Content uploaded by Łukasz Tanaś
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Łukasz Tanaś on Oct 06, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
SWPS University of Social Sciences and Humanities
Psychology Department
Anna Mushkevych (30802)
Differences in Perceiving Moral emotions and Foundations in
Liberal and Conservative Points of View
Master thesis written under
the supervision of Łukasz Tanaś, Ph.D.
Warsaw 2016
2
Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………4
Differences in Perceiving Moral Emotions and Foundations in Liberal and Conservative Points of
View……………………………………………………………......………………………...5
The Importance of Morality…………………………………………………………..5
The Origins of Moral Foundation Theory…………………………………………….5
American Politics Division…………………………………………………………...7
Political Diversity and Moral Foundations…………………………………………...7
Individualizing, Binding and Social Dominance…………………………………….10
Moral Dilemmas……………………………………………………………………...11
Shame, Guilt and Morality…………………………………………………………...11
Age and Conservatism………………………………………………………………..14
Reasons to Do Study in the United States…….……………………………………...15
This study…………………………………………………………………………….15
Method……………………………………………………………………………………….17
Participants…………………………………………………………………………....17
Measures………………………………………………………………………………17
Procedure……………………………………………………………………………...19
Results…………………………………………………………………………………………21
Descriptive Statistics…………………………………………………………………..21
General Results………………………………………………………………………...21
Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………...27
Limitations……………………………………………………………………………..32
Future research…………………………………………………………………………33
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………….33
3
Contents
References……………………………………………………………………………………..35
Appendix 1(The Questionnaire)……………………………………………………………….38
4
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to explore the differences between liberal and conservative points of
view within moral foundations, moral emotions and moral dilemmas. Participants were asked to fill
out online questionnaires that would define which moral foundations they use in their judgments.
The foundations determined on which side of political spectrum the person is – more liberal or
conservative. Afterwards, participants were faced with moral dilemmas that opposed two important
virtues to their morality. Social Dominance orientation and Shame and Guilt proneness were
measured as well. The differences between liberals and conservatives were revealed in moral
dilemmas, moral foundations and Social Dominance orientation, but not in the Shame and Guilt
proneness. Gender and age differences were not found. The study confirms the previous researches
and takes a closer look at the difference between the morality of liberals and conservatives.
Key words: liberalism, conservatism, moral foundations, moral emotions, moral dilemmas
5
Differences in Perceiving Moral Emotions and Foundations in Liberal and Conservative
Points of View
The Importance of Morality
Morality is the fundamental to any kind of society. It dictates the rules for individuals
and contributes to their well-being. Instincts and reasoning are playing important roles in
recognizing moral behaviors(Dubas et al., 2014). Kohlberg(1969) in his six stage model,
defines morality as justice only. Joseph & Haidt(2004) and Graham & Haidt(2007), on the
other hand, find morality as a lot broader concept, that includes authority, purity and loyalty.
In his opinion there are three principles of morality:
1) Intuition comes first, strategic reasoning second,
2) There’s more to morality than care and fairness,
3) Morality binds and blinds.
Large part of morality is binding people together. The two-foundation morality consisting
only of care for vulnerable and fairness would not fit everyone (Schloss & Murray, 2009) That
is why Haidt and colleagues developed Moral Foundation Theory, that included respect for
authority, purity/sanctity, liberty/oppression and ingroup loyalty.
The Origins of Moral Foundation Theory
Moral psychologists and philosophers were comfortable with only two dimensions of
morality: care for vulnerable and justice, of how people treat and relate to each other on
individual level. However there are a lot more to morality than just individualizing
foundations. For some modern cultures values such as religion, traditions and loyalty are as
important as willingness to protect and respect other human(Graham et al., 2012). Even
before Haidt, some psychologists were arguing, that there is something else to morality.
Shweder (1990), for example,based on his research in India, claimed that there are three
dimensions of morality: ethic of autonomy(individual’s rights), ethic of community(loyalty to
your group) and ethic of divinity(protecting purity). But only after years of research on how
6
morality works across the cultures and how to broaden the concepts of it known earlier, Haidt
was able to find a solution. Haidt and Joseph, that studied cultural variation in virtue concepts,
came up with five best candidates for moral dimensions. They were: Care, Fairness,Loyalty,
Authority and Sanctity(Haidt & Joseph, 2004).
The Care and Harm avoidance Foundation.Triggers for this foundation are visual and/or
auditory suffering and distress of children, animals, etc. However it can be triggered by
fictional stories, memories, where the harm is not real. In modern society it is rather praised to
be compassionate and care about those in pain.
The Fairness Foundation. Trigger for this foundation is cheating. Equality is very
important,whether every person was treated fairly.
The Ingroup/Loyalty Foundation. Trigger for this foundation is betrayal. It is about belonging
to a certain group and being loyal.
The Authority/ Respect Foundation. Trigger for this foundation is disobedience. In modern
society this is important when people work for the big institutions, they have to learn how to
respect their bosses, leaders and the institution itself. In the army, for example, you have to
obey the orders of your commander, even if you disagree.
The Purity/ Sanctity Foundation. Trigger for this foundation is disgust. Important virtue is
chastity(i.e. keeping your body clean, not eating rotten food). In modern society, this
foundation refers mostly to the sexual context(Graham et. al, 2012)
In general, Moral Foundation theory gives us a clearer view on how people are and
why they do what they do. It was pointed out by Haidt(2007&2012) that those, who use Care
and Fairness as the main reasons for their decisions - are liberal,whereas conservatives use all
five foundations to justify their choice.
Moral Foundation Questionnaire has a wide international sample. The main
differences between East(e.g. Asia) and West (e.g.UK, US) were in loyalty and sanctity
7
foundations. Eastern cultures scored slightly higher, than Western.It can be explained by
collectivism and individualism of the cultures and their social norms (Graham et. al,, 2012).
American Politics Division
American culture is divided by politics. There are two major parties, Republican and
Democrat. However, the definition and values of both groups change over time. Today’s
biggest difference between Democrat and Republican parties in the United States is what the
government should control. Most of the Democrats believe that social issues, like sexual
orientation and abortion should not be controlled by government, while fiscal issues,such as
control over national economics and taxes should be greater.On the other side of the spectrum
Republicans want the government to have a much more limited reach for economic issues, but
they support its influence in social issues (Felkins, 1999). (Note: liberal/conservative and
Democrat/Republican is interchangeable in this paper)
Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy defines conservatism as a modern political point
of view that stands by authority, rather than personal freedom. It is completely opposite for
liberalism - where liberty is a core value.The main difference is in their belief system:
conservatives prefer familiar and fear sudden change, whereas liberals believe in change and
reject the traditional. The study of Conover & Feldman (1981) takes the liberty of defining the
meaning of modern liberalism and conservatism( after the issues of desegregation, abortion
and marijuana use were raised). Because the belief system and standpoint of both parties is
opposite it influences their judgment in elections as well. They see one person with certain
values within two different perspectives. In this study three categories were tested: self-
identification(from extremely liberal to extremely conservative), positive evaluation of the
ideology( how positive is liberalism/conservatism on a scale from 0 to 100), cognitive and
symbolic sources of meaning(specific positions towards social(abortion,sex roles,etc),
economic(taxation,jobs,health insurance) and racial issues(busing, school desegregation,etc)).
8
The symbolic meaning was divided into the six variables: status quo, radical left,capitalism,
reformist left, disadvantage and social control.
