Moral "foundations" as the product of motivated social cognition: Empathy and other psychological underpinnings of ideological divergence in "individualizing" and "binding" concerns

The Role of Moral Foundations in Support for Sex Work Decriminalization by Venue

The criminal status of prostitution has received greater attention from policymakers and advocates in recent years, but systematic policy change has yet to take root in the United States. These efforts have been both motivated and challenged by a strong moral discourse, resulting in policies that are more reflective of ideology than efficacy. While the popularization of sex work through online avenues like social media has altered the traditional concept of sex work, there is an incomplete understanding of public attitudes toward decriminalization in this modern market. Using national data from 519 U.S. adults, the present study applied Moral Foundations Theory to investigate support for sex work decriminalization in three venues (brothel, online, street). Overall, results show lower support for decriminalization of street sex work compared to brothel and online sex work, and that the effects of moral foundations on support for decriminalization are consistent across all venues. Individualizing foundations (i.e. harm, fairness) do not predict support for decriminalization, while binding and liberty foundations explain some variation in support. Implications of the findings speak to the potential barriers to criminal justice reform in this area and the role of moral arguments in this dispute.

Mapping the moral foundations of the European Union: Why a lack of moral diversity may undermine perceived EU legitimacy

The stability and effectiveness of supranational organizations, like the European Union (EU), will improve when citizens perceive them as legitimate. Across three studies, two of which were preregistered, and a preregistered pilot study, we combined EU legal expertise with social psychological theory on morality to understand how perceived EU legitimacy is influenced by a sense of moral alignment with the EU. We propose that, currently, the EU gives more weight to values linked to "individualizing" moral foundations (e.g. compassion, social justice, and equality) than to values linked to "binding" moral foundations (e.g. patriotism, religion, and traditionalism). As this may leave people who endorse binding moral foundations feel unrepresented, we investigated whether the EU could gain legitimacy by appealing to values that resonate with binding moral foundations. In study 1, text analyses revealed that the European Commission President's State of the Union speeches indeed appeal more to individualizing than to binding moral foundations. Study 2 (n = 595) provided correlational evidence that the negative relationship between binding moral foundations and perceived EU legitimacy was mediated by lower moral alignment with EU law. Finally, study 3 (n = 567) showed through an experiment that reframing or rebalancing EU law to better align it with binding moral foundations could increase perceived EU legitimacy among people who endorse these moral foundations. The results illustrate the importance of understanding and attending to moral diversity among EU citizens. More generally, our work shows how a collaboration between social psychology and law contributes to safeguarding the legitimacy of supranational organizations.

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.

When Future Leads to a Moral Present: Future Self-Relatedness Predicts Moral Judgments and Behavior in Everyday Life

Future self-perceptions seem to promote far-sighted decisions in intertemporal choices. Previous work suggested that future self-relatedness, the extent to which we feel similar and connected to our future self, is associated with moral concerns. We aimed to extend these findings to everyday moral judgments and behavior using experience sampling methods. In addition, we assessed how moral foundation concerns mediate the relationship between future self-relatedness and moral behavior. Participants (N = 151) reported their state-levels of future self-relatedness, individualizing, and binding moral foundations and answered whether they performed a moral action five times a day for seven days. Within- and between-participants future self-relatedness predicted daily fluctuations in individualizing and binding moral foundations concerns. On the behavioral level, only within-participants future self-relatedness predicted individualizing moral actions with individualizing moral foundations mediating this effect. Our findings suggest that within- and between-person changes in future self-relatedness might be used to predict everyday moral concerns and behavior.

Social Depolarization and Diversity of Opinions-Unified ABM Framework

Most sociophysics opinion dynamics simulations assume that contacts between agents lead to greater similarity of opinions, and that there is a tendency for agents having similar opinions to group together. These mechanisms result, in many types of models, in significant polarization, understood as separation between groups of agents having conflicting opinions. The addition of inflexible agents (zealots) or mechanisms, which drive conflicting opinions even further apart, only exacerbates these polarizing processes. Using a universal mathematical framework, formulated in the language of utility functions, we present novel simulation results. They combine polarizing tendencies with mechanisms potentially favoring diverse, non-polarized environments. The simulations are aimed at answering the following question: How can non-polarized systems exist in stable configurations? The framework enables easy introduction, and study, of the effects of external "pro-diversity", and its contribution to the utility function. Specific examples presented in this paper include an extension of the classic square geometry Ising-like model, in which agents modify their opinions, and a dynamic scale-free network system with two different mechanisms promoting local diversity, where agents modify the structure of the connecting network while keeping their opinions stable. Despite the differences between these models, they show fundamental similarities in results in terms of the existence of low temperature, stable, locally and globally diverse states, i.e., states in which agents with differing opinions remain closely linked. While these results do not answer the socially relevant question of how to combat the growing polarization observed in many modern democratic societies, they open a path towards modeling polarization diminishing activities. These, in turn, could act as guidance for implementing actual depolarization social strategies.

Do environmental messages emphasising binding morals promote conservatives’ pro-environmentalism? A pre-registered replication