DOCSLIB.ORG

Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations PERSONALITY PROCESSES AND INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek University of Virginia How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people’s use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/ respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), “sacredness” reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American “culture war.” Keywords: morality, ideology, liberal, conservative Political campaigns spend vast sums appealing to the self- are moral commitments; they are not necessarily strategies for interests of voters, yet rational self-interest often shows a weak and self-enrichment. unstable relationship to voting behavior (Kinder, 1998; Miller, In this article we examine moral foundations theory, which was 1999; Sears & Funk, 1991). Voters are also influenced by a wide originally developed to describe moral differences across cultures variety of social and emotional forces (Marcus, 2002; Westen, (Haidt & Joseph, 2004). Building on previous theoretical work 2007). Some of these forces are trivial or peripheral factors whose (Haidt & Graham, 2007), we apply the theory to moral differences influence we lament, such as a candidate’s appearance (Ballew & across the political spectrum within the United States. We propose Todorov, 2007). In recent years increasing attention has been paid a simple hypothesis: Political liberals construct their moral sys- to the role of another class of non-self-interested concerns: morality. tems primarily upon two psychological foundations—Harm/care Voters who seem to vote against their material self-interest are and Fairness/reciprocity—whereas political conservatives con- sometimes said to be voting instead for their values, or for their struct moral systems more evenly upon five psychological foun- vision of a good society (Lakoff, 2004; Westen, 2007). However, dations—the same ones as liberals, plus Ingroup/loyalty, Author- the idea of what makes for a good society is not universally shared. ity/respect, and Purity/sanctity. We call this hypothesis the moral The “culture war” that has long marked American politics (Hunter, foundations hypothesis, and we present four studies that support it 1991) is a clash of visions about such fundamental moral issues as using four different methods. the authority of parents, the sanctity of life and marriage, and the proper response to social inequalities. Ideological commitments Liberals and Conservatives Political views are multifaceted, but a single liberal– Jesse Graham, Jonathan Haidt, and Brian A. Nosek, Department of conservative (or left–right) continuum is a useful approximation Psychology, University of Virginia. that has predictive validity for voting behavior and opinions on a We thank Mark Berry for creating the supplemental text analysis pro- wide range of issues (Jost, 2006). In terms of political philosophy, gram used in Study 4 and thank Yoav Bar-Anan, Pete Ditto, Ravi Iyer, the essential element of all forms of liberalism is individual liberty Selin Kesebir, Sena Koleva, Allison Meade, Katarina Nguyen, Eric Oliver, (Gutmann, 2001). Liberals have historically taken an optimistic Shige Oishi, Colin Tucker Smith, and Tim Wilson for helpful comments on view of human nature and of human perfectibility; they hold what earlier drafts. This research was supported by Institute for Education Sowell (2002) calls an “unconstrained vision” in which people Sciences and Jacob Javits fellowships and a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (R01 MH68447). Supplemental information and should be left as free as possible to pursue their own courses of analyses can be found at www.moralfoundations.org. personal development. Conservatism, in contrast, is best under- Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jesse stood as a “positional ideology,” a reaction to the challenges to Graham, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, P.O. Box authority and institutions that are so often mounted by liberals 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904. E-mail: [email protected] (Muller, 1997). Conservatives have traditionally taken a more Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2009, Vol. 96, No. 5, 1029–1046 © 2009 American Psychological Association 0022-3514/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0015141 1029 1030 GRAHAM, HAIDT, AND NOSEK pessimistic view of human nature, believing that people are inher- to suppress selfishness by protecting individuals directly (often using ently selfish and imperfectible. They therefore hold what Sowell the legal system) and by teaching individuals to respect the rights of called a “constrained vision” in which people need the constraints other individuals. This individualizing approach focuses on individu- of authority, institutions, and traditions to live civilly with each als as the locus of moral value. Other cultures try to suppress selfish- other. ness by strengthening groups and institutions and by binding individ- In terms of their personalities, liberals and conservatives have long uals into roles and duties in order to constrain their imperfect natures. been said to differ in ways that correspond to their conflicting visions. This binding approach focuses on the group