Mapping the Connections between Politics and Morality: The Multiple Sociopolitical Orientations Involved in Moral Intuition

Abstract

According to moral foundations theory (Haidt & Joseph, 2004), five foundations are central to moral intuition. The two individualizing foundations—harm/care and fairness/reciprocity—hinge on the rights of the individual, whereas the three binding foundations—in‐group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity—focus on communal bonds. Recent work suggests that reliance on the various foundations varies as a function of sociopolitical orientation: liberals consistently rely on the individualizing foundations, whereas conservatives rely on both the individualizing and binding foundations. In an effort to further explore the relationship between sociopolitical orientation and morality, we argue that only certain types of sociopolitical attitudes and beliefs should relate to each cluster of foundations. Drawing on dual‐process models of social and political attitudes, we demonstrate that the individualizing foundations are aligned with attitudes and beliefs relevant to preferences for equality versus inequality (i.e., SDO and competitive‐jungle beliefs), whereas the binding foundations are aligned with attitudes and beliefs relevant to preferences for openness versus social conformity (i.e., RWA and dangerous‐world beliefs). We conclude by discussing the consequences of these findings for our understanding of the relationship between sociopolitical and moral orientations.

A closer look at intergroup threat within the dual process model framework: The mediating role of moral foundations

“…At the same time, as it is indicated by recent research findings about motivated social cognition and moral psychology, moral judgments are influenced by personal motivations and psychological dispositions that also affect intergroup attitudes (Federico, Weber, Ergun, & Hunt, 2013;Kugler, Jost, & Noorbaloochi, 2014;Milojev et al, 2014). Therefore, these moral judgments are necessarily not impartial.…”

“…It became a politically relevant and highly controversial question in these countries, how to respond to the large wave of immigrants and refugees travelling through the region. The question was framed as a moral dilemma between the moral responsibilities to defend the country from the threat of massimmigration and to help people in need.At the same time, as it is indicated by recent research findings about motivated social cognition and moral psychology, moral judgments are influenced by personal motivations and psychological dispositions that also affect intergroup attitudes (Federico, Weber, Ergun, & Hunt, 2013;Kugler, Jost, & Noorbaloochi, 2014;Milojev et al, 2014). Therefore, these moral judgments are necessarily not impartial.…”

“…Therefore, these moral judgments are necessarily not impartial. Building upon the recent joint research of the dual process model of prejudice and ideologies and moral foundations theory (Federico et al, 2013; Hadarics & Kende, in press;Kugler et al, 2014;Milojev et al, 2014; Radkiewicz, 2016), we attempt to Psychological Thought psyct.psychopen.eu | 2193-7281 support the assumption that the negative perception of outgroups is related to moral concerns that are derived from individual level dispositions. …”

Upper Classes and Immorality: Ecological Validation of 50 Years of Power Research

“…For example, humans have developed inner abilities to detect cheaters (Cosmides & Tooby, 2005), laying the moral ground for equity (i.e., others should be treated with fairness and justice; Haidt & Joseph, 2004), and they have evolved the ability to care for group members, laying the moral ground for empathy (i.e., one should be kind and compassionate with others; Haidt & Joseph, 2004). From this nativist standpoint, moral judgments come to mind without rational thinking; they elicit emotional reactions (Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, & Cohen, 2004;Haidt, 2003;Huebner, Dwyer, & Hauser, 2009;Turner & Stets, 2007) and they are intuitive (Federico, Weber, Ergun, & Hunt, 2013;Haidt & Joseph, 2004). Therefore, defining morality solely along the dimensions of life, justice, and liberty, as proposed by Kohlberg and Turiel might be particular to WEIRD (western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic;Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 2010), liberal, and Judeo-Christian societies.…”

Moral Support: How Moral Values Shape Foreign Policy Attitudes

“…Moral Foundations Theory allows us to address these claims head on. Third, MFT has been tested in the political realm, and moral values have been found to predict domestic political attitudes (Federico et al 2013;Graham, Haidt, and Nosek 2009).…”