Researchers have made little progress in systematically specifying how obligations-- duties or responsibilities that people have to others--are established. This project examines how Americans understand their obligations to others. That is, who is considered morally responsible for whom, under what circumstances, and to what extent? Also, why are some concerns treated as private troubles, whole others are viewed as public issues? The research is based on quantitative survey research and qualitative interviewers. Specifically, a sample of adults will be asked to respond to hypothetical problems that imply a need for help from some source. In these hypothetical dilemmas, basic features of the situation will be systematically varied, including the relationship between the person in need and the helper, the type of problem, the culpability of the person in need, and the detailed history of giving and receiving assistance from others. Finally, a series of qualitative interviews will focus on motives for offering assistance and making particular distinctions between private and public obligations.
The PIs will use a theoretical model that integrates social capital and life-course perspectives to guide the research. This model proposes to explain how and why people assume responsibility for others in some cases, but not in others. It will show how obligations are influenced by the specific nature of the situation calling for assistance, the relationship (kinship or otherwise) between an individual and the person in need, and numerous characteristics of the potential helper. The project has practical significance in light of the growth of dependent populations who require care. It could potentially advance scientific understanding of the factors that influence beliefs about responsibility and deservingness.
