BACKGROUND:With opioid use and overdose rates continuing to plague minority communities in the U.S., we explored whether a geographic community's racial composition and social class affect how opioid use in the community is stigmatized and what policy preferences arise in response. METHODS:We use case vignettes in a randomized, between-subjects study (N = 1478) with a nation-wide survey. The vignettes describe a community where opioids are harmfully used, varying whether the community was (1) wealthy or poor, (2) predominantly Black or White and (3) facing prevalent use of painkillers or heroin. We tested how these variables affect public stigmatization of opioid use (measured with ratings of responsibility, dangerousness, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment) preferred levels of social distance from communities with opioid use (measured with responses to questions about living, working, and interacting in the community), and policy preferences for responding to opioid use (measured with levels of support for providing a safe-consumption site in the community, treating drug use in the community punitively, treating drug use in the community as an illness, and funding drug treatment in the community through income redistribution). RESULTS:Compared to wealthy communities with opioid use, poor communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, sympathy, concern, anger, and disappointment; they were also met with less support for punitiveness, more support for treating drug use as an illness, and preferences for greater social distance. Compared to White communities with opioid use, Black communities with opioid use were less stigmatized in terms of responsibility, and they were met with stronger preferences to not live and work there and with reduced support for using income redistribution to provide drug treatment for people in the community. Poor-Black communities with opioid use were also perceived to be more dangerous than both poor-White and wealthy-Black communities with opioid use. CONCLUSION:These results point to class- and race-based territorial stigma affecting how communities with opioid use are judged and whether policies for providing communities with treatment are supported.

Using different versions of a vignette, this study examines how preferences for redistributive healthcare change as luck plays a progressively stronger role in contributing to wealth and poverty. Participants saw one version of a vignette that describes why someone is wealthy or poor, with wealth and poverty stemming from effort, various mixtures of effort and luck, one dimension of luck, or two dimensions of luck. Results show that support for redistributive healthcare increases as bad luck becomes marginally more important in causing poverty but is unaffected as good luck becomes marginally more important in causing wealth. These results imply that preferences for redistributive healthcare may be sensitive to information that points to the unlucky barriers (headwinds) that affect the poor but insensitive to information that points to the lucky blessings (tailwinds) that affect the wealthy.

This study examines how moral intuitions toward debt relief vary depending on whether a debt contract involves one country borrowing from another country or an individual borrowing from a bank. Participants respond to a vignette describing a basic debt dispute between a debtor and a lender. A judge in charge of settling the dispute decides to allow debt relief and participants express how fair they find the decision. Treatments vary (1) the debt context (international or person-bank), (2) the responsibility of lenders and debtors (whether their situations stem from bad luck or poor choices) and (3) whether a lender's profit motive is made salient. Results show that, across both international and person-bank debt, debt relief is perceived as being fairer when debtors are unlucky and when lenders are careless; profit salience, however, does not affect the perceived fairness of debt relief in either debt context. Results, when integrated with those from an initial related study, also point to anti-bank sentiment increasing the perceived fairness of debt relief when an individual borrows from a bank and to a consistent across-context ranking of the perceived fairness of debt relief in the scenario.

Abstract Objective As the U.S. economy responds to prolonged COVID‐19 disruptions, it is important to understand what factors affect the perceived fairness of pandemic‐driven price increases. Methods Participants read a vignette and rated how fair they found a pandemic‐driven price increase. Versions vary (1) the source (hardware‐store products or bus fare), (2) the magnitude of the price increase (6 percent or 18 percent), and (3) the tone of an initial description of COVID (positive or negative). Results The price increase was perceived to be fairer when it involved the hardware store or when it was smaller. The relationship between fairness and magnitude was context‐specific, as fairness perceptions were insensitive to the magnitude of the price increase in the bus scenario or when the initial description of COVID had a positive tone. Conclusion Retailers and municipalities may face different fairness constraints as they consider pandemic‐driven price increases. The tone of COVID information may affect price fairness through its impact on sensitivity to magnitude.