First important finding - there were two major groups created based on self-
identification and positive evaluation: liberals and conservatives. Positive evaluation of
liberalism does not guarantee a negative evaluation of conservatism, rather neutral. The
evaluation of both parties are independent from one another. Conover & Feldman(1981)
suggest that issue positions are only slightly related to determination of self-placement on the
political spectrum. Only symbolic variables have a bigger significant impact on self-
identification. Generally, it means, that measuring liberalism and conservatism should be
conducted on more symbolic level rather than issue-oriented(Conover & Feldman, 1981).
Political Diversity and Moral Foundations
According to Haidt & Joseph(2004) one of the main sources of moral diversity
originates in political diversity .Because liberals approve of two main moral dimensions of
Care and Fairness, on diverse issues like gay marriage, they focus on promoting individual
rights. While conservatives use all five moral dimensions, including purity,they might be more
opposed to gay marriage (Haidt & Joseph, 2004).
There is more to morality than caring for those, who suffer and promoting justice.
Moral foundations allow us to characterize people and their ideologies in five dimensions, not
only dividing them by left and right.The five dimension model explains the difference in
moral judgments that people on different sides of the political spectrum make. The more
liberal side uses “individualizing” moral foundations (includes only Care and Fairness),and
the more conservative side uses “binding” moral emotions (includes all five dimensions: Care,
Fairness, Respect for Authority, Purity and Loyalty). Individualizing foundations focus on
individual moral value, welfare and rights. Binding foundations focus on group moral value,
loyalty, duty and self-control (Graham, Haidt, Nosek, 2009).
9
Graham, Haidt and Nosek(2009) covered the topic of liberalism and conservatism in
different situations. They conducted four studies examining the morality of both parties.
Study one concerned moral relevance. Participants were asked to rate statements according to
how relevant they think they are whenever they make a decision, that included five moral
foundations. ( questions were much like questions in MFQ-30). The results of this study
provide initial support to hypothesis of Moral Foundations and politics. The more liberal you
are, the more likely you state that”individualizing” foundations (such as Harm and Fairness)
are relevant to you. The more conservative you are - the more “binding” foundations
(Loyalty/Authority/Purity) are relevant to you. However, the results weren’t absolute. They
indicated that those individualizing foundations were relevant for both groups and liberals on
average didn’t state that “binding” foundations are irrelevant at all.
In study two moral judgments were added,that weren’t just abstract, but rather
decision-making. The study generated four directions for each of foundations: Harm,Ingroup,
Authority and Purity. The questions were far more concrete than in a first study. The results
were similar to those in the first study.
In study three the values were more personal with so-called trade-offs, adopted from
Tetlock, (2003); Tetlock, Kristel, Elson, Green, & Lerner,( 2000) ( as cited in Graham, et. al,
2009). The trade-offs considered important value such as human life and money.The study
generated five taboo trade-offs for each of the foundations(e.g. How much money would
someone have to pay you to kick the dog in the head?- Harm).The results supported the moral
foundation theory. Liberals refuse to make trade-offs where harm and fairness are included,
but they are more willing to sacrifice those “binding” foundations for money.(e.g.Get a blood
transfusion from a child molester-Purity).Conservatives, as expected, were less willing to give
up their morals for all five foundations equally.
Study four turns to liberal and conservative churches to explore the speeches and
specific word usage for the moral values. I will not discuss this one in detail, because
religious concept doesn’t appear in my study. The results showed more or less similar date to
10
the previous three studies. Liberal churches use more Harm and Fairness in their speeches,
than do conservative churches (Graham, et. al 2009).
Individualizing, Binding and Social Dominance
Individualizing moralities portray society as made by equal individuals. With binding
moralities, society is seen as composed of different groups and institutions (Graham et al.
2008). Therefore I would like to test whether people with binding moralities would see their
group as a superior one. Social dominance orientation(SDO), proposed by Pratt and Sidanius,
is a great tool to check that.
Social dominance orientation (Pratto et. al.,1994) is “a personality variable that
predicts social and political attitudes”. It is an orientation that measures tolerance in
intergroup relations and decides whether those should be equal or hierarchical. Theory
postulates that people, who are scoring high on SDO - would be accepting of inequality and
hierarchy, whereas people, who score low on SDO - on contrary would be in favor of
equality(Pratto et. al, 1994).
Social dominance orientation was created to review old and find new social attitudes.
The original study had two validities: predictive and discriminant. Predictive validity included
questions about ethnic prejudice, gender roles, sexism, political-economic conservatism,social
policy attitudes, etc. Discriminant validity included issues such as interpersonal dominance,
authoritarianism, conservatism,etc. The results showed that men are higher on SDO than
women.SDO is positively correlated with political-economic conservatism(Pratto et. al 1994).
Interestingly, conservatism and gender are unrelated in Moral Foundation studies.(Haidt &
Joseph,2004; Graham et. al 2007;2012). Generally the results show us how different people
on low and high SDO perceive each other and the different roles they are playing in society.
Social dominance orientation is a trait that explains “one’s preference for inequality
among social groups”. It is an ideology that promotes one group’s superiority against those
outside of the group. SDO is a good predictor of political-economic conservatism and
11
capitalism, it is positively correlated with republican party identification (Pratto et al. 1994).
However, newer research suggests that Social Dominance orientation cannot be treated as a
stable variable. It can change due to situation and circumstances, especially if your group
values are threatened(Morrison & Ybarra, 2009).
Moral dilemmas
Although the five foundations seem to have clear definitions more often than not
values and principles become controversial. For example, principles that are hold in high
regard in the US such as liberty and unity, often come to conflict with each other. That creates
moral dilemmas and differentiates us from each other, depending on what we choose as more
relevant in a specific situation(Dubas et al., 2014).
In my research I focus on moral dilemmas that help me to detect which principles are
more important to both Individualizing and Binding groups. Inspired by Moral Foundation
theory, I created eight moral dilemmas that were opposing important values. For example,
Fairness vs Purity - liberal side of the spectrum would not be hesitant to lean towards
Fairness, but conservative side is more likely to pick Purity as a more important value. Moral
dilemmas are about what we consider more significant and relevant in different situations and
what we are willing to give up in order to maintain our values and principles.
Shame,Guilt and Morality
Shame and guilt are important emotions that are moral and acceptable by the society
you live in. However, research suggest that there is a need to distinguish those two. Shame
involves the feeling and thinking bad of yourself and believing that others negatively evaluate
you. Guilt involves responsibility and need of particular action to restore the harm done. It
involves a need to confess rather than avoid negative judgment,which would be a sign of
shame(Barrett,2005).
Article by Terroni and Bruun (2011) questions whether shame and guilt are equally
moral emotions; pointing out that perhaps guilt has more “morality” to it. The article relates to
12
guilt as an emotion that takes responsibility in action and makes good after wrongdoing,
whereas shame is only avoiding and self-criticizing. Shame is more associated with the lack
of certain moral virtues( not kind enough, not just enough, etc) and guilt is represented by the
awareness of those limits. This research claims that self-awareness is very important in
morality, therefore guilt is a better moral emotion, whereas shame appears only when our
reputation is at risk(Terroni & Bruun, 2011). The explanation for this hypothesis might be
because shame is more ambiguous and less clear than guilt. Those two moral emotions often
co-occur, which makes them difficult to distinguish. Both shame and guilt were created as to
better understand human relationships nature and should be further explored(Nelissen, et. al,
2013).
Another study was conducted on 17 months old children (Barrett,2005), however
shame and embarrassment were combined into one variable.The results revealed that even in
this young age toddlers show guilt and embarrassment under appropriate circumstances.
