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

Abstract

Decision making is not always a reasoned process. It is often subject to reflexive heuristics. The Moral Foundations Theory is a popular theoretical framework that characterises political decisions by adherence to an evolutionary criterion. Based on recurrent ancestral pressures, this model anticipates our species' tribal history has resulted in a set of intuitive ethics: Care/ Harm, Fairness/ Cheating, Loyalty/ Betrayal, Authority/ Subversion, and Sanctity/ Degradation. Focusing on the winning side, this paper analyses official communications, polling data and media coverage to explore how the Leave campaigners intentionally or unintentionally appealed to the public's moral intuitions. In doing so, it aims to show why evolutionary psychology potentially offers a useful layer of analysis with which to understand contemporary politics.

Moral Expressions in 280 Characters or Less: An Analysis of Politician Tweets Following the 2016 Brexit Referendum Vote

“…These disagreements may be seen on Twitter, as the content of politician tweets comprises one important part of public politician communication. While one may not immediately expect moral arguments on Twitter (especially due to the restriction of 280 characters), Brexit arguments on other media are largely made on moral grounds ( Smith, 2019 ). Hence, the brief nature of tweets lend themselves to ‘straight to the point’ content, yet it is unclear if moral arguments are pervasive due to the brevity.…”

“…For example, the ‘vote remain’ side often argued negative economic consequences if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, which are usually regarded as more pragmatic arguments ( Sampson, 2017 ). On the other hand, the ‘vote leave’ campaign largely relied on moral arguments to secure the win for the referendum, such as the idea that more money could be given to the national healthcare system instead of going to the EU ( Tzelgov and Dumitrescu, 2018 ; Smith, 2019 ). It is unclear if these arguments are expressed on Twitter, as while analyses of Brexit data often consists of millions of Tweets (e.g., Khatua and Khatua, 2016 ; Grčar et al, 2017 etc), few point out specific tweets with clear moral arguments.…”

“…Overall the leave campaign used a complex entanglement of moral foundations, especially in the key leaving arguments of healthcare and immigration ( Smith, 2019 ). Following the vote to leave the EU, it is important to adhere to these moral reasonings, as they were the promises made by the vote leave campaigners.…”

“…In general, the argument for following through with the referendum vote is that it should reflect the will of the people, which can be seen as a moral rather than pragmatic argument. However, ‘Vote Leave’-the official group campaigning for the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU-often attacked the lack of available healthcare by the NHS for British citizens appeals greatly to the foundation of Care, whereas arguments around the issues of immigration-especially concerning those from Islamic nations - were noted as a threat to British Sanctity ( Smith, 2019 ). Interestingly, ‘Vote Leave’ was led by Conservative parliamentarians Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, along with Labor parliamentarian Gisela Stuart.…”

Favouring a disunited Kingdom? How negative perceptions of the EU-referendum relate to individual mobility and collective action considerations

“…Second, we will apply the predictions derived from these fields of research to Scots' situation after the EU-referen dum. Thereby, we seek to extend the current psychological research on Brexit, which to date has primarily focused on the (often identity-related) antecedents of people's decision to vote in favour of or against leaving the EU (e.g., Abrams & Travaglino, 2018;Lewis & de Wit, 2019;Manners, 2018;Smith, 2019;Swami, Barron, Weis, & Furnham, 2018;Van de Vyver, Leite, Abrams, & Palmer, 2018), on the outcomes' consequences for individual well-being (Sirois & Iyer, 2018), and on people's preferences for the Brexit negotiations (Peitz, Dhont, & Seyd, 2018).…”