Introduction: Stigmatization of an opioid addiction acts as a barrier to those seeking substance use treatment. As opioid use and overdoses continue to rise and affect minority populations, understanding the impact that race and other identities have on stigma is pertinent.Methods: This study aimed to examine the degree to which race and other identity markers (i.e., gender and type of opioid used) interact and drive the stigmatization of an opioid addiction. To assess public perceptions of stigma, this research team conducted a randomized, between-subjects case vignette study (N = 1833) with a nation-wide survey. Participants rated a hypothetical individual who became addicted to opioids on four stigma indices (responsibility, dangerousness, positive affect, and negative affect) based on race (White or Black), gender (male or female), and end point (an individual who transitioned to using heroin or who continued using prescription painkillers).Results: Our results first showed that the White individual had higher stigma ratings compared to the Black individual (range of partial eta 2 = 0.002-0.004). An interaction effect demonstrated that a White female was rated with higher responsibility for opioid use than a Black female (Cohen's d = 0.21) and a Black male was rated with higher responsibility for opioid use than a Black female (Cohen's d = 0.26). Last, we showed that a male and an individual who transitioned to heroin had higher stigma than a female and an individual who continued to use prescription opioids (range of partial eta 2 = 0.004-0.007). Conclusion: This study provides evidence that information about multiple identities can impact stigmatizing attitudes, which can provide deeper knowledge on the development of health inequities for individuals with an opioid addiction.

Background: There is a lack of understanding of what contributes to attitudes toward individuals with an opioid addiction and preferences for policies that support them. Methods: This study aimed to investigate stigmatization of an opioid addiction and support for publicly funded drug treatment. A randomized, between-subjects case vignette study (N = 1998) was conducted with a nationwide online survey. To assess public perceptions of stigma and support for publicly funded drug treatment, participants rated a hypothetical individual who became addicted to prescription opioids across three conditions: 1) male or female, 2) an individual who was prescribed prescription painkillers or took prescription painkillers from a friend and 3) an individual who transitioned to using heroin or who continued using prescription painkillers. Results: Our results showed that there were stronger negative attitudes towards a male (p < .01) and toward an individual who took prescription painkillers from a friend (all p's < .05), and both stronger positive and negative attitudes toward an individual who transitioned to heroin from prescription painkillers (all p's < .05). Next, we demonstrated that the probability that someone supports publicly funded drug treatment increases by 3.6 percentage points for each unit increase along a 12-point scale of positive attitudes (p < .0005), 1.3 percentage points for each unit decrease along a 12-point scale of negative attitudes (p < .005), 7.3 percentage points for each unit increase along a 6-point scale of perceived treatment efficacy (p < .0001), 0.1 percentage points for each unit decrease along a 100-point scale that measures the strength of one's belief that addiction is controllable (p < .005) and 0.2 percentage points for each unit decrease along a 100-point scale that measures the strength of one's belief that income is controllable (p < .005). Lastly, when controlling for the effects of stigma, the probability of supporting publicly funded drug treatment decreases by 6.3 percentage points (p < 0.001) when an individual was prescribed prescription painkillers from a doctor. However, path analysis identified a channel through which a doctor's prescription increased support for publicly funded drug treatment by influencing positive attitudes, negative attitudes, and responsibility. Conclusion: Our findings provide further evidence that information about individuals who become addicted to opioids can influence stigma perceptions and support for publicly funded drug treatment.

Using vignettes that are based on seminal cases in law and economics, I find that judicial decisions across different areas of the common law are considered to be fairer when they follow prescriptions for efficiency based on law-and-economic reasoning. Vignettes describe legal disputes and require respondents to rate the fairness of a judge’s resolution. For each vignette, fairness ratings are compared across a version that follows a particular economic prescription and a version that does not, with differences across versions generated by subtle changes in context that are motivated by the economic logic that either was used in the relevant case’s actual judicial opinion or has been applied to the case by scholars of law and economics. The results suggest that the economic logic that underlies the Coase theorem, the Hand rule and the foreseeability doctrine, and generates prescriptions for efficient use of strict product liability and efficient breach of contract, aligns with lay intuitions of fairness. The results also identify two areas, fugitive property and punitive damages, where law-and-economic prescriptions do not align with perceptions of fairness.

