Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Previous research in a wide variety of policy domains (e.g., azidothymidine for AIDS patients, low-income housing) has indicated that under no scarcity, liberals tend to help all claimants for assis-tance, whereas conservatives withhold assistance from people who are personally responsible for their predicament (Skitka Tetlock, 1992). Three studies explore 6 explanations for this robust finding: deterrence, self-interest, punitiveness, mindlessness, value orientation, and avoidance of trade-off reasoning. The findings shed light on both the cognitive strategies and motivational priori-ties of liberals and conservatives. It was discovered that liberals are not mindlessly egalitarian, but try to avoid socially awkward value trade-offs that require placing monetary values on lives. By contrast, conservatives are motivated to punish violators of social norms (e.g., deviations from tra-ditional norms of sexuality or responsible behavior) and to deter free riders. The United States is still one of the most prosperous coun-tries in the world. However, millions of people are destitute and rely on the generosity of the community for their survival. What obligations does the community have to these people? What re-sponsibilities do these people have to the community? Answers
Skitka et al. (Wed,) studied this question.