as the locus of moral Liberals on average are more open to experience, more inclined to value. seek out change and novelty both personally and politically (McCrae, The individualizing–binding distinction does not necessarily cor- 1996). Conservatives, in contrast, have a stronger preference for respond to a left-wing versus right-wing distinction for all groups and things that are familiar, stable, and predictable (Jost, Nosek, & Gos- in all societies. The political left has sometimes been associated with ling, 2008; McCrae, 1996). Conservatives—at least, the subset prone socialism and communism, positions that privilege the welfare of the to authoritarianism—also show a stronger emotional sensitivity to group over the rights of the individual and that have at times severely threats to the social order, which motivates them to limit liberties in limited individual liberty. Conversely, the political right includes defense of that order (Altemeyer, 1996; McCann, 2008; Stenner, libertarians and “laissez-faire” conservatives who prize individual 2005). Jost, Glaser, Sulloway, and Kruglanski (2003) concluded from liberty as essential to the functioning of the free market (Boaz, 1997). a meta-analysis of this literature that the two core aspects of conser- We therefore do not think of political ideology—or morality—as a vative ideology are resistance to change and acceptance of inequality. strictly one-dimensional spectrum. In fact, we consider it a strength of How can these various but complementary depictions of ideological moral foundations theory that it allows people and ideologies to be and personality differences be translated into specific predictions characterized along five dimensions. Nonetheless, we expect that the about moral differences? First, we must examine and revise the individualizing–binding distinction can account for substantial varia- definition of the moral domain. tion in the moral concerns of the political left and right, especially in the United States, and that it illuminates disagreements underlying Expanding the Moral Domain many “culture war” issues. The consensus view in moral psychology has been that morality Moral Foundations Theory is first and foremost about protecting individuals. The most cited definition comes from Turiel (1983, p. 3), who defined the moral Several theorists have attempted to reduce the panoply of human domain as “prescriptive judgments of justice, rights, and welfare values to a manageable set of constructs or dimensions. The two pertaining to how people ought to relate to each other.” Turiel most prominent values researchers (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, (2006) explicitly grounded this definition in the tradition of liberal 1992) measured a wide variety of possible values and aggregated political theory from Kant through John Stuart Mill to John Rawls. them through factor analysis to define a smaller set of core values. Nearly all research in moral psychology, whether carried out using Schwartz (1992) and Rokeach (1973) both justified their lists by interviews, fMRI, or dilemmas about stolen medicine and runaway pointing to the fundamental social and biological needs of human trolleys, has been limited to issues of justice, rights, and welfare. beings. When morality is equated with the protection of individuals, the Moral foundations theory (Haidt & Graham, 2007; Haidt & Joseph, central concerns of conservatives—and of people in many non- 2004) also tries to reduce the panoply
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Moral Presentation of Self: Causes and Consequences of Perceptions of Politicians' Character Traits Scott Clifford
    Florida State University Libraries Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School 2013 The Moral Presentation of Self: Causes and Consequences of Perceptions of Politicians' Character Traits Scott Clifford Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected] THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY THE MORAL PRESENTATION OF SELF: CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF PERCEPTIONS OF POLITICIANS’ CHARACTER TRAITS By SCOTT CLIFFORD A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Degree Awarded: Spring Semester, 2013 Scott Clifford defended this dissertation on March 27, 2013. The members of the supervisory committee were: Jennifer Jerit Professor Directing Dissertation Art Raney University Representative Jason Barabas Committee Member Brad Gomez Committee Member The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members, and certifies that the dissertation has been approved in accordance with university requirements. ii This dissertation is dedicated to Kirsti for her unwavering care and support. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to Jennifer Jerit for all of her help and support. It is difficult to imagine an advisor that has devoted more time and energy to her graduate students. She has been endlessly supportive and I would not have come this far without her help. I would also like to thank Jason Barabas and Brad Gomez for all of their help and encouragement throughout the program. Finally, I would like to thank everyone in the FSU Department of Political Science, who created a fun and supportive environment and made a huge contribution to my professional development.
