The Role of Worldviews in Predicting Support for Recreational Cannabis

Abstract

We studied the role of worldviews in the endorsement of proposals for the legalisation of recreational cannabis. Drawing on literature on generalised belief structures, we developed categorical measures for five worldviews drawing on commonalities in the typologies reviewed (Orthodox, Localised, Reward, Pragmatist, and Survivor). We proceeded to study the relative influence of worldviews in support of a range of items concerned with the legalisation of recreational cannabis amongst a randomly generated sample (N = 1000) in Malta. Our findings demonstrate that the Orthodox worldview stands in contrast to all others in opposing the proposals and constitutes the resistance group to legalisation. On the other hand, no other worldview unilaterally supports the proposals albeit these are, on an individual basis, favourably perceived. Our study further demonstrates that proportions of variance accounted for by the worldview measures we adopted are comparable to those exercised by demographic variables demonstrating significance. We propose that the study of worldviews is critical in understanding social and political alliances that come together to support or oppose particular politicised projects or collective courses of action.

Worldviews and the role of social values that underlie them

“…Similar to Koltko-Rivera [ 10 ], we define worldviews as representations of the structure of how and what people think. We propose that their function lies in how they operate to enable subjects to adapt their responses to present ecological demands [ 15 , 16 ]. As outlined by Sammut et al [ 16 ], a number of theoretical constructs fall in line with this definition of worldviews that have employed different terms.…”

“…We propose that their function lies in how they operate to enable subjects to adapt their responses to present ecological demands [ 15 , 16 ]. As outlined by Sammut et al [ 16 ], a number of theoretical constructs fall in line with this definition of worldviews that have employed different terms. Sammut et al (2022) identify four theories that propose remarkably identical five-factor typologies, namely: (i) symbolic universes [ 17 ], (ii) social axioms [ 18 ], (iii) moral foundations [ 19 ], and (iv) deep stories [ 20 ].…”

“…Conversely, the symbolic universe, Others’ World ; the social axiom, Social Cynicism ; the moral foundation, Authority/Respect ; and the deep story profile, Cowboy , emphasize selfish behaviour. With consideration to these commonalities, Sammut et al [ 16 ] proposed the notion of worldviews, offering a novel five-factor typology aimed at unifying the above-mentioned concepts. The five worldview types include the (i) Localised , (ii) Orthodox , (iii) Pragmatist , (iv) Reward , and (v) Survivor worldviews [ 16 ].…”

“…With consideration to these commonalities, Sammut et al [ 16 ] proposed the notion of worldviews, offering a novel five-factor typology aimed at unifying the above-mentioned concepts. The five worldview types include the (i) Localised , (ii) Orthodox , (iii) Pragmatist , (iv) Reward , and (v) Survivor worldviews [ 16 ]. As summarised in Table 1 , each worldview captures a symbolic universe, social axiom, moral foundation, and a deep story profile.…”

“…The Reward worldview centres around determination to work hard to obtain a desired goal. Lastly, the Survivor worldview involves fatalism, distrust in others and the need to overcome adversity [ 16 ]. It is worth noting that what differentiates these worldviews from the other similar five-factor typologies is the way in which they are measured, namely through vignettes.…”