Moreover, the study determined that toddlers experience guilt not for a reason by being
punished, but rather obedience and understanding of social standards. However, the
researcher hypothesize that the guilt together with restorative behaviors and confessions of
toddlers might be explained by parent’s reactions to the wrongdoings. According to Barrett, at
this young age, children are still learning on how to react in certain social situations and the
guilt and restorative behaviors are lot more visible within older age groups.
The study by Stearns and Parrott(2012) was conducted to define whether the people’s
perception of a character influences their evaluation. The participants were given six
situations Three conditions were used: shame, guilt and no shame or guilt. The results were
interesting, but expected by the researchers. When the story included a feeling of guilt or
shame - participants were rating them as a better person, however in the same stories, where
the character indicated no shame or guilt- they were rated much more negatively.The stories
were identical, the only difference was the characters perception of his wrongdoing. Generally
13
it means that we are willing to like somebody more only because of their verbal expression of
shame and guilt (Stearns & Parrot, 2012).
For the reason of ongoiтng debate whether shame and guilt are different emotions and
whether they should be differentiated Wolf and colleagues(2010) developed this study for
better understanding of both. The first study they conducted was including all known
questionnaire about shame and guilt(such as Dimensions of Conscience questionnaire, Test of
Self-conscious affect, Measure of Susceptibility of guilt and shame,etc). The results showed
positive outcome: the two moral emotions had their own scale each - Shame proneness and
Guilt proneness, which suggests that they don’t measure the same thing and can be
empirically separated(Wolf et al 2010). The second study conducted by the same group of
researchers was testing how exactly shame and guilt should be measured. They found that
shame is better measured, when public transgression is included. It also correlated with self-
esteem that led to negative self-evaluation, after being exposed to public wrongdoing. Guilt,
on the other hand, is better measured in private settings. It means that guilt is rather driven by
negative evaluation of a transgression that happened in private than in public scenario(Wolf
et. al,2010)
Following this study in 2010, the same group of researchers created a measuring tool
fro Shame and guilt - GASP- Guilt and Shame Proneness scale (Cohen et. al 2011).It’s a 16-
item scale that includes four equal subscales: Guilt Negative Behavior Evaluation(NBE),
Guilt Repair, Shame Negative Self-Evaluation(NSE), Shame Withdraw. The results of
conducting a study showed that guilt is a more adaptive emotion than shame. Interesting
finding considering morality - those ,who had more NBE are less like to cheat or lie, they are
more empathetic and altruistic. Those high on NSE were sharing qualities with those high on
NBE. Those two NBE and NSE considered by the researches the most “moral”. The least
“moral” is Shame Withdrawal(Cohen et. al, 2011).
To further explore differences between liberals and conservatives, I decided to add a
Shame and Guilt Proneness scale made by me. It is a short questionnaire inspired by
14
GASP(Guilt and shame proneness scale) by Cohen and colleagues(2011).There are three
groups of questions : tendency to notice negative evaluation by others(guilt- NBE), tendency
to engage in behavioral reparation (guilt-repair) and tendency to engage in self-criticism/self-
blame(shame). These moral emotions are morality-based and self-conscious, that’s why I
think it’s relevant to add them to my study. Shame is related to imagining how others
negatively perceive one’s self. Whereas guilt is about violation of some standards by your
own view, not the others (Hedman et al, 2013).
Age and conservatism
According to common belief age and conservatism are related to each other. The older you
are the more conservative you are. It is not necessarily true. I have found many controversial
information about it in the different studies. The oldest study (Pollak,1943), found that age and
conservatism are not related. The definition of conservatism was mostly related to the love of
country and traditions. According to this study, the group is conservative if they are willing to reject
new and protect old: “maintain status quo and reject change”. Even though the author hypothesized
that old age(45 or more) is related to conservatism it ended up not: only eight out of twenty-seven
studies had shown the correlation of conservatism and age. One of their investigation showed that
even though there are significant majorities of conservatives in the older groups, - there are also
significant majority of conservatives in younger groups(Pollak, 1943).However, we are so set on the
belief, that older people are traditional and conservative, that we don’t realize that there are as
almost many young conservatives as there are older.
Another two studies looked for the causality of conservatism. However, they both used very
old questionnaire, that I myself don’t find very appealing. It is 28-item C-scale( conservative-scale),
created by Wilson and Patterson in 1970. The questionnaire relates to social attitudes toward
different domains ( e.g. gay rights, immigration,pacifism, liberal, etc). It allows you to answer
“yes”, no” and “can’t decide”. It might have been a great tool for the 1970s, but a lot has changed
15
and now we know that being conservative is not only social attitudes and orientations, it has a lot
more to their morality.
Eaves and colleagues(1996) conducted twin studies to test whether conservatism relates to
age. They tested twin pairs both monozygotic and dizygotic of ages 9 to 75+. The results showed
that twins in adolescence( before 20 years old, before the leave parent’s house) get their knowledge
from relatives and those around. After leaving the parent’s home and entering an adult life, their
beliefs can change.
Study about attachment styles hypothesize about relation between political ideologies and
early life experiences. Saying that we develop our political ideology at as early as 6 months old and
and we continue develop it across our lifespan.(Koleva & Rip, 2009) Although, the studies are
contradicting each other, it is a good start to get to know where do our political views come from.
Reasons to do study in the United States
The purpose of such participant selection is due to clear division between political
parties. Democrats are considered more liberal and Republican- more conservative. With such
clear definitions it is easy to apply my study in real-life setting. However it is not all clear
when it comes to immigrants, who do have citizenships, but are still not very well adjusted to
the country. For that purpose I created four questions about person’s background and their
relation to the US. Questions considered people’s knowledge about the US and US values.
This study
The purpose of the study is to compare the differences between liberal
(individualizing) and conservative (binding) points of view on moral foundations, moral
emotions and dilemmas. The study consists of five questionnaires. It was conducted in the
United States for the purpose of having two major political parties and clear division between
liberals (Democrats) and conservatives (Republican).
Binding (conservative trait) was defined if score is above the mean (1.88).
Conservative scale includes Ingroup Loyalty,Respect for Authority and Purity scale.
16
Individualistic(liberal) trait was defined if score is above the mean (3.25). Liberal scale
includes Fairness and Harm/Care scale. On a conservative scale - score is below the
Mean(1.88). Participants, who scored below the mean on both liberal and conservative scales
were excluded from the study.
In this study five hypotheses were tested:
Hypothesis 1: People on conservative scale would be more willing to commit harm
violations, if that violation would be in tune with Authority/Loyalty/Purity elements. (eg.
killing in defence of a country).
Hypothesis 2: People on individualistic scale will feel shame only in Harm/Fairness
violations and people on conservative scale will feel shame in both Harm/Fairness and
Authority violations.
Hypothesis 3: Conservative scale (Ingroup Loyalty, respect for Authority, Purity) are
expected to have strong correlation between the Social dominance orientation inventory(SDO-
6), lack of correlation between SDO-6 and two Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ 30)
subscales (Harm and Fairness).
Hypothesis 4: Social Dominance orientation should be positively correlated with decisions in
moral dilemmas in which Harm or Fairness is put against Loyalty, Authority or Purity,but not
with decisions in moral dilemmas in which Harm is put against Fairness.
Hypothesis 5 : Age should be positively correlated with the conservative trait.