    [Show full text]
  • DOI: 10.1126/Science.1137651 , 998 (2007); 316 Science Jonathan
    The New Synthesis in Moral Psychology Jonathan Haidt Science 316, 998 (2007); DOI: 10.1126/science.1137651 This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. If you wish to distribute this article to others, you can order high-quality copies for your colleagues, clients, or customers by clicking here. Permission to republish or repurpose articles or portions of articles can be obtained by following the guidelines here. The following resources related to this article are available online at www.sciencemag.org (this infomation is current as of February 15, 2012 ): Updated information and services, including high-resolution figures, can be found in the online version of this article at: on February 15, 2012 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html Supporting Online Material can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2007/05/15/316.5827.998.DC1.html A list of selected additional articles on the Science Web sites related to this article can be found at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html#related This article has been cited by 84 article(s) on the ISI Web of Science www.sciencemag.org This article has been cited by 35 articles hosted by HighWire Press; see: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/5827/998.full.html#related-urls This article appears in the following subject collections: Psychology http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/collection/psychology Downloaded from Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published weekly, except the last week in December, by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005.
    [Show full text]
  • Shifting Liberal and Conservative Attitudes Using Moral Foundations
    PSPXXX10.1177/0146167214551152Personality and Social Psychology BulletinDay et al. 551152research-article2014 Article Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Shifting Liberal and Conservative 1 –15 © 2014 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc Attitudes Using Moral Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Foundations Theory DOI: 10.1177/0146167214551152 pspb.sagepub.com Martin V. Day1, Susan T. Fiske1, Emily L. Downing2, and Thomas E. Trail3 Abstract People’s social and political opinions are grounded in their moral concerns about right and wrong. We examine whether five moral foundations—harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity—can influence political attitudes of liberals and conservatives across a variety of issues. Framing issues using moral foundations may change political attitudes in at least two possible ways: (a) Entrenching: Relevant moral foundations will strengthen existing political attitudes when framing pro-attitudinal issues (e.g., conservatives exposed to a free-market economic stance) and (b) Persuasion: Mere presence of relevant moral foundations may also alter political attitudes in counter-attitudinal directions (e.g., conservatives exposed to an economic regulation stance). Studies 1 and 2 support the entrenching hypothesis. Relevant moral foundation-based frames bolstered political attitudes for conservatives (Study 1) and liberals (Study 2). Only Study 2 partially supports the persuasion hypothesis. Conservative-relevant moral frames of liberal issues increased conservatives’ liberal attitudes. Keywords morality, moral foundations, ideology, attitudes, politics Received July 1, 2013; revision accepted August 19, 2014 Our daily lives are steeped in political content, including 2012). Understanding the effectiveness of morally based many attempts to alter our attitudes. These efforts stem from framing may be consequential not only for politics but also a variety of sources, such as political campaigns, presidential for better understanding of everyday shifts in other opinions.
    [Show full text]
  • Authority, Authoritarianism, and Education
    "Hybrid with Projection #1 by Susan Hetmannsperger 17 Authority, Authoritarianism, and Education Bruce Romanish The achievement of political freedom in a democratic produced populations desirous of and supportive of such system results from the conscious plans and actions of a political leadership since various environmental causes are human community. Once political freedom is identified as as significant in explaining authoritarianism as are psycho- an aim, the true task inheres in developing social structures logical predispositions.1 This issue has been addressed as and institutional frameworks which create, nurture, and well in terms of personality development, family influences, sustain that end. These structures and frameworks themselves and from the standpoint of the effects of religions and are in need of care and support if the democracy they nourish religious movements, but scant attention has been paid to the is not to wither and atrophy from neglect. Yet desiring politi- school's role as a shaper of patterns of belief, conduct, and cal freedom, accomplishing it, and maintaining it do not come ways of thinking in relationship to authoritarianism. with instructions. Modern history provides many examples If schools exhibit democratic characteristics, that may of societies that lost their way and slipped into the darkness reflect democratic features of the larger social order or the and despair of political oppression. schools are making a contribution to society's movement in This essay examines the concept of authoritarianism and that direction. Conversely, an authoritarian experience in the ways it is reflected and fostered in school life and school school life suggests either a broader cultural authoritarianism structure.
