Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations

When Organizational Identification Elicits Moral Decision-Making: A Matter of the Right Climate

“…In addition, although the behavior might be moral according to one set of moral standards, it does not have to be moral according to all moral perspectives (Giessner and Van Quaquebeke 2010;Haidt et al 2009;Rai and Fiske 2012). Indeed, even though some research has suggested that organizational identification is an important influence on moral behavior in organizations (van Gils et al 2010;Walumbwa et al 2011), organizational identification can also increase unethical behavior if it benefits the company (Umphress et al 2010;Umphress and Bingham 2011).…”

“…Importantly, the connection between the employee's identification and the aspects of the ethical climate in the organization that the employee identifies with (cf. Dick et al 2004) may depend on the specific cognitive moral framework that the employee uses to interpret the situation (Graham et al 2012;Haidt et al 2009;Rai and Fiske 2012). However, regardless of the employees' private definition of morality and moral values, when the norms and regulations in an ethical climate are formulated broadly enough, each employee should be able to find a reflection of his or her personal values which can serve as a target for identification.…”

“…Arguably, Aquino and Reed's (2002) conceptualization of a moral personality as being based on traits such as caring, generous, helpful, or honest might just represent one perspective on what a moral personality is (cf. Eisenbeiss 2012; Graham et al 2011;Haidt et al 2009;Rai and Fiske 2012). However, as it is impossible to cover all existing perspectives on morality, we have chosen to focus in our research on the common definitions in our field of research, which in turn correspond to our empirical operationalization.…”

Implicit Theories of Morality, Personality, and Contextual Factors in Moral Appraisal

“…For instance, it is possible that different traits, such as the ones described by moral foundations model (MFT), with the following six aspects: care/harm for others, fairness/cheating, justice, liberty/oppression, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion sanctity/degradation (Haidt, Graham, and Joseph 2009), could be conceived by lay perceivers as following different internal rules of functioning, as the authors of the model advocate that they rely on distinct psychological systems. The authors of the MFT model have consistently shown that liberals, for instance, do not recognize all these dimensions as relevant to the moral domain (for more details, see Haidt 2012).…”

A Computational Model of the Belief System Under the Scope of Social Communication

“…Generally, belief systems have no need to be constructed upon reason and survive as long as they provide a satisfactory approach or explanation to events that are poorly understood. Many different disciplines such as mathematics [1,4]], biology [5][6][7][8], psychology [9][10][11], philosophy [12,13], sociology [14][15][16], politics [17][18][19][20] and more recently computational science [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] have supported important advances at different levels of analysis from the molecular/neurological, to the cognitive/psychological and finally to the social/institutional and motivate a great interest for the study of belief systems. In this paper we consider the belief systems under the scope of the communication of ideas which is crucial in society evolution.…”