Method
17
Participants
The full sample was obtained to test my hypotheses. It was based on an online
questionnaire. Whole sample contained 166 participants. Mostly female(N=114, 68,7%), although
men participated as well (N=21, 31,3%). The selection was random. The youngest participants
were 18 years old, the oldest one was 81(Mean age=38,84; Mode=21, Median=37). All 166
participants were residents of the United States of America.
First 20 people of my study were recruited through common friends and connections in
Oceanside, California, USA. I posted my e-mail on the message board, so whoever wanted to fill
out my questionnaire could either contact me or leave their e-mail below. All the questionnaires
were done online. Other – 145 – were recruited online on closed Facebook group for Yellowstone
National Park employees. The reason why I have chosen this particular group, besides being an ex-
employee myself, is because all kinds of people are working there (different states, countries,
backgrounds, ages, etc). I posted a link to my questionnaire, asking people to fill it out. All the
results were obtained in the period from June 2015 to October 2015.
Measures
This study contained of 5 parts: 1) Personal information (age and gender, as well as cultural
identification towards USA)
2) Social Dominance Orientation(SDO-6 inventory)
3) Moral Foundations Questionnaire(MFQ30)
4) Shame and Guilt Proneness
5) Moral Dilemmas
First part of the questionnaire was created by me in order to distinguish demographic
background of a person. Questions about age and gender were asked as well as culturally
identifying questions about belonging to the US culture and traditions. Some of the participants
18
were recent immigrants, even though they had a resident status. For this part 1 to 5 Likert scale was
used(from ! being “not at all” to 5 being“very much”).
Social Dominance scale– created by Arnold K. Ho, Jim Sidanius and others - 16-item scale
was used in order to find out whether a person had social dominance orientation as a trait or not.
Study (Sidanius et. al, 1994) shows that Social dominance orientation is highly correlated with
conservative point of view. For this questionnaire 1 to 7 Likert scale was used (1 being “strongly
disagree”, 7 being “strongly agree”).
Moral Foundation questionnaire – made by Jonathan Haidt, consists of 30 questions and was
chosen in order to understand person’s attitudes towards important moral foundations, such as
respect for Authority, Harm avoidance/Care,Ingroup ability/ Loyalty, Purity/Sanctity and Fairness.
This questionnaire helped with distinguishing more or less whether the person has conservative
beliefs or liberal. Conservative scale consists of so-called “binding” foundations(Authority, Purity,
Loyalty), liberal scale consists of so-called “individualizing” foundations( Harm avoidance/Care,
Fairness). MFQ consists of two parts. First one asking to rate the relevance of the statement on the
scale from 0 to 5 ( 0 being “not at all relevant”, 5 being “extremely relevant”). The second part of
the questionnaire is asking you rate your agreement or disagreement with the statements.For this
part of a questionnaire 0 to 5 Likert scale was used(0 being “strongly disagree”, 5 being “strongly
agree”).
Shame and guilt proneness – was created by me and used to indicate the likelihood of
feeling shame and guilt in different life situations. I think it is especially important to distinguish
those two feelings, because people often get confused and describe one feeling instead of another or
combine them into one. I believe there is a difference. Shame can be defined as a feeling of people’s
negative perceptions of oneself; fear of being rejected and unaccepted. Guilt, on the other hand, is
not related to perceptions, but rather actions that in one’s opinion violates other’s rights. Shame is
more related to self, then to restorative behaviors and remorse(Hedman et al, 2013).
There are 3 statements that were tested:
19
a. Tendency to notice negative evaluation by others
b. Tendency to engage in behavioral reparation (felt guilt)
c. Tendency to engage in self-criticism/self-blame (shame)
For this part of my questionnaire 1 to 5 Likert scale was used ( from 1 being “unlikely” to 5
being “very likely”)
Moral dilemmas – were created by me and used in order to create dilemmas for both liberals
and conservatives, giving them a choice between two very important moral foundations. I
connected moral dilemmas to Moral Foundation Questionnaire by Jonathan Haidt. Authority vs
Harm/Care dilemmas were to indicate whether conservatives will be more prone to obey Authority
or Harm a human being. Purity was opposed to Authority/Loyalty and Harm foundations - which
would create dilemma for conservative people( those with “binding” foundations) and not for
liberals(those with “individualizing”). Harm vs Fairness dilemmas – were to indicate whether
liberals will be more prone to be Fair or Harm a human being. Harm was not necessary physical.
For this part 1 to 5 Likert scale was used(from 1 being “definitely yes”(Harm/Fairness spectrum) to
5 “definitely not” (Loyalty/Authority/Purity spectrum).
Procedure
Every participant of the study was following the link to my questionnaire, where further
instructions were attached. First section was an informed consent, where the rights of the participant
were explained, including date and the signature of a participant. Because it was an Internet study
exclusively, clicking button “continue” indicated agreement to the informed consent and voluntary
participation in a study. All the items were necessary to answer, so in order to proceed, participant
had to answer all the questions. Each questionnaire had its separate page and instructions. Second
section was with personal information(such as age and gender) and some demographics(belonging
to the US community). Third section was called “Beliefs about social groups”, which was Social
dominance orientation scale. (Pic.1)
20
Pic. 1
Next section was Moral Foundation Questionnaire, which contains of two parts. First part
was to indicate wrong or right actions according to the participant. Second part was to indicate
participant’s agreement or disagreement with the statements. Both parts were on different pages.
Next part of my online survey was a neutral picture to encourage people continue
questionnaire, which said: “Don’t stop now, you are almost there”. After proceeding participants
faced my shame and guilt proneness questionnaire. Next page showed a simple sentence saying:
“This is the last one” to encourage people to finish the study. The last section of my survey
contained Moral Dilemmas. After clicking continue button participants were thanked for
completing the questionnaire. Anyone could contact me or my supervisor if they had any questions.
If anyone wanted to get feedback my e-mail was provided at the end of the study as well as in the
informed consent form.
21
Results
Descriptive statistics
In this study five questionnaires were used. Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for
each of the questionnaires for all 166 participants.
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum
Maximu
m
Mean
Std.
Deviation
Average for
SDO
166
1.00
5.88
2.2121
.98339
Average for
Shame and
guilt
166
1.89
4.89
3.4444
.58168
Does
somebody
care at all
(Harm+Fairn
ess)
166
.58
4.92
3.6416
.69725
Conservative-
Liberal
(supporting
conservative
Ingroup,
Authority,
Purity)
166
.72
4.67
2.5823
.85811
Average for
Dilemmas
166
1.75
4.38
3.2011
.50166
Average for
ID
166
2.75
5.00
4.4578
.54678
Valid N
(listwise)
166
General results
Moral foundation questionnaire was used in order to measure hidden variables -
individualistic trait and conservative trait. Five moral emotions were included - two
22
individualizing(Harm and Fairness) and three binding (Authority, Ingroup, Purity). For measuring
the conservative trait -Authority, Ingroup and Purity scales were used(Mean=1.88). For
individualistic trait - Harm and Fairness(Mean=3.25). 25% lowest percentile were participants, who
scored below the mean on both scales and were cut off with the use of filter(10 participants). The
means of all five foundations are displayed in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Means for five moral foundations: Harm, Fairness, Authority, Ingroup, Purity.
Hypothesis I considered six out of eight moral dilemmas that would contradict moral values
of the people with the conservative trait. If the violation of harm would be in tune with Authority,
Purity and Ingroup ability, people with the conservative trait would do such violations.
The dilemma was considering respect for authority versus Care/Harm: “After organizing a
political demonstration the person is facing departure to his country. However his whole life is in
the US, he has nothing left in his home country. What will you do?”. The answers ranged from
“definitely depart” to “definitely not depart”. When faced with Authority vs Harm dilemma, people
with conservative trait were tend to choose respect for authority over care(depart after political
demonstration, r=-.313,p<0.001). Another dilemma that supported this outcome considered being
able to harm somebody in defence of your country/family: “If there is a need to harm someone
23
emotionally/ physically for your own country/family good. What will you do?”. The answers
ranged from “definitely do harm” to “definitely not to harm”. When faced with this Authority vs
Care/Harm dilemma, people with conservative trait were tend to choose respect for authority over
care(do harm for the country/family, r=-.22,p<0.001).
Next dilemma considered Purity/Sanctity versus Ingroup ability: “Your friend is telling you
that he is gay. Will you feel uncomfortable/unnatural with him now? Will you try to avoid/end your
friendship/reduce contact?”. Answers ranged from “definitely yes” to “definitely no”.When faced
with this dilemma people with conservative trait tend to choose Purity over Ingroup ability(r=-.301,
p<0.001). They feel more unnatural and will avoid a gay friend. However, dilemma that considered
Purity vs Authority had no correlation with the conservative trait: “Respectful professor from your
university defends gay marriage. Will that influence your opinion about him?”. Answers ranged
from “definitely yes to “definitely “no”. When faced with Purity vs Authority dilemma there is no
correlation (r=-.076,ns), It means that if a person that you respect, defends gay marriage( and they
are not necessarily gay), and possess conservative trait,you would not change your opinion either
way.
Another dilemma considered Ingroup ability versus Care/Harm: “Your colleague at work
makes fun of people. Will you offend him back in order to protect your fellow
workers/group?”Answers ranged from “definitely yes” to “definitely not”. This Ingroup vs Harm
dilemma has no correlation to conservative trait(r=.043, ns).
Last dilemma considered respect for authority versus ingroup ability: “Your dad has an
allergy on dogs. But your older sister picks up sick puppy from the street. She secretly tells you
about it. Will you tell your parents about that secret?”. Answers ranged from “definitely yes” to
“definitely not”. When faced with authority vs ingroup dilemma, people with conservative trait tend
to choose authority (r=-.146, p=0.035). They would rather betray their sister, so they didn’t have to
lie to their parents.
In addition,there are two more moral dilemmas that considered Harm/Care vs Fairness. The
first one considered their own child : “You have an adopted child – it’s fair to tell him that, but it’s
24
going to be harmful. What will you do?”. Answers ranged from “definitely tell” to “definitely not to
tell”. People with conservative trait would rather not tell their child and do no harm(r=.189,
p=0.009). On the other hand, second dilemma considered someone else’s child: “Someone from
your job got bigger paycheck, than all your colleges, because she has a sick child. If pay amounts
were up to you, what would you do?”. Answers ranged from “pay equally no matter what” to
“definitely pay more those in need”. The results revealed negative correlation, which would mean
that people with conservative trait were more likely to treat everyone the same, however the
correlation was insignificant.(r=-.112,ns).
Hypothesis two expected liberal and conservative trait to react differently to perceptions of
shame and guilt. There is weak positive correlation between individualistic trait and general shame
and guilt proneness(r=.238,p=0.002).However, the results were expected for specific questions.
First question considered Harm and Fairness: “When your classmate was teasing you, you wished
that she would suffer, next day you found out that both of her parents died in a plane crash”.
Liberals did not care for the first two items, considering rejection( negative evaluation by others)
and supporting (behavioral reparation) -(r=.016,ns; r=.155, p=0.45, respectively). Item number
three, considered how you perceive yourself (self-criticising), where liberals scored significantly
(r=.249,p=0.001). The next two questions of the questionnaire showed no significance or
correlations to either individualistic or conservative traits.The entire questionnaire considering
shame and guilt was insignificant and unrelated to the conservative trait(r=.1, ns). Cronbach's α was
used to test reliability of the questionnaire; it showed the result of .6, just enough to make it
acceptable. Hypothesis was not confirmed.
Third hypothesis considered correlation between Social Dominance orientation and political
views. As expected, Social Dominance Orientation was positively correlated with the conservative
scale(r=.253, p<0.001)(see Figure 2). However, the correlation between individualistic scale and
SDO was not expected, results showed strong and negative correlation with the individualistic scale
(r=-.457, p<0.001) (see Figure 3).
25
Figure 2.Correlation between Conservative scale and SDO
Figure 3. Correlation between Liberal scale and SDO
Fourth hypothesis considered positive correlation in the Moral Dilemmas and Social
Dominance Orientation: when Harm and Fairness( individualistic) oppose Authority, Purity and
Ingroup(binding).
26
First correlation showed that people, who are high on SDO would choose Authority over
Care.(r=-.333, p<0.001; r=-.397,p<0.001). The second correlation considering Purity vs Ingroup
showed similar pattern(r=-.281,p<0.001). However, when SDO was correlated with Authority vs
Ingroup and Ingroup vs Harm dilemmas it showed nonsignificant results(r=.148, ns; r=-.07, ns.
respectively), as well as Purity vs Authority(r=-.141,ns). As expected, Social dominance orientation
was not correlated with the dilemmas, where Fairness was opposed to Care (r=-.034, ns and r=-
.019, ns respectively).Hypothesis four was partially confirmed.
The fifth hypothesis was considering the correlation between the age and conservative trait.
Pearson correlations were used to check this hypothesis. Resulted showed no correlation between
age and conservatism(r=.167, p=0.031). It doesn’t mean that if you are older, than you are more
conservative.Hypothesis five was not confirmed.
Non-parametric Mann-Whitney test was used to show that there are no correlation between
conservatism and gender.(p=0.953)
To further explain the relationship between Social Dominance, liberal and conservative
traits and Cultural identification, Pearson correlations were used. Liberal trait is strongly opposed to
the Social Dominance orientation (r=-0.457, p<0.001) and not related to the Cultural Identification
(r=-0.098, ns). Conservative trait is rather strongly related to the Cultural Identification(r=0.388,
p<0.001) and positively, but rather weakly to the Social Dominance (r=.253, p=0.001). Cultural
Identification and Social Dominance trait are unrelated to each other (r=0.014, ns) (see Table 2).
27
Table 2
The Correlations between Liberal and Conservative Traits and Social Dominance
Orientation and Cultural Identification
Average
for SDO
Liberalism
(Harm+Fairness)
Conservatism
(supporting
Ingroup,
Authority,
Purity)
Cultural ID
Average for
SDO
1
-.457**
.253**
.014
Liberalism
(Harm+Fairn
ess)
-.457**
1
.146
-.098
Conservative
(supporting
Ingroup,
Authority,
Purity)
.253**
,146
1
.388**
Cultural
Identification
.014
-.098
.388**
1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Discussion
The main aim of my study was to research the differences in perceiving moral emotions and
foundations between liberal and conservative points of view. First hypothesis stated that certain
values of morality in Moral Foundation questionnaire (Graham et. al, 2011), would contradict,
creating the dilemma for people, reading it. Six of the eight dilemmas were contradictory for those
with conservative trait. I hypothesized that it will be easier for them to make harm/care and fairness
violations if the authority/purity or loyalty are in tune with it. My study showed that whenever
Authority is endangered, conservative people would be more willing to sacrifice other values.
Which is confirmed the previous researches, showing that conservative people (the ones with the
28
binding foundations) ,when making decisions are including more values than justice and care
(Graham, et. al 2009). Another accordance with previous studies was with Purity foundation. Even
when the dilemma considered two of important values being loyal to a friend or purity issues,
conservatives chose Purity. It shows that those two foundations - respect for Authority and Purity -
are extremely important to the morality of conservative people. However, when put against each
other show no correlation or significance. This, perhaps, happened because the question wasn’t
strong enough. It considered respectable figure (school professor) and defending gay marriage
(purity). The reason why there is no correlation might be, because you don’t have to always agree
with your professor, but only respect his opinion. Or that defending gay marriage does not mean
being in one,
Even though it was very explicitly shown that all the binding foundations ( authority, purity
and loyalty) were related to the conservatism(Graham, et. al 2009), that did not appear in my study
at all times. In dilemma when Ingroup loyalty was opposed to Harm no correlation was found. I
assume that it happened because the question did not employ any danger on important values for
either liberals or conservatives. It considered harming emotionally or physically somebody, who
makes fun of your co-workers. The harm would not be worth it, because somebody is just joking
around and doesn’t necessarily disrespect or hurts anybody. There is no real danger to your group,
therefore there is no reason to harm.
Interestingly, the results from Ingroup vs Authority dilemma (keep your sister’s secret
versus telling your parents),people with conservative trait were leaning towards authority. People
with those binding foundations were willing to betray their sister for the good of their parents. The
explanation for this one might be because it was over complicated: there are four important issues:
sick puppy (Harm/Care), older sister (respect/ Ingroup), your dad’s allergy (Harm/Care and
Authority). This dilemma, if broke down like this, includes four moral foundations contradicting
with person’s belief. This would be very interesting to explore further.
Most of my results with moral foundations and dilemmas were confirmed by previous
studies. Conservatives were high on all the five foundation, and liberals were very high only on
29
those individualizing, that confirms the moral foundation theory (Graham et al., 2009; Haidt, 2008,
2012; Haidt & Graham, 2007, 2009).
According to my second hypothesis, political ideology would have to relate as well to moral
emotions, such as shame and guilt. Graham et al.(2009) stated that your political identity predicts
your moral judgements. Because I created my own questionnaire, results were different from what I
expected. The questionnaire was short and maybe to abstract to actually feel such strong emotions
as shame and guilt. Even though liberals were a little bit higher on general shame and guilt
proneness, the individual items were not related as expected. Conservatives showed no difference
for any questions whatsoever. Moreover, the literature for shame, guilt and politics is very limited.
It is however a big body for future research.
The third hypothesis was confirmed by my study and research about Social Dominance
Orientation. As it was find in earlier research(Pollak,1945), conservatives want to reduce the change
and sustain social inequality. It highly corresponds with Social dominance orientation trait. Kugler
et. al(2014) take a close look at those binding foundations and authoritarianism, that is connected to
outgroup hostility and Social Dominance trait. They argue that even though there is more to
conservatives moral judgments it is hardly moral to be authoritarian. The study shows that
individualistic approach ( or how they call it “humanistic”) are very low on discrimination against
foreigners and immigrants. It is a very important virtue, especially considering the situation in the
US, where everyone is an immigrant whether it is England or Namibia. In my opinion it’s a valid
argument that makes us think whether all of the morals for “binding foundations” are actually
components of morality itself. I believe that morality is not totally universal, however the issues of
discrimination should not be a part of it. The results of my study confirmed the results of Kugler et.
al (2014). It also confirms the results of my first hypothesis, where conservatives were choosing
binding foundations over harm avoidance and fairness.
As well as SDO, I added four cultural identification questions. Interestingly, conservative
people were very high on both, however results showed no relation between the two of them.
30
Questions for cultural identification were about how much do you respect your country, traditions
and language. I would consider them questions about patriotism. There was no relation to the
cultural identification within individualists (liberals). Is it one more moral virtue of a conservative
person? I couldn’t find any data that would bind conservatism and moral foundations, however it is
a question to consider. According to Primoratz and Pavkovic, 2007(cited in Kodelja, 2011)
patriotism is very close to nationalism, which is not accepting those outgroups.It is ineresting that
SDO in my study was not related to it. However, study that tested US patriotism vs group
dominance within latinos and white’s of the Los Angeles county,California, showed better results.
The higher degree of group dominance the greater level of patriotism within white population.
Interestingly, but not surprisingly it was complete opposite for latinos: the higher group dominance
the lower US patriotism(Peña & Sidanius, 2002). The issue between patriotism and violence started
after September 11th, 2001, resulting in numerous attacks on outsiders (especially muslims) and
raise of so-called American identity (Kodelja, 2011). On the other hand, however non-extreme love
to your own country is highly encouraged. For example, being proud of where you come from by
putting a flag on your house. Being proud and respect your traditions and values not always have to
end in violence. Even though extreme liberals reject patriotism, calling it “moral
danger”(Kodelja,2011), I believe that simple respect wouldn’t hurt nobody. Frohnen(2006) in his
article divides conservative patriots into two groups: true and false. The true conservative patriot is
the one that loves his country and will love it even in the times of was. The false conservative
patriot would use patriotism as a tool of violence, just to mask his actions. It contradicts Kodejla’s
article that says that education of patriotism is not morally required, whereas Frohnen sees a
necessity of continuing implementing a “true patriotism”.
My results showed no relation of conservatism or liberalism to gender, which is consistent
with earlier findings(Ray,1985; Inbar et. al, 2009). According to Ray(1985) among other
demographical values, sex had no difference in viewing politics. His study showed that any
relationship is negligible.
31
Hypothesis four was consistent with my expectations and previous researches. Social
dominance orientation was opposed to different moral dilemmas. The results showed obvious
relation of SDO and conservatism, as they were related to the same dilemmas. It means that the
people, who posses SDO trait are much likely to be conservative. However, it is not to be mistaken,
conservatism does not consist of only Social Dominance trait. Dilemmas about Authority were
related highly with conservative trait and SDO. People,who are high on ingroup superiority are
likely to choose authority over care for a human being. Interestingly, Purity and Ingroup dilemma
showed that even though there is a friend, people, who are high in SDO make him outgroup,
because he is gay. Similar pattern we can observe within conservative point of view. They are more
likely to protect purity foundation over saving their friendship. It is consistent with the results of
previous study about Purity and disgust. Self-reported political conservatists showed high proneness
to disgust, especially considering gay marriage and abortions(Inbar et. al, 2009).
However, no relations in dilemmas where Authority was opposed to Ingroup ability (your
dad’s allergy vs your sister’s secret) were found. This was not consistent with conservative point of
view, where they would much rather pick Authority(their dad) over Ingroup loyalty(older sister).
Perhaps, for people high on SDO both dad and sister are a part of their “group” that is why it cause
a confusion. Consistent with the binding foundations, Ingroup vs Harm dilemma is not related to
SDO. I do believe that the dilemma was not strong enough for people to make that judgment
call(harm emotionally of physically, somebody who made fun of your coworkers). Perhaps if it
considered actual offense of a co-worker, or the group of your co-workers was bounded by
something bigger than a job. Maybe the belonging to the group of coworkers is not as strong as a
whole community or family, for example.
Consistent with the conservative scale, Purity vs Authority dilemma(respectful professor vs
gay marriage issues) was not related to the SDO. Both Authority and Purity are strong indicators of
conservatism as well as Social dominance, perhaps this dilemma was too difficult for people with
binding foundations, as they had to choose between important moral virtues.
32
Social dominance orientation is not related to dilemmas where Fairness was opposed to
Care/Harm avoidance. As shown above, liberals ( individualizing foundations) are strongly opposed
to the Social Dominance. That explains why the results showed no relation between dilemmas for
individualistic trait and SDO. The results are partially consistent with Kugler et. al(2014) findings.
The discrepancy in my dilemmas might be because they were created by me and not tested
previously by any studies. For the future research I would advise using stronger items that would
involve people more. Hypothesis four was partially confirmed.
Hypothesis five appeared very simple and obvious at first. The older you are the more
conservative you become. My study and some research showed that it is not necessarily the case.
My study had participants of all ages and it found no differences or relation between conservatism
and age. Similar results were shown in an older study by Pollak(1945). Although, it may seem like
including age as a predictor of conservatism is needed, the results are usually weak or insignificant
altogether. Hypothesis five was not confirmed.
Limitations
The study has several limitations that cannot be neglected. First of all I took into the
consideration very limited political group. Even though Republicans(conservatives) and
Democrats(liberals) are the two major parties in the US, there are not the only ones with political
views. The study did not include both left and right extremes, such as libertarians and socialists.
Those two categories were not included in the original Moral Foundations Theory(Haidt & Joseph,
2004), however if you go to the questionnaires now (at yourmorals.com), it will show you the
results, including libertarians and socialists. As far as politics goes it shifts as the time passes.
That’s what happened after Roosevelt, for example, african-americans were republican up until the
60s and the shifted to the democrats.
Another limitation of my study were the participants.The link of the Internet survey was
posted in a closed group on Facebook. So only those, who had Facebook and were previously or
currently employed as a Yellowstone National Park employee could access it and fill it out. It is of
33
course a plus, as well, because Yellowstone is an equal employer it hires people from different
states every year, without any discrimination. Another group of participants received their surveys
by signing up on the message board in Oceanside, California at my workplace, which could hinder
their ability to answer the questions honestly.
Two questionnaire: shame and guilt proneness and moral dilemmas were created by me,
that’s why some questions might have been ambiguous for people, especially considering the fact,
that I am not American and English is not my first language. I received some questions via e-mail,
considering some of those items. Perhaps, the purpose of those questionnaires was not clear to the
participants.
Future research
My study has two of my personal questionnaires, which I think did not provide with as good
outcomes as expected. For the future research I suggest a better tested tool and perhaps more
questions. Shame and guilt proneness and their relation to politics is yet to discover, as well as other
moral emotions. Perhaps cultural identification/ patriotism could be added as the next virtue of a
conservative.
I would suggest to use a bigger sample and make it broader. For example, add questions
about race and ethnicity and/or State. That would allow you to take a closer look at the differences
Nationwide or even Worldwide and provide with some origins of political conservatism and
liberalism.
Conclusions
The study was set to discover the differences between liberals and conservatives in their
perception of moral foundations and emotions. The differences were found in moral dilemmas, as
well as moral foundations. From the research we know that people with those binding
foundations(conservatives) perceive morality as something more than just care for vulnerable and
justice. From this study we learned that they are more willing to sacrifice certain virtues, especially
34
if it contradicts their most important values (such as being pure, respect traditions,etc). On the other
side of the spectrum, people with individualizing foundations(liberals) have no such dilemma. The
choice of harming somebody versus protecting authority is very easy for them. There is a big
discrepancy in the answers between binding and individualizing emotions for liberals. Their
morality consists exclusively of harm avoidance and justice. When making a judgment liberals do
not take into the consideration binding foundations (such as Purity, respect for Authority and
Loyalty).
In conclusion, conservative trait does not consist of only “binding” moral
foundations,it is a much bigger concept that includes in itself the social dominance trait and
cultural identification. All three components together contribute to conservatism. As for
liberalism - negative social dominance orientation as well as low cultural identification and
“binding” foundations. This concludes and confirms the definitions of liberalism and
conservatism. Liberals - promote change, justice and equality, conservatists - believe in
inequality, oppose sudden change and protect traditions.
35
References
Barrett, K. C. (2005). The origins of social emotions and self-regulation in toddlerhood: New
evidence. Cognition & Emotion, 19(7), 953-979. doi:10.1080/02699930500172515
Cohen, T. R., Wolf, S. T., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2011). Introducing the GASP scale: A new
measure of guilt and shame proneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(5),
947-966. doi:10.1037/a0022641
Conover, P., & Feldman, S. (1981). The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-
Identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617-645. doi:1. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110756
Davis, D. E., Rice, K., Tongeren, D. R., Hook, J. N., Deblaere, C., Worthington, E. L., & Choe, E.
(2016). The moral foundations hypothesis does not replicate well in Black samples. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 110(4). doi:10.1037/pspp0000056
Dubas, K.M., Dubas, S.M.,& Mehta, R. (2014). Theories of Justice and Moral Behavior. Journal of
Legal, Ethical & Regulatory Issues., Vol. 17 Issue 2, p17-35. 19p.
Felkins, L.(1999). How to tell a Democrat from a Republican. American Politics Journal
Gaus, G., Courtland, S. D., & Schmidtz, D.(2015). Liberalism. The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/liberalism/
Graham,J.,Haidt, J.,& Rimm-Kaufman,S.E. (2008). Ideology and Intuition in Moral Education.
European Journal of Developmental Science Vol. 2, No. 3, 269–286 ISSN 1863-3811
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of
moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046.
doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the
moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.
Graham,J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S.,Motyl,M.,Iyer,R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto P.H. (2012). Moral
Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism. Moral Foundations Theory.
36
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral
judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814-834.
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally
variable virtues. Daedalus, 133(4), 55-66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions
that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.
Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left-right: ideological narratives and
moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110-119.
Hamilton, A.,(2005). Conservatism, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/conservatism/
Hedman, E., Ström, P., Stünkel, A., & Mörtberg, E. (2013). Shame and Guilt in Social Anxiety
Disorder: Effects of Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Association with Social Anxiety and
Depressive Symptoms. PLoS ONE, 8(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061713
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals.
Cognition & Emotion, 23(4), 714-725. doi:10.1080/02699930802110007
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp.
347-480). Chicago: Rand McNally
Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do
Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences
in “Moral” Intuitions? Soc Just Res Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413-431.
doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5
Lucas, M. (2012). Jonathan Haidt's, “The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by
Politics and Religion” book review, New York: Pantheon Books, 419 pp.. ISBN: 978-
0307377906.
37
Morrison, K. R., & Ybarra, O. (2009). Symbolic threat and social dominance among liberals and
conservatives: SDO reflects conformity to political values. European Journal of Social
Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol., 39(6), 1039-1052. doi:10.1002/ejsp.606
Murray, M. J., & Schloss J. (2009). Scientific Explanations of Religion and the Justification of
Religious Belief. The Believing Primate, 168-178.
doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199557028.003.0009
Nelissen, R. M., Breugelmans, S. M., & Zeelenberg, M. (2013). Reappraising the Moral Nature of
Emotions in Decision Making: The Case of Shame and Guilt. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 7(6), 355-365. doi:10.1111/spc3.12030
Pollak, O. (1943). Conservatism in later Maturity and Old Age. American Sociological Review, 8(2),
175. doi:10.2307/2085882
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Stearns, D. C., & Parrott, W. G. (2012). When feeling bad makes you look good: Guilt, shame, and
person perception. Cognition & Emotion, 26(3), 407-430. doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.675879
Shweder, R. A. (1990). In defense of moral realism: Reply to Gabennesch. Child Development,61,
2060-2067.