    [Show full text]
  • MORALITY in IRAN 1 in Press, Evolution and Human Behavior
    MORALITY IN IRAN 1 In press, Evolution and Human Behavior https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2020.07.014 Foundations of Morality in Iran Mohammad Atari1, Jesse Graham2, Morteza Dehghani1,3 1Department of Psychology, University of Southern California 2Department of Management, David Eccles School of Business, University of Utah 3Department of Computer Science, University of Southern California Author Note Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Mohammad Atari, [email protected], 362 S. McClintock Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90089-161 MORALITY IN IRAN 2 Abstract Most moral psychology research has been conducted in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. As such, moral judgment, as a psychological phenomenon, might be known to researchers only by its WEIRD manifestations. Here, we start with evaluating Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) using the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, and follow up by building a bottom-up model of moral values, in Iran, a non-WEIRD, Muslim-majority, understudied cultural setting. In six studies (N = 1,945) we examine the structural validity of the Persian translation of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, compare moral foundations between Iran and the US, conduct qualitative interviews regarding moral values, expand the nomological network of “Qeirat” as a culture-specific set of moral values, and investigate the pragmatic validity of “Qeirat” in Iranian culture. Our findings suggest an additional moral foundation in Iran, above and beyond the five foundations identified by MFT. Specifically, qualitative studies highlighted the role of “Qeirat” values in Iranian culture, which are comprised of guarding and protectiveness of female kin, romantic partners, broader family, and country.
    [Show full text]
  • Gene-Culture Coevolution, Group Selection, and the Evolution of Cooperation
    EC_2018_A12 Gene-Culture coevolution, group selection, and the evolution of Cooperation The Evolution of Cooperation How can altruism / cooperation evolve? 1 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection "although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe (...) an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another.” (C. Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871) Levels of Selection Individuals (“basic” [Neo]Darwinism) Genes (“Selfish-gene” Sociobiology) Groups? Multilevel selection? Higher-level adaptations? Genetic Group Selection? “Naïve group selectionism”: The probability of survival of individual living things, or of populations, increases with the degree with which they harmoniously adjust themselves to each other and to their environment. This principle is basic to the concept of the balance of nature, orders the subject matter of ecology and evolution, underlies organismic and developmental biology, and is the foundation for all sociology. (Allee et al. 1949) “The good of the species” (Wynne-Edwards) 2 EC_2018_A12 Levels of Selection Migration, genetic drift, etc: Intergroup effects weaker than intragroup, interindividual selection. Intra x intergroup differences X Wilson DS & Wilson EO (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology Multi-level selection/ limits in kin selection theory/ “major transitions” Eusociality: Kin Selection X Individual selection + preadaptations. (communal nests) Nowak, Tarnita & Wilson, “The Evolution of Eusociality”, Nature 2010 (X Abbot et al [+100!], Nature 2011) “Major Transitions” in Evolution Maynard Smith & Szathmáry 1997 “Apart from the evolution of the genetic code, all these transitions involve the coming together of previously independent replicators, to cooperate in a higher-level assembly that reproduces as a single unit.” 3 EC_2018_A12 Natural selection & the evolution of cooperation Cooperation is needed for evolution to construct new levels of organization.
    [Show full text]
  • THE RISE of COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A
    Elections Without Democracy THE RISE OF COMPETITIVE AUTHORITARIANISM Steven Levitsky and Lucan A. Way Steven Levitsky is assistant professor of government and social studies at Harvard University. His Transforming Labor-Based Parties in Latin America is forthcoming from Cambridge University Press. Lucan A. Way is assistant professor of political science at Temple University and an academy scholar at the Academy for International and Area Studies at Harvard University. He is currently writing a book on the obstacles to authoritarian consolidation in the former Soviet Union. The post–Cold War world has been marked by the proliferation of hy- brid political regimes. In different ways, and to varying degrees, polities across much of Africa (Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbab- we), postcommunist Eurasia (Albania, Croatia, Russia, Serbia, Ukraine), Asia (Malaysia, Taiwan), and Latin America (Haiti, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru) combined democratic rules with authoritarian governance during the 1990s. Scholars often treated these regimes as incomplete or transi- tional forms of democracy. Yet in many cases these expectations (or hopes) proved overly optimistic. Particularly in Africa and the former Soviet Union, many regimes have either remained hybrid or moved in an authoritarian direction. It may therefore be time to stop thinking of these cases in terms of transitions to democracy and to begin thinking about the specific types of regimes they actually are. In recent years, many scholars have pointed to the importance of hybrid regimes. Indeed, recent academic writings have produced a vari- ety of labels for mixed cases, including not only “hybrid regime” but also “semidemocracy,” “virtual democracy,” “electoral democracy,” “pseudodemocracy,” “illiberal democracy,” “semi-authoritarianism,” “soft authoritarianism,” “electoral authoritarianism,” and Freedom House’s “Partly Free.”1 Yet much of this literature suffers from two important weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognitive and Cultural Foundations of Moral Behavior T Benjamin Grant Purzyckia,*, Anne C
    Evolution and Human Behavior 39 (2018) 490–501 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Evolution and Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ens The cognitive and cultural foundations of moral behavior T Benjamin Grant Purzyckia,*, Anne C. Pisora, Coren Apicellab, Quentin Atkinsonc,d, Emma Cohene,f, Joseph Henrichg, Richard McElreatha, Rita A. McNamarah, Ara Norenzayani, Aiyana K. Willarde, Dimitris Xygalatasj a Department of Human Behavior, Ecology, and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany b Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, USA c Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, New Zealand d Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Germany e Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, UK f Wadham College, University of Oxford, UK g Department of Human Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, USA h School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand i Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Canada j Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, USA ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Does moral culture contribute to the evolution of cooperation? Here, we examine individuals' and communities' Morality models of what it means to be good and bad and how they correspond to corollary behavior across a variety of Cross-cultural ethnography socioecological contexts. Our sample includes over 600 people from eight different field sites that include for- Cognitive anthropology agers, horticulturalists, herders, and the fully market-reliant. We first examine the universals and particulars of Evolution of cooperation explicit moral models. We then use these moral models to assess their role in the outcome of an economic experiment designed to detect systematic, dishonest rule-breaking favoritism.
    [Show full text]
  • How People Think About Fairness and Why It Matters for Equitable Budgets
    How People Think About Fairness and Why It Matters for Equitable Budgets Jason Lakin May 2019 1. BACKGROUND Ideas about justice, fairness, altruism, and redistribution are at the core of the work we do around government budgets at the International Budget Partnership. Along with other global and national civil society organizations, we believe that tax and expenditure policies should allow everyone, and not just the rich, the opportunity to lead a dignified life. Yet the progressive policies necessary to yield such an outcome are perpetually contested and achieving them depends on significant support from the public. It is a foundational assumption of this paper that building support among a broader public for progressive policies is one among several important facilitating conditions for reform. Support for redistributive policies is partly kindled by self-interest – e.g., we might expect that it will come from those below the median in income (or wealth) who will benefit the most – but, in most cases, self-interest is not enough to motivate widespread support for redistribution. This is because either (1) the intended beneficiaries do not constitute a majority of the population, (2) despite constituting a majority, the beneficiaries do not support these policies for other reasons, or (3) even when the beneficiaries are a majority, the alliances needed to introduce and maintain these policies require support from smaller groups who have disproportionate power and influence over the political system and will not directly benefit from them. Thus, creating a moral case for fair budget policies – one that can galvanize a broad coalition – is integral to achieving progress.
    [Show full text]
  • What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa
    What Disgust Does and Does Not Do for Moral Cognition Jared Piazzaa, Justin F. Landyb, Alek Chakroffc Liane Youngd, Emily Wassermand a Lancaster University, Department of Psychology b University of Chicago Booth School of Business cCharlie Finance Co., San Francisco, CA dBoston College, Psychology Department 2 1. Introduction Disgust is typically characterized as a negative emotion associated with the rejection of distasteful or contaminating objects (Rozin and Fallon 1987). The physiological aspects of disgust involve nausea and loss of appetite, and the bodily expression of disgust includes behaviors (e.g., gagging, vomiting) designed to orally block or expel noxious substances (Ekman and Friesen 1971; Royzman, Leeman and Sabini 2008; Rozin, Haidt and McCauley 2008; Yoder, Widen and Russell 2016). The canonical elicitors of disgust are well documented: many people report feeling nauseous or sick at the sight or smell of oral contaminants (e.g., rotten food, bodily waste) and/or disease vectors (e.g., blood, skin maladies, sexual fluids, certain animals; Curtis, Aunger and Rabie, 2004; Haidt, McCauley and Rozin, 1994; Olatunji et al. 2007). It is uncontroversial that disgust can also be evoked in the context of a moral offense. What remains controversial is disgust’s role or relevance within a moral context. When Armin Meiwes, the Rotenburg Cannibal, was discovered to have eaten the severed penis of his voluntary victim, before killing him and consuming his flesh over the next ten months, the story of this crime undoubtedly aroused disgust (and horror) in many of us. The relevant question is not whether we felt disgust about this crime—for most of us, human penis is not on the menu, and the thought of Meiwes’ preferred cuisine is deeply distasteful.
