Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psych116-personality and individual difference > Moral & political differences > Flashcards

Moral & political differences Flashcards

1
Q

Morality= (2 definitions)

A
  1. specific codes of conduct endorsed by society/group (societal morality)
  2. personal moral code which, in principle, (if not always practice), determines behaviour (personal morality
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Moral development: Lawrence Kohlberg, 1958> summary (3)

A

> presented a series of moral dilemmas to children of different ages
- Dilemmas based on & to test Piaget’s theory of moral development
- focus on discovering “universal moral principles”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Moral development: Lawrence Kohlberg, 1958> method & takeaway> (3)

A

N=72, age 10-16, cross-sectional study
- moral dilemmas included famous rail dilemma
- differed from piaget & argued for “constructivist idea” (discover as go along)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Stages of moral development (Piaget)>

A

Stage 1= pre-conventional morality (3-7yrs)
stage 2= conventional morality (8-13 yrs)
stage 3= post-conventional morality (ages 14>adult)

> 10-15% adults»
stage 5= social contract & individual rights
stage 6= universal principles

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what % of adults reach stage 5/6 of moral development?

A

10-15%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

stages of moral development: (1) preconventional morality (3)

A

part 1:
- no personal moral code
- morality determined by actions of adults (e.g. action that is punished=bad) (punishment-reward)
part 2:
- knowledge that different authority figures have differing views on “right & wrong”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

stages of moral development: (2) conventional morality> (4)

A

part 1:
-internalise moral standards of valued adult role models
-allows individual to navigate their social networks
part 2:
- behaves well to be seen as ‘good person’ by others
part 3:
- increased awareness of wider social rules (laws, expectations of society)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

stages of moral development: (3) post-conventional morality (2) + (2)

A
  • understanding of ABSTRACT, universal ethical principles
  • must include understanding of following:
    1> preservation of human life at all costs (some
    disagree)
    2> importance of human dignity
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

stages of moral development: (5) social contract & individual rights

A

tension between general laws & specific cases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Piaget’s stages of moral development: (6) universal principles

A
  • development of OWN moral guidelines & prepared to act/defend even if may be in conflict with society
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Study limitations of Kohlberg: (3)

A
  • importance of dilemma to participants (will 10yr olds care about Heinz’s dilemma?)
  • biased sample: only males (what about socialisation differences of girls?)
  • hypothetical dilemmas: (lack any real world consequences)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Moral Development theory: limitations> (2)

A
  • stages of development are not always consistent (individuals found to revert to previous depending on dilemma)
  • incremental progress: not always evidence of linear progression through stages
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Moral foundations theory> Aim & assumption>

A

Aim: understand why liberals & conservatives diverges so much on certain political/moral issues
Assumption: intuition first, strategic reasoning second (e.g. predispositions for certain moral endorsements)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Universal moral domains> (5)

A
  1. care/harm:
  2. fairness/cheating
  3. Loyalty/ betrayal
  4. Authority/subversion
  5. Sanctity/degradation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Universal moral domains> 1. care/harm

A

> ability to empathise with pain of others
moral focus:
- (a) individual suffering
- (b) support for low status/vulnerable individuals
liberals= often includes ‘out-group’ (e.g. refugees)
conservatives= usually care more for “in-group (e.g. military personel)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Universal moral domains> 2. Fairness/cheating

A

> reciprocal altruism is important for human relations
moral focus:
-proportionality is important to ensure some people dont cheat others

> liberals: taxing wealthy proportionate to income)
conservative: citizens “getting back what they put in” from society

17
Q

Universal moral domains> (3) loyalty/ betrayal

A
  • prioritising needs of group over one’s own
  • moral focus: group loyalty

> liberals: focus on loyalty to a progressive political cause
conservatives: focus on loyalty to one’s nation

18
Q

Universal moral domains> (4) Authority/subversion

A

idea recognising legitimate authority & tradition
>moral focus: showing due respect for hierarchical structures & traditional values

> liberals: social justice movements> “S”(trying to change hierarchy)
Conservatives: role of monarchy> “A”

19
Q

Universal moral domains> 5. Sanctity/degradation

A

Acts or behaviours which are perceived to violate humanity or sacred objects
>moral focus: avoiding (& encouraging others to avoid) behaviours or ideas which evoke disgust or repulsion

