IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/judgdm/v17y2022i1p164-188_8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments

Author

Listed:
  • Landy, Justin F.
  • Shah, Pritika

Abstract

The act of suicide is commonly viewed as wrong in some sense, but it is not clear why this is. Based on past empirical research and philosophical theorizing, we test ten different explanations for why suicide is opposed on normative grounds. Using a within-subjects design, Study 1 showed that seven out of ten manipulations had significant effects on normative judgments of suicide: time left to live, lack of close social relationships, a history of prior immoral behavior, the manner in which the suicide is committed, painful, incurable medical issues, impulsive decision-making, and the actor’s own moral-religious background. However, in all cases, the act of suicide was still considered wrong, overall. Using a between-subjects design, Study 2 tested the combined effect of the seven significant manipulations from Study 1. In combination, the seven manipulations eliminated opposition to suicide, on average. Implications for moral psychology and suicide prevention are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Landy, Justin F. & Shah, Pritika, 2022. "What drives opposition to suicide? Two exploratory studies of normative judgments," Judgment and Decision Making, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(1), pages 164-188, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:164-188_8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1930297500009062/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:1:p:164-188_8. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jdm .

    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.