Dataset Information

Pay Your Debts: Moral Dilemmas of International Debt.

ABSTRACT: Should a government repay its international debts even if this imposes severe hardships on its citizens? Drawing on moral psychology, we investigate when people think a government is morally obligated to pay its debts. Participants read about a government that has to decide whether to default on its debt payments or cut vital programs. Across conditions, we varied the number of jobs at stake and whether a full or partial default is required to save them. Overall, most participants judged that a government should pay its debt even when the damage to the debtor is greater than the benefit to the lender. As the damage to the debtor became extreme, participants increasingly said the government should default, but they still judged that defaulting is morally wrong. In Experiment 2, we find in a national sample of Americans that political conservatives were more opposed to default than liberals. We discuss implications for policy, public opinion, and public welfare during economic downturns. The online version of this article (10.1007/s11109-020-09675-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

SUBMITTER: Del Ponte A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7787656 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pay Your Debts: Moral Dilemmas of International Debt.

Del Ponte Alessandro A DeScioli Peter P

Political behavior 20210106 4

Should a government repay its international debts even if this imposes severe hardships on its citizens? Drawing on moral psychology, we investigate when people think a government is morally obligated to pay its debts. Participants read about a government that has to decide whether to default on its debt payments or cut vital programs. Across conditions, we varied the number of jobs at stake and whether a full or partial default is required to save them. Overall, most participants judged that a ...[more]

PMID: 33432251

Similar Datasets

Project description:While extensive research has been conducted on adults' judgments in moral sacrificial dilemmas, there is little research on adolescents. The present study aimed at: (1) adding further empirical evidence about adolescents' moral decisions (deontological vs. utilitarian) in sacrificial moral dilemmas and (2) investigating how these moral decisions relate with gender, school grade, emotional traits (callous-unemotional traits), context-related experiences (perceived parental rejection and community violence exposure), and moral-related factors (moral disengagement and universalism value). A sample of 755 Italian adolescents (54.7% females; Mean age=16.45, SD=1.61) attending the second and the fifth year of secondary school took part in the study. Two sacrificial trolley-type dilemmas (where harmful actions promote the greater good) were presented. In the "switch" scenario (impersonal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to hit a switch to save five people killing only one person. In the "footbridge" scenario (personal sacrificial dilemma), the choice is whether to push a large man off a footbridge saving five persons. For each scenario, participants had to indicate whether the proposed action was "morally acceptable" or not. Data were analyzed performing generalized linear mixed models. Our results showed that: (1) Adolescents were more likely to indicate as admissible to hit the switch rather than to push the large man; (2) male adolescents, compared to females, were more likely to say it was morally acceptable to intervene in the footbridge dilemma, whereas younger adolescents said it was morally acceptable both in the switch and the footbridge situations; and (3) higher levels of callous-unemotional traits, perceived parental rejection, and moral disengagement, on the one hand, and lower levels of universalism, on the other hand, were associated to higher admissibility to intervene in the footbridge scenario. Higher community violence exposure was associated with a lower propensity to intervene in the switch scenario. Overall, the present study expands the research on sacrificial dilemmas involving a sample of adolescents. The findings support previous studies concerning the role of emotions in making moral decisions but, at the same, open new perspectives regarding the role of contextual experiences and moral-related factors.

Project description:Conway and Gawronski proposed a scale that independently measures utilitarian and deontological inclinations underlying moral judgments, based on an individual's endorsement of acceptable or unacceptable responses to 10 congruent and 10 incongruent moral dilemmas. This study aimed to develop and standardize the Korean version of this scale and examine the psychometric characteristics of various indexes extracted from it. The English version was translated and back-translated by two independent bilinguals. Inconsistencies between the backward translated version and the original version were resolved by consultation with an independent psychologist. Using an online survey, Korean adults aged 18 years or older were asked to read 20 dilemmas in the Korean version and indicate whether the action undertaken in each dilemma was acceptable, the probability that they would undertake the action themselves, and their level of tension and happiness. A total of 469 adults participated. Participants additionally answered questions that assessed utilitarianism and their level of antisocial personality disorder. Analysis showed that it was appropriate to use 20 dilemmas (10 incongruent and 10 congruent) in Korean adults but psychometric characteristics were different from those of the original English version. The correlation of probability that utilitarianism would drive responses (KU) and the probability that deontology would drive the responses (KD) was -.23 (p < .001). KU showed a significant correlation with utilitarianism (.18, p < .001) and a near-zero correlation with antisocial personality disorder. KD showed a correlation of -.27 (p < .001) with utilitarianism and a correlation of -.13 (p < .01) with antisocial personality disorder. A previous study that proposed that utilitarian and deontological inclinations are independent in moral judgment found a near-zero correlation between U and D, which was different from the result of the present study. Additionally, the limitations and implications of this study are discussed.

Dataset Information

Pay Your Debts: Moral Dilemmas of International Debt.

Publications

Pay Your Debts: Moral Dilemmas of International Debt.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets