Applying moral foundations theory to understanding public views of sexual offending

Abstract

Much research has examined the views held by citizens about sexual offenders and related policy responses. Although studies have extensively examined demographic correlates of such views, little attention has been paid to psychological mechanisms that underpin them. Gaining a deeper understanding of such mechanisms may ultimately prove useful for informing communication strategies around the problem of sexual violence. We propose the application of moral foundations theory as a means of exploring the roots of the current punitive consensus around sexual crime policy at the macro level, as well as individual variability in attitudes about sexual violence. Following an overview of the sexual offender policy landscape, and a description of MFT principles, we outline how this framework can help to explain both convergence and divergence in responses to sexual offending among members of the public. We also provide a series of testable hypotheses to stimulate further research in this area

Shaping the modern world with a stone-age brain: Brexit and the Moral Foundations Theory

“…The MFT has been utilised to explore individual differences in attitudes towards a range of socio-political issues typified by left vs. right wing polarisation. Among other examples, the literature finds foundation profiles predict people's opinions on how to combat climate change (Jansson & Dorrepaal, 2015), the best means of addressing poverty (Low & Wui, 2016), attitudes towards sexual offences (Harper & Harris, 2017), the extent people blame victims (Niemi & Young, 2016), beliefs about stem-cell research (Clifford & Jerit, 2013) and how willing participants are to make charitable donations (Winterich et al, 2012). In the UK, the left/right consistent foundation are also reflected by the communications of the Labour and Conservative partites respectively (Smith & Baroni, 2017).…”

Reporting Child Sexual Abuse within Religious Settings: Challenges and Future Directions

“…Aside from specific (and perhaps conscious) motivations to bolster and justify their social identity and worldview, members of religious institutions may also have deeper, perhaps non‐conscious reasons for not reporting alleged cases of abuse within their communities. Harper and Harris () recently advanced the argument that our moral makeup may be in part responsible for the ways in which we respond to reported cases of sexual offending.…”

“…First, we appear to take a dual‐process approach to important or contentious decision‐making. Harper and Harris () called this process ‘feel first, rationalize later’ (p. 5). That is, we have automatic emotional responses to certain stimuli, and then rationalise these responses through conscious elaboration.…”

The role of intuitive moral foundations in Britain’s Brexit vote

“…The purity foundation corresponds to our evolutionary drive to avoid potential pathogens, and is therefore closely related to disgust. In contemporary society, however, this foundation may be reflected in moral beliefs about "social pathogens" (Harper & Harris, 2017) that may upset societal order. In this respect, the purity foundation may be evoked in contemporary social attitudes toward issues (e.g., homosexuality).…”