The Mediating Role of Moral Absolutism Between the "Binding Moral Foundations" and Sexist Attitudes: A Path That May Lead to Intimate Partner Violence.

The binding foundations (loyalty, authority, and purity) constitute adaptive mechanisms for preserving groups' interests. However, they have also been related to intergroup prejudice and violence. We show that the known relationship between the binding foundations and sexist attitudes is mediated by moral absolutism, a variable that reflects the degree to which people believe that their own definition of morality is objectively correct. Two different samples are used: a conventional one (Study 1, N = 321), and a forensic one at the beginning (T1) and at the end (T2) of court-mandated psychological therapy (Study 2, N = 354; N = 327).

Child-to-Parent Violence and Dating Violence Through the Moral Foundations Theