{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025390625, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029296875, 'mean_word_length': 4.790960451977401, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
On gender role violations and judgments made about euthanasia: a research note.

The impact of perceived gender role violations on the willingness of evaluators to label a deadly act to "end suffering" as euthanasia was explored in two studies. It was predicted that "killing" (even mercy killing) would be perceived as more role contradictory for a female actor than for a male actor. Therefore, it was expected that the deadly actions of a female actor would be judged as less justified (i.e., less likely to be labeled as euthanasia) than the same action committed by a male actor. A total of 486 undergraduates participated in one of two studies. It was found that although perceptions of justification for a deadly act were clearly influenced by whether or not the method of action taken was direct and proactive (commission) vs. indirect and passive (omission), the gender of the actor did not impact differently on the judgments of the participants. Possible explanations and future research directions are discussed.