    [Show full text]
  • Moral Judgment of Disparagement Humor
    Humor 2019; 32(4): 619–641 Karolina Koszałkowska* and Monika Wróbel Moral judgment of disparagement humor https://doi.org/10.1515/humor-2018-0023 Abstract: The aim of the present study was to analyze the link between the five moral codes proposed in the Moral Foundations Theory and moral judgment of disparage- ment humor. We presented racist, sexist, homophobic, religion-disparaging and neutral jokes to a group of 108 participants, asking them whether they found laughing at a particular joke moral or immoral. Additionally, participants rated the level of amusement and disgust evoked by each joke. We also measured participants’ moral foundations profiles (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity). The results confirmed that Care and Fairness were significantly linked to moral judgment of racist, sexist and homophobic jokes, whereas Loyalty, Authority and Sanctity were associated with moral judgment of religion-disparaging jokes. Moreover, these relationships were mediated by emotional responses of amusement and disgust (except for racist jokes, for which we observed no mediating role of amusement). Keywords: disparagement humor, Moral Foundations Theory, moral judgment, amusement, disgust 1 Introduction Disparagement humor elicits amusement through the denigration, derogation, humiliation, victimization, or belittlement of individuals, social groups or ideol- ogies (Ferguson and Ford 2008; Zillmann 1983). Typical examples of such humor can be found in sexist, racist and anti-gay (homophobic) jokes (e.g. Ford and Ferguson 2004; Kochersberger et al. 2014; O’Connor et al. 2017). The use of disparagement humor is often justified by the simple “only joking” catchphrase (Johnson 1990), and is therefore not perceived as a wrongdoing. Studies suggest, however, that telling jokes that disparage a certain social group *Corresponding author: Karolina Koszałkowska, Institute of Psychology, University of Lodz, ul.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Philosophy
    An Introduction to Philosophy W. Russ Payne Bellevue College Copyright (cc by nc 4.0) 2015 W. Russ Payne Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document with attribution under the terms of Creative Commons: Attribution Noncommercial 4.0 International or any later version of this license. A copy of the license is found at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ 1 Contents Introduction ………………………………………………. 3 Chapter 1: What Philosophy Is ………………………….. 5 Chapter 2: How to do Philosophy ………………….……. 11 Chapter 3: Ancient Philosophy ………………….………. 23 Chapter 4: Rationalism ………….………………….……. 38 Chapter 5: Empiricism …………………………………… 50 Chapter 6: Philosophy of Science ………………….…..… 58 Chapter 7: Philosophy of Mind …………………….……. 72 Chapter 8: Love and Happiness …………………….……. 79 Chapter 9: Meta Ethics …………………………………… 94 Chapter 10: Right Action ……………………...…………. 108 Chapter 11: Social Justice …………………………...…… 120 2 Introduction The goal of this text is to present philosophy to newcomers as a living discipline with historical roots. While a few early chapters are historically organized, my goal in the historical chapters is to trace a developmental progression of thought that introduces basic philosophical methods and frames issues that remain relevant today. Later chapters are topically organized. These include philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, areas where philosophy has shown dramatic recent progress. This text concludes with four chapters on ethics, broadly construed. I cover traditional theories of right action in the third of these. Students are first invited first to think about what is good for themselves and their relationships in a chapter of love and happiness. Next a few meta-ethical issues are considered; namely, whether they are moral truths and if so what makes them so.
    [Show full text]