IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/socsci/v103y2022i1p18-30.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Question wording and attitudinal ambivalence: COVID, the economy, and Americans' response to a real‐life trolley problem

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen C. Craig
  • Angela Farizo McCarthy
  • Jason Gainous

Abstract

Objective As the coronavirus pandemic raged throughout 2020, political leaders faced a difficult choice: Should strict social distancing guidelines be maintained until the threat posed by COVID‐19 was diminished enough for citizens to return to their regular activities? Or was the economic disruption caused by the pandemic something that was, according to President Trump, "worse than the problem itself"? Methods We analyze data from a 2020 survey of registered voters. Results Democrats were more likely than Republicans to resolve the tradeoff in favor of maintaining social distancing over rebuilding the economy. More importantly, we find that when faced with this moral dilemma (measured by one's choice between a utilitarian vs. a deontological approach when confronted with a real‐life "trolley problem"), many citizens from both sides of the partisan aisle were of two minds on the subject. Conclusion Americans are ambivalent about the appropriate government response to COVID‐19.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen C. Craig & Angela Farizo McCarthy & Jason Gainous, 2022. "Question wording and attitudinal ambivalence: COVID, the economy, and Americans' response to a real‐life trolley problem," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(1), pages 18-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:1:p:18-30
    DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.13102
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.13102
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ssqu.13102?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:socsci:v:103:y:2022:i:1:p:18-30. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0038-4941 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.