Article

Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (Impact Factor: 5.08). 06/2009; 96(5):1029-46. DOI: 10.1037/a0015141
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war."

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Brian Nosek, Aug 22, 2015
4 Followers
 · 
833 Views
    • "The five moral foundations were measured using the 30 item Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), available at www.moralfoundations.org in different languages and used in several previous studies (Graham et al., 2011, 2009). The scale measures moral relevance and moral judgment, with 15 items each. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Climate change has become one of the main issues in environmental and sustainability discussions during the last decade. Acting to reduce climate change can be viewed as a prosocial behavior, and previous research has found that personal norms are important in explaining these types of behaviors, together with other attitudinal factors. In this study we use Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) to explore the antecedents of personal climate change norms together with three attitudinal factors: problem awareness, social norms and adherence to the New Ecological Paradigm. Analyzing data from a nationwide survey (N = 1086) conducted in Sweden, we find that the moral foundations concerning harm and fairness are positively associated with personal climate change norms, whereas authority has a negative relation. However, the moral foundations from MFT contribute less in explaining personal climate change norms compared with the attitudinal factors included in the study. Theoretical and empirical implications are discussed.
    Sustainable Development 07/2015; DOI:10.1002/sd.1598 · 1.04 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Yet, they are culturally variant in the value, activation and practicing of each morality. That is, while many cultures seem to celebrate these moral foundations, they do not necessarily attend to each one equally, at the same time, for the same reasons and with the same levels of intensity (Haidt, 2012; Graham, Haidt, and Nosek, 2009). Consistent with cultural sociology's strong program, moral foundations theory resonates with Durkheim's emphasis on social integration and regulation as fundamental aspects of human beings living together (Haidt and Graham, 2007). "
    [Show description] [Hide description]
    DESCRIPTION: Recent research has noted changes to the quality and character of mobilizations in which a significant number of participants use personal communication technologies (PCTs). Unlike past mobilizations where social movement organizations (SMOs) use collective action frames in efforts to construct a collective identity and sense of solidarity among participants, these mobilizations are not organized through SMOs, participants take part for personal reasons linked to much broader movement themes, and they are connected to each other through loose, ephemeral social ties. Scholars have pointed to the high use of PCTs among participants as a key factor in explaining these changing characteristics. Yet little is offered to explain why.Drawing on data from blogging in the wake of hurricane Katrina and cultural sociology’s strong program, we suggest that it is the cultural communication afforded through PCTs that help explain the relationship among participants and the changing nature of mobilization. In so doing, we also identify key forces in the development of cultural structures and culture’s causal powers.
    • "To note just one possibility: work in social psychology suggests that conservatives tend to embrace moral systems founded on a wider range of values than the systems that tend to be embraced by liberals; conservative values, for instance, are more likely to include in-group loyalty and respect for authority (e.g. Graham et al., 2009). In an action research context, this might matter. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Reflexivity is a complex phenomenon. In this chapter, we are primarily interested in reflexivity as a process of discovering for oneself and one’s audiences the perspectival features (e.g. background assumptions, social positions, and biases) that shape one’s judgments, decisions, and behaviors. So understood, reflexivity isn’t always a good idea. Sometimes thinking can get in the way of doing. (Downhill ski racing springs to mind.) But for some activities, such as action research, reflexivity is critical for doing the activity well with others. While the value of reflexivity for action research is well understood, we believe that there is a form of reflexivity underappreciated in some research circles – philosophical reflexivity. In this chapter, we outline this form, argue for its importance in sound action research, and offer a technique, the Toolbox approach, for facilitating it.
    The Sage Handbook of Action Research, 3rd edited by Hilary Bradbury, 07/2015: chapter 70: pages 673-680; SAGE Publications., ISBN: 978-1-4462-9454-3
Show more