Motivated by the historical components of the ongoing U.S. opioid epidemic, this study examines how public support for redistributive drug treatment changes with awareness that someone’s opioid addiction started with a legally acquired prescription. Using different versions of a vignette, we vary in a randomized design whether someone’s addiction to painkillers started with a legally acquired prescription or with the decision to take pills from a friend. After reading the vignette, participants expressed their level of support for a policy that uses income redistribution to fund a program that provides the person in the vignette with drug treatment. We find that participants are less likely to support redistributive drug treatment when a prescription precipitates the addiction. The results imply that emphasizing the medical establishment’s role in the opioid epidemic may actually make people less likely to favor using redistributive drug treatment to provide support.

Motivated by the historical components of the ongoing U.S. opioid epidemic, this study examines how public support for redistributive drug treatment changes with awareness that someone's opioid addiction started with a legally acquired prescription. Using different versions of a vignette, we vary in a randomized design whether someone's addiction to painkillers started with a legally acquired prescription or with the decision to take pills from a friend. After reading the vignette, participants expressed their level of support for a policy that uses income redistribution to fund a program that provides the person in the vignette with drug treatment. We find that participants are less likely to support redistributive drug treatment when a prescription precipitates the addiction. The results imply that emphasizing the medical establishment's role in the opioid epidemic may actually make people less likely to favor using redistributive drug treatment to provide support.

Using a three-player dictator-game experiment, we find that similar performance during a shared experience with a real-effort task causes a redistributor to privilege the stakeholder who performed similarly. We generate the shared experience by varying whether a third-party decision maker and a stakeholder acquire money through an effortful activity or through random selection of a ticket. Our results have implications for how perceptions of one's own self-determination and social connectedness based on perceived similarities affect redistributive preferences.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between participants' sociodemographic characteristics and the degree to which they stigmatize people with an opioid addiction. Methods: A randomized, between-subjects case vignette study (n = 2605) was conducted with a nationwide online survey. We investigated how the stigmatization toward a hypothetical individual who misused prescription opioids differed across participants' sociodemographic factors (ie, age, gender, education, race, and income). Results: Our results showed that study participants who were male, white, low-income, college graduates, and younger rated the hypothetical individual with an opioid addiction with lower stigma. In addition, we showed that participant gender moderated the relationship between information given about initiation of opioid use (received prescription opioids from a doctor vs took prescription opioids from a friend) and opioid stigma perceptions. Conclusions: Our results support previous findings that stigmatizing attitudes towards drug use vary across participant sociodemographic characteristics. The findings from our study provide a better understanding of how stigmatizing attitudes towards prescription opioid use differ across sociodemographic characteristics and can serve to improve negative perceptions of those with an opioid addiction.

This vignette-based study examines how generalized trust and the need for cognitive closure relate to the perceived acceptability of contemporary business methods of personal data collection. Subjects are exposed to four scenarios that describe a method of personal data collection, involving either brand-name companies or generic descriptors of companies. After each scenario, subjects rate how acceptable they find the practice of data collection, along with the frequency and quality of experiences that they have had with the company (for brand names) or type of company (for generic descriptors). Judgments of perceived acceptability are analyzed, both across the portfolio of judgments and within each separate scenario. While analyses of each separate scenario point to the context-dependency of the perceived acceptability of data collection, several results stand out when analyzing the subjects’ portfolios of responses in the aggregate. Higher generalized trust is linked to a higher average acceptability rating, and the effect is stronger when companies are described with brand names rather than generic descriptors. Uniformly, however, no relationship is found between need for cognitive closure and perceived acceptability. Additionally, positive experiences are found to be a stronger predictor of perceived acceptability of data collection than frequency of use.