> liberals: not applicable
conservatives: burning a national flag, destroying a holy text, sexual acts outside of “typical contexts” (subjective)

20
Q

Universal moral domains> sixth domain? (Graham et al, 2012)

A

Liberty/oppression
- intuitive resentment towards oppressive forces (bullying, restricting liberty)
>moral focus:
-resisting forces which are suppressive (highly subjective)

> liberals: limits on freedom of expressiion
conservatives: government policy which limits personal financial freedom (i.e increased tax rate)

21
Q

MFT: supporting evidence> MFT & individual differences (Graham, 2009)> liberals vs conservatives ‘moral ideas’

A
  • found liberals & conservatives endorse different moral domains
    >liberals= strong endorsement for: care/harm; fairness/cheating
    >conservatives= higher endorsement across= all 5 & especially authority & sanctity
22
Q

MFT: supporting evidence> MFT & Culture war> (Koleva et al, 2012)

A
  • MFT predicted support for culture war issues:
    >high care/harm= disapproval for death penalty & animal welfare violations
    >high sanctity/degradation= disapproval for abortion, casual sex, birth outside wedlock
    >environmental attitudes= authority endorsement has negative relationship with pro-environment attitudes
23
Q

MFT & big 5> High Openness>

A

High openness:
- predicted endorsement for the individualising foundations (care & fairness) [WEIRD study]
- no relationship with openness & individualising foundations [non-WEIRD study]
- thus, MFT& FFM not cross-culturally stable= culture’s level of “WEIRDness” moderates relationship (Alper & Yilmaz, 2019)

24
Q

Moral foundations theory> criticism> (3)

A
  • cultural bias towards WEIRD
  • lack of biological basis for foundations (e.g. disgust mechanism for sanctity/degradation)
  • doesn’t cover all political ideologies (e.g. libertarians, anarchists)
25
Q

Politics & personality>

A

are political viewpoints extension of personality?

26
Q

Political differences & big 5>

A
  • conscientiousness & right wing
  • openness & left wing
  • extraversion & agreeableness (conflicting evidence)
  • neuroticism= no correlation
27
Q

Eysenck- 5 factor model critique>

A
  • just primary traits (i.e. his PEN model) divided into sub-components
  • not based on an underlying theory
28
Q

Eysenck- Alternate proposition for 5 factor model

A

proposed needed to be based on theory & proposed his 2 factor theory
1. radicalism-conservatism dimension
2. Tough-minded vs tender-minded continuum

29
Q

Eysenck-2 factor model> critique

A
  • lack of evidence (no values found to load onto tough-tender minded continuum)
  • lack of individual variation (tough-tender doesnt align with extraversion/ psychoticism of own model)
  • eysenck’s political agenda= assumption about political ideolgies manifest in descriptions on continuum (& he was actively against authoritarianism)
30
Q

Political difference & personality> Super-k-factor>

A

finding that the big 5 are just a single GENERAl factor
>big 5 is as is due to:
- social desirability (e.g. want to be ‘open’)
- language limitations (defining traits)
- socialisation

31
Q

Big 5 & RWA >

A

-high openness moderates RWA in a threat to society context
- conscientiousness: correlated to RWA

32
Q

Right wing Authoritarianism (RWA)=

A

idea to punish those in ‘out-group’/ those who disagree with them
- & endorse ‘in-group’ authority figures

33
Q

Authoritarianism & Dark triad:

A
  • psychopathy, narcissim & machiavellianism: predict alt-right authoritarianism
  • psychopathy= predicted RWA
34
Q

Cultural norms & RWA

A

High RWA endorsers follow cultural norms of society (i.e. less prejudiced in high tolerant societies)

35
Q

Left wing authoritarianism (LWA)=

A

authoritarianism on progressive ideals (anti-sexism, pro-environment)

36
Q

individual differences & LWA

A
  • Dark triad:
    >found narcissim predicted endorsement of violence to achieve political aims
  • Covid context:
    >LWA positively predicted endorsement of authoritarianism policies for covid related breeches (e.g. trial without jury)
  • RWA/LWA distinctions:
    >LWA endorsers lower in dogmatism & cognitive rigidity when compared to RWA

Psych116-personality and individual difference (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions