Moral foundations and political attitudes: The moderating role of political sophistication

Moral trade-offs reveal foundational representations that predict unique variance in political attitudes

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explains variation in moral judgements on the basis of multiple innate, intuitive foundations and has been subject to criticism over recent years. Prior research has tended to rely on explicit self-report in the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ). In contrast, we seek to capture intuitive choices between foundations in a novel task - the Moral Foundations Conflict Task (MFCT). Across four studies, responses on this task reflect foundations measured by the MFQ (study 1), are not altered under cognitive load or reduced cognitive control (studies 2a and 2b); and explain unique variance in political orientation and related constructs (study 3). Furthermore, using responses and response times generated on the MFCT, we present a computationally explicit model of foundation-related intuitive judgements and show that these patterns are consistent with the theoretical claims of MFT. These findings show that the MFCT outperforms the MFQ and can contribute to the understanding of moral value conflicts, furthering debate on the nature of moral values.

Moral Foundations Partially Explain the Associations of Machiavellianism, Grandiose Narcissism, and Psychopathy With Homonegativity and Transnegativity

People with antagonistic (or "dark") personality traits (e.g., Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy) are reportedly more racist, sexist, and xenophobic than their non-antagonistic counterparts. In the present studies (N1 = 709; N2 = 267), we examined whether people with antagonistic personality traits are also more likely to express homonegative and transnegative attitudes, and, if so, whether this can be explained by their endorsement of the moral foundations. We found that people high in Machiavellianism, grandiose narcissism, and psychopathy are more likely to endorse homonegative and transnegative views. The associations of Machiavellianism and psychopathy with homonegativity and transnegativity were primarily explained by low endorsement of individualizing moral foundations (i.e., care and fairness), while the association of narcissism with these beliefs was primarily explained by high endorsement of the binding moral foundations (i.e., loyalty, authority, and purity). These findings provide insight into the types of people who harbor homonegative and transnegative attitudes, and how differences in moral foundations contribute to these associations.

Examining the relations among moral foundations, potentially morally injurious events, and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms

Military veterans are exposed to unique deployment stressors that can precipitate the onset of various psychological difficulties, including the perception that an important moral standard has been transgressed (i.e., potentially morally injurious events [PMIEs]) and the development of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. Vulnerability to these outcomes may be related to individual differences in moral foundations, including those that function to protect the individual (i.e., individualizing) and those that function to protect the group (i.e., binding).

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the direct and indirect associations among moral foundations, PMIEs, and PTSD symptoms.

METHOD

Participants were 203 military veterans (M age = 35.08, 77.30% male) who completed an online survey.

RESULTS

Only the binding moral foundation was found to be significantly and positively associated with both PMIEs and PTSD symptoms. Further, the association between the binding foundation and PTSD symptoms was explained by PMIEs.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that certain moral foundations, particularly those that serve "binding" functions-loyalty, authority, and purity-may be important considerations in military mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

"Frontrunners": An Investigation of the Discursive Construction of "Women Politicians" Intersectional Identity

This paper explores how female politicians discursively construct their intersectional identity as "women politicians." We interviewed 10 female politicians in charge of local political offices and examined how they talked about the boundaries and contents of their "women politicians" identity. When talking about identity boundaries, the interviewees first presented "women politicians" as an exclusive minority within their gender group. Second, they constructed intergroup categorizations by comparing women who meet the requirements to enter politics versus women who do not. When talking about identity contents, the interviewees constructed intergroup categorizations along the ideological axis only. Thus, they overlooked the differences between men and women who share the same ideology while they enhanced the differences among women of different ideologies. Overall, the interviewees constructed their "women politicians" identity as a subordinate identity within their overarching ideological identity rather than as a real intersectional identity. These results are discussed also in terms of discursive de-politicization of the "women politicians" intersectional identity.

Online Discussion and the Moral Pathway to Identity Politicization and Collective Action

Research on the mobilizing potential of the Internet has produced some controversy between optimistic vs. skeptical perspectives. Although some attention has been paid to the effects of online discussions on collective participation, very little is known about how people’s experience of online interactions affects the key psychosocial predictors of collective action. The present research investigated whether use of the Internet as a channel for deliberation influenced the moral pathway to collective mobilization by shaping users’ politicized identity, thereby indirectly influencing collective action. Results showed that when people perceived online discussions as a constructive communication context, their politicized identity was imbued with the meaning of responding to a moral obligation, and willingness to participate in collective action was sustained. However, when participants perceived that online discussions were not constructive, their identification with the movement did not refer to moral obligation, and intention to participate in collective action was not sustained. Our discussion focuses on the need to deepen investigation of how people experience the particularities of interacting online, and on how this can affect psychosocial processes leading to collective action.

Pluralistic morality and collective action: The role of moral foundations

Starting from the pluralistic view of morality proposed by the moral foundations theory, this paper aims at highlighting the plurality of personal moral concerns that may drive people to collective action and at investigating how they are connected with other personal and group-based motivations to act (i.e., moral obligation, moral convictions, politicized group identity, group efficacy, and group-based anger). Moral foundations can be distinguished into individualizing foundations, aimed at protecting individual rights and well-being; and binding foundations, aimed at tightening people into ordered communities. We expected that collective action intention would be most strongly associated with an individualizing foundation in equality-focused movements, and with a binding foundation in conformity-focused ones. Four studies that examined activists of both liberal and conservative movements confirmed these expectations. The relevant foundations predicted collective action mainly through the mediation of moral obligation and politicized identity, but they also had some effects above and beyond them.