Moral & political differences Flashcards
Morality= (2 definitions)
- specific codes of conduct endorsed by society/group (societal morality)
- personal moral code which, in principle, (if not always practice), determines behaviour (personal morality
Moral development: Lawrence Kohlberg, 1958> summary (3)
> 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”
Moral development: Lawrence Kohlberg, 1958> method & takeaway> (3)
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)
Stages of moral development (Piaget)>
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
what % of adults reach stage 5/6 of moral development?
10-15%
stages of moral development: (1) preconventional morality (3)
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”
stages of moral development: (2) conventional morality> (4)
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)
stages of moral development: (3) post-conventional morality (2) + (2)
- 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
stages of moral development: (5) social contract & individual rights
tension between general laws & specific cases
Piaget’s stages of moral development: (6) universal principles
- development of OWN moral guidelines & prepared to act/defend even if may be in conflict with society
Study limitations of Kohlberg: (3)
- 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)
Moral Development theory: limitations> (2)
- 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
Moral foundations theory> Aim & assumption>
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)
Universal moral domains> (5)
- care/harm:
- fairness/cheating
- Loyalty/ betrayal
- Authority/subversion
- Sanctity/degradation
Universal moral domains> 1. care/harm
> 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)
Universal moral domains> 2. Fairness/cheating
> 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
Universal moral domains> (3) loyalty/ betrayal
- 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
Universal moral domains> (4) Authority/subversion
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”
Universal moral domains> 5. Sanctity/degradation
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)
Universal moral domains> sixth domain? (Graham et al, 2012)
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)
MFT: supporting evidence> MFT & individual differences (Graham, 2009)> liberals vs conservatives ‘moral ideas’
- found liberals & conservatives endorse different moral domains
>liberals= strong endorsement for: care/harm; fairness/cheating
>conservatives= higher endorsement across= all 5 & especially authority & sanctity
MFT: supporting evidence> MFT & Culture war> (Koleva et al, 2012)
- 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
MFT & big 5> High Openness>
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)
Moral foundations theory> criticism> (3)
- 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)
Politics & personality>
are political viewpoints extension of personality?
Political differences & big 5>
- conscientiousness & right wing
- openness & left wing
- extraversion & agreeableness (conflicting evidence)
- neuroticism= no correlation
Eysenck- 5 factor model critique>
- just primary traits (i.e. his PEN model) divided into sub-components
- not based on an underlying theory
Eysenck- Alternate proposition for 5 factor model
proposed needed to be based on theory & proposed his 2 factor theory
1. radicalism-conservatism dimension
2. Tough-minded vs tender-minded continuum
Eysenck-2 factor model> critique
- 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)
Political difference & personality> Super-k-factor>
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
Big 5 & RWA >
-high openness moderates RWA in a threat to society context
- conscientiousness: correlated to RWA
Right wing Authoritarianism (RWA)=
idea to punish those in ‘out-group’/ those who disagree with them
- & endorse ‘in-group’ authority figures
Authoritarianism & Dark triad:
- psychopathy, narcissim & machiavellianism: predict alt-right authoritarianism
- psychopathy= predicted RWA
Cultural norms & RWA
High RWA endorsers follow cultural norms of society (i.e. less prejudiced in high tolerant societies)
Left wing authoritarianism (LWA)=
authoritarianism on progressive ideals (anti-sexism, pro-environment)
individual differences & LWA
- 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
