上诉，并提出了一个问题，即谁应该决定医生协助自杀的问题：根据使用受控物质的国家标准，司法部长，还是50个州中的每个州。因此，无论法院如何裁决，该案都有相当大的潜力激发和分化公众舆论。虽然大量的社会心理学研究表明，人们会接受法院的裁决，因为他们普遍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授权时，他们很少关心正当程序--也就是说，他们对医生协助自杀持强烈的态度和同样强烈的道德信念。最近的研究表明，当人们拥有道德授权时，即使是公平的程序也无法平息人们在道德授权的结果得不到实现时所感受到的愤怒。本研究采用纵向面板设计，以全国代表性样本和俄勒冈州超额样本为样本，进一步探讨在某些情况下，道德命令在多大程度上推动人们的正义推理。这项研究将使我们能够(A)进一步探讨道德任务与其他强烈但非道德态度的不同之处，(B)加深对它们为何不同于其他强烈但非道德态度的理解，(C)揭示形成对机构合法性的具体和分散看法的因素，以及(D)探索最高法院确认或挑战人们的道德信念的裁决的后果，包括他们随后是否愿意遵守相关和无关的法律。

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.