Objective. This study examines how preferences for income redistribution respond to information that points to the degree to which bad luck causes poverty and good luck causes wealth. Methods. Survey respondents saw a vignette that described why someone is poor or a vignette that described why someone is wealthy; poverty and wealth were products of effort, various mixtures of effort and luck, one dimension of luck, or two dimensions of luck. Results. Overall trends in the data show that redistribution is viewed more favorably as luck becomes marginally more important in causing both poverty and wealth. Pairwise comparisons of specific treatments show that responses to how degrees of bad luck cause poverty are more uniform and predictable than responses to how degrees of good luck cause wealth. Conclusion. Redistributive preferences may be more malleable with respect to information that points to how bad luck contributes to poverty.

The stigma of drug addiction is associated with negative perceptions and can be a barrier to treatment. With the rise in opioid overdose deaths, understanding stigmatizing attitudes towards individuals who use opioids is a crucial matter. There is a lack of opioid use research on stigma and, therefore, we aimed to discern stigmatizing attitudes towards people with opioid addiction. A randomized, between-subjects case vignette study (n = 2605) was conducted with a nation-wide online survey. Participants rated a hypothetical individual addicted to opioids on different dimensions of stigma after seeing one version of a vignette that varied by three conditions: 1) a male versus a female, 2) an individual labeled as being a “drug addict” versus having an “opioid use disorder” and 3) an individual whose use started by taking prescription opioids from a friend versus receiving a prescription from a doctor. Our results indicated that there were higher stigmatizing attitudes overall towards a male, an individual labeled as a “drug addict” and an individual who took prescription opioids from a friend. Interaction effects also showed that a female labeled with an “opioid use disorder” and male labeled as a “drug addict” were rated with higher stigma. The findings from our study are the first to show that information about gender, precipitating events and language matter when assessing stigma and opioid use and may affect the delivery of patient care.

Motivated by the prevalence of debt crises and the resulting policy debates, this study uses a vignette-based survey to examine the moral intuitions that underlie debt-related policy preferences. After reading a hypothetical scenario involving a debtor and a lender, survey respondents rate the degree of fairness that they attach to a third party's decision to allow debt relief. The experimental design varies (1) the responsibility of lenders and debtors in terms of whether their situations stem from bad luck or poor choices, (2) the salience of a lender's profit motive and (3) whether the debtor and the lender are individuals or corporations. The results show that debt relief is more likely to be found fair in a corporate context compared to a personalized context and that the factors that drive the perceived fairness of debt relief differ across corporate and personalized contexts. With corporate debt, debtor and lender responsibility are strongly, and consistently, linked to the perceived fairness of debt relief. With personalized debt, lender responsibility is never a significant driver of the perceived fairness of debt relief, and debtor responsibility only matters if the lender's profit motive is made salient.

We find that probabilistic deceit detection and cheap-talk threats enhance the fairness and honesty of a bargainer who possesses advantageous information and has the opportunity to be deceitful. In our ultimatum game, only proposers know the size of the pie. Proposers, therefore, have the option to understate the pie size and make their offer appear fairer than it really is. The separate and interactive effects of probabilistic deceit detection and cheap-talk threats have implications for how exchange can be facilitated by mechanisms that detect deceit and/or enable buyer communication in markets where sellers have informational advantages.

Surveys and experiments have uncovered a strong connection between perceptions of self-determination and preferences for redistribution. This paper presents results from a vignette-based survey that examines whether redistributive preferences are further affected by the dimensionality of luck and self-determination. The vignettes specify whether economic advantages are the result of one self-determined dimension (effort or independence), two self-determined dimensions (effort and independence), one lucky dimension (natural ability or dependence) or two lucky dimensions (natural ability and dependence). Results provide evidence that the presence of two dimensions of luck or self-determination can shift redistributive preferences relative to the presence of one dimension, but only when the decision task is cognitively simple and the vignette's context is easily applicable to everyday life. More generally, whenever the decision task is cognitively complex or the context is ethically simplistic, the dimensionality of self-determination and luck is found to have insignificant effects on redistributive preferences. The results also demonstrate that the presence of a single, salient dimension of luck can increase support for redistribution more than the joint presence of multiple dimensions of luck.