Abstract
Governmental responses to the frequently occurring terrorist hostage-takings, in which authorities must weigh the lives of the hostages against the lives of potential future victims, depend on popular support for governmental policy. Yet, little is known about how people form their judgement of governmental policies in this moral dilemma. We argue that people typically have imperfect information and their policy support for concessions can be substantially altered by changing the information they possess about different consequences. Across three studies (overall N = 1,547) employing both qualitative and quantitative methods, we found that (a) support for concessions is negatively linked to age and political conservatism, (b) most people either focus only on one aspect or have an imperfect representation of this moral dilemma when thinking about their support for concessions, (c) providing information on the benefits of concessions increases support for concessions, and (d) support for concessions increases when the benefits outweigh the costs and when a salient moral norm prescribes concessions. The potential implications for policymakers are discussed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
