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."

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Eye gaze is a window onto cognitive processing in tasks such as spatial memory, linguistic processing, and decision making. We present evidence that information derived from eye gaze can be used to change the course of individuals' decisions, even when they are reasoning about high-level, moral issues. Previous studies have shown that when an experimenter actively controls what an individual sees the experimenter can affect simple decisions with alternatives of almost equal valence. Here we show that if an experimenter passively knows when individuals move their eyes the experimenter can change complex moral decisions. This causal effect is achieved by simply adjusting the timing of the decisions. We monitored participants' eye movements during a two-alternative forced-choice task with moral questions. One option was randomly predetermined as a target. At the moment participants had fixated the target option for a set amount of time we terminated their deliberation and prompted them to choose between the two alternatives. Although participants were unaware of this gaze-contingent manipulation, their choices were systematically biased toward the target option. We conclude that even abstract moral cognition is partly constituted by interactions with the immediate environment and is likely supported by gaze-dependent decision processes. By tracking the interplay between individuals, their sensorimotor systems, and the environment, we can influence the outcome of a decision without directly manipulating the content of the information available to them.
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 03/2015; 112(13). DOI:10.1073/pnas.1415250112 · 9.81 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many of the scandalous organizational practices to have come to light in the last decade—rigging LIBOR, misselling payment protection insurance, rampant Wall Street insider trading, large-scale bribery of foreign officials, the packaging and sale of toxic securities to naïve investors—require ethically problematic judgments and behaviors. However, dominant models of workplace unethical behavior fail to account for what we have learned from moral psychology and cognitive neuroscience in the past two decades about how and why people make the moral decisions they do. In this review, we explain how intuition, affect, physiology and identity support and inform more deliberative reasoning process in the construction and enactment of moral behavior. We then describe how these processes play into how individuals approach a potential moral choice, whether they have the ability in the moment to enact it, and how it is encoded in the action’ his aftermath, feeding back into future approaches. Throughout, we attend to the role of organizational context in influencing these processes. By reviewing this large body of research and presenting a new framework that attempts to integrate these new findings, our hope is to motivate new research about how to support more moral workplace behavior that starts from what we know now.
    The Academy of Management Annals 03/2015; 9:235-289. DOI:10.1080/19416520.2015.1011522 · 7.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent research suggests that the American left and right exhibit important differences, with the Republican Party serving as the agent of an ideological movement, and the Democratic Party operating as a loose coalition of interest groups. Focusing on presidential campaigns, we argue that this thesis – though correct in many ways – misses an important way in which Democrats are more ideological than this argument predicts. Specifically, Democratic presidential candidates are much more likely than Republicans to use the language of class in discussing social and economic relations, to express sympathy for/solidarity with class groups, to discuss matters of distributional fairness, and to link discussions of class to government activities, than are Republicans. We argue that Democratic presidential candidates' class-­‐awareness points to a coherent political worldview in which economic justice is a salient concern and government has an active role to play in addressing class inequalities, while Republicans' lesser attentiveness reflects their tendency not to view society in class terms or recommend vigorous government actions to redress class differences. Prepared for presentation at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. We thank Alex Frail, Jack Rosen, and Eric Nolin for excellent research assistance.
    Midwest Political Science Association; 04/2015

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 30, 2014