Teroni, F., & Bruun, O. (2011). Shame, Guilt and Morality. Journal of Moral Philosophy, 8(2), 223-
245. doi:10.1163/174552411x563574
Wolf, S. T., Cohen, T. R., Panter, A. T., & Insko, C. A. (2010). Shame Proneness and Guilt
Proneness: Toward the Further Understanding of Reactions to Public and Private
Transgressions. Self and Identity, 9(4), 337-362. doi:10.1080/15298860903106843
38
Appendix 1
Moral foundations in different political points of view in the US
Informed Consent Form
Purpose of the Study:
This is a study for master thesis in psychology that is being conducted by Anna Mushkevych, in
SWPS university in Warsaw, Poland. The purpose of this study is to compare the differences
between liberal and conservative points of view in moral foundations.
What will be done:
You will complete couple of questionnaires (SDO-6, Moral Foundations Questionnaire,
Shame/Guilt proneness, Moral dilemmas), which will take 15-25 minutes. Questionnaires include
questions about your political and cultural identification. Some questions will address your feelings
about shame and guilt and some other moral emotions.
Risks or discomforts:
No risks or discomforts are anticipated from taking part in this study. If you feel uncomfortable
with a question, you can skip that question or withdraw from the study altogether. If you decide to
quit at any time before you have finished the questionnaire, your answers will NOT be recorded.
Confidentiality:
Your responses will be kept completely confidential. No one will know your IP address when you
respond to the Internet survey. Only the researcher will see your individual survey responses and
the results of the analysis. The results are not going to be used or shared anywhere, but my thesis
and by anyone, but the researcher.
Contact information:
If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact Anna Mushkevych at
amushkevych@gmail.com
I have read this information and agree to participate in this research,
Date
Signature
39
Personal information
Age:
Gender:
How much do you identify with the US?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Not at all Rather less Moderately Rather more Very much
How proud are you to be a part of the US community?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Not at all Rather less Moderately Rather more Very much
How well do you speak English?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Not at all Rather less Moderately Rather more Very much
How knowledgeable are you about the culture and traditions of the US?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Not at all Rather less Moderately Rather more Very much
40
Social Dominance Orientation
Please read the following sentences and indicate your agreement or disagreement
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
Strongly Moderately Slightly No Slightly Moderately Strongly
disagree disagree disagree opinion agree agree agree
1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. ______
2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.______
3. It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others._______
4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups. ______
5. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems. ______
6. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the
bottom. ______
7. Inferior groups should stay in their place. ______
8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place. ______
9. It would be good if groups could be equal. ______
10. Group equality should be our ideal. ______
11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life. ______
12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. ______
13. Increased social equality is beneficial to society. ______
14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally. ______
15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible. ______
16. No group should dominate in society. ______
41
Moral Foundations Questionnaire
Part 1. When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following
considerations relevant to your thinking? Please rate each statement using this scale:
[0] = not at all relevant (This consideration has nothing to do with my judgments of right and
wrong)
[1] = not very relevant
[2] = slightly relevant
[3] = somewhat relevant
[4] = very relevant
[5] = extremely relevant (This is one of the most important factors when I judge right
and wrong)
______Whether or not someone suffered emotionally
______Whether or not some people were treated differently than others
______Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her country
______Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority
______Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency
______Whether or not someone was good at math
______Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable
______Whether or not someone acted unfairly
______Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group
______Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society
______Whether or not someone did something disgusting
______Whether or not someone was cruel
______Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights
______Whether or not someone showed a lack of loyalty
______Whether or not an action caused chaos or disorder
______Whether or not someone acted in a way that God would approve of
Part 2. Please read the following sentences and indicate your agreement or disagreement:
[0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Strongly Moderately Slightly Slightly Moderately Strongly
disagree disagree disagree agree agree agree
42
______Compassion for those who are suffering is the most crucial virtue.
______When the government makes laws, the number one principle should be ensuring that
everyone is treated fairly.
______I am proud of my country’s history.
______Respect for authority is something all children need to learn.
______People should not do things that are disgusting, even if no one is harmed.
______It is better to do good than to do bad.
______One of the worst things a person could do is hurt a defenseless animal.
______Justice is the most important requirement for a society.
______People should be loyal to their family members, even when they have done something
wrong.
______Men and women each have different roles to play in society.
______I would call some acts wrong on the grounds that they are unnatural.
______It can never be right to kill a human being.
______ I think it’s morally wrong that rich children inherit a lot of money while poor children
inherit nothing.
______ It is more important to be a team player than to express oneself.
______ If I were a soldier and disagreed with my commanding officer’s orders, I would obey
anyway because that is my duty.
______ Chastity is an important and valuable virtue.
The Moral Foundations Questionnaire (full version, July 2008) by Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt,
and Brian Nosek.
For more information about Moral Foundations Theory and scoring this form, see:
www.MoralFoundations.org
43
Shame/Guilt proneness
Please read the following statements and imagine those situations in your life. What would you
feel? Write the answer that suits you most.
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Unlikely Rather Likely No opinion Rather likely Very Likely
1. When your classmate was teasing you, you wished that she would suffer, next day you
found out that both of her parents died in a plane crash.
a) How likely it is that she will reject your help and support ? ______
b)How likely it is that you will try to support and cheer her up? ______
c)How likely it is that you will self-criticize yourself for your thoughts? ______
2. You crossed the street on a red light, because you wanted to be cool in front of your friends,
but you keep thinking of this as a bad thing to do.
a) How likely it is that you will still act cool in front of your friends? ______
b) How likely it is that you will try to avoid such a situation again? ______
c) How likely it is that you will feel ridiculous in this situation? ______
3. Your parents always wanted you to be an engineer, but you couldn’t manage to graduate
from the college.
a) How likely it is that you will try to get a good job in order to impress your parents? ______
b) How likely it is that they will think of you as a stupid person? ______
c) How likely it is that you will feel embarrassed in this situation? ______
44
Moral Dilemmas
Please read the following situations and imagine them in your life. What will you do? Circle the
answer that suits you most.
1. You have an adopted child – it’s fair to tell him that, but it’s going to be harmful. What
will you do?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely tell Rather tell I don’t know Rather tell Definitely not tell
2. Someone from your job got bigger paycheck, than all your colleges, because she has a
sick child. If pay amounts were up to you, what would you do?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Pay equally, Rather equally I don’t know Rather would Definitely pay
more
no matter what think of an exclusion those in need
3.After organizing a political demonstration the person is facing departure to his country.
However he’s whole life is in the US, he has nothing left in his home country. What will you
do?
[1] [2] [3] [4]
[5]
Definitely depart Rather depart I don’t know Rather not depart Definitely not
depart
4. If there is a need to harm someone emotionally/ physically for your own country/family
good. What will you do?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely do harm Rather do I don’t know Rather not to do Definitely not to
do harm
5. Respectful professor from your university defends gay marriage. Will that influence your
opinion about him?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no Definitely not
45
6. Your friend is telling you that he is gay. Will you feel uncomfortable/unnatural with him
now. Try to avoid/end your friendship/reduce contact?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no Definitely not
7. Your dad has an allergy on dogs. But your older sister picks up sick puppy from the street.
She secretly tells you about it. Will you tell your parents about that secret?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no Definitely not
8. Your colleague at work makes fun of people. Will you offend him back in order to protect
your fellow workers/group?
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Definitely yes Rather yes I don’t know Rather no Definitely not
