Different relational models underlie prototypical left and right positions on social issues

Attitudes Toward Civil Liberties and Rights Among Politically Charged Online Groups

Abstract. Civil liberties and rights such as freedom of expression, press, thought, religion, association, lifestyle, and equality against the law are being subjected to controversies in Western countries. We developed two hypotheses aimed at explaining divergent attitudes toward civil liberties among politically charged online communities on each side of the political spectrum. A study using a cross-sectional sample of social media users ( N = 902) suggests that, as expected by our hypotheses, support for civil liberties tend to be higher among online groups of rightists – with economic conservatism being the only direct positive predictor and left-wing authoritarianism being a strong negative predictor. These results are discussed in relation to polarization over civil liberties and perceived power imbalances between online groups.

Not so conservative: Suppression effects between social and economic ideology on moral foundations and moral absolutism

Recent research outcomes suggest that social and economic conservatism show divergent associations with external criteria. In this article, we present a quantitative study with 534 Colombian participants. We found that, although positively correlated, these two dimensions of conservative ideology also exhibit suppression effects and differentiated psychological profiles regarding moral foundations and moral absolutism. Specifically, controlling for economic conservatism increased the positive association between social conservatism and the binding moral foundations and moral absolutism, while controlling for social conservatism changed the signs of the initial positive associations between economic conservatism and these variables. Our results suggest the need to use independent measures for each dimension of ideology and test for suppression when evaluating their respective interaction with other psychological constructs.

"You're still worth it": The moral and relational context of politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks

Political disagreements in social media can result in removing (i.e., “unfriending”) a person from one’s online network. Given that such actions could lead to the (ideological) homogenization of networks, it is pivotal to understand the psychological processes intertwined in unfriending decisions. This requires not only addressing different types of disagreements but also analyzing them in the relational context they occur. This article proposes that political disagreements leading to drastic measures such as unfriending are attributable to more deeply rooted moral dissents. Based on moral foundations theory and relationship regulation research, this work presents empirical evidence from two experiments. In both studies, subjects rated political statements (that violated different moral foundations) with regard to perceived reprehensibility and the likelihood of unfriending the source. Study 1 (N = 721) revealed that moral judgments of a political statement are moderately related to the unfriending decision. Study 2 (N = 822) replicated this finding but indicated that unfriending is less likely when the source of the morally reprehensible statement is relationally close to the unfriender and provides emotional support. This research extends unfriending literature by pointing to morality as a new dimension of analysis and offers initial evidence uncovering the psychological trade-off behind the decision of terminating digital ties. Drawing on this, our findings inform research on the homogenization of online networks by indicating that selective avoidance (in the form of politically motivated unfriending) is conditional upon the relational context and the interpersonal benefits individuals receive therein.

All Things Being Equal: Distinguishing Proportionality and Equity in Moral Reasoning

Moral foundations theory (MFT) has been a useful framework for understanding moral judgment and its relationship to political leaning. However, some have argued that MFT omits key domains of moral reasoning. We explored the utility of two candidate foundations (Proportionality and Equity) with a national sample of U.S. adults recruited through Nielsen’s Harris Panel, randomly split into calibration ( n = 1,499) and replication samples ( n = 1,499). We find that Proportionality and Equity are conceptually distinct from the original foundations (as measured in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire [MFQ]) but relate to them in predictable ways. Equity consistently predicted political leaning above and beyond covariates and the original foundations, but Proportionality only distinguished conservatives from liberals in the calibration sample, which suggests Proportionality may be highly relevant to moral judgments regardless of political ideology. Our findings also indicate potential bias when using one of the MFQ’s screener items to filter out unengaged participants.

Attitudes toward euthanasia among hospice nurses: Political ideology or religious commitment?

Attitudes toward euthanasia have been linked with political ideology among hospice nurses; however, a larger body of research has linked attitudes toward euthanasia with religiosity. The purpose of this study was to explore relationships between political ideology, religious commitment, and attitudes toward active and passive euthanasia among hospice nurses. Hospice nurses (N = 90) volunteered to take an online survey. Religious commitment fully mediated the relationship between social political ideology and disapproval of active euthanasia. The results suggest that, among hospice nurses, religious commitment accounts for links between social political ideology and disapproval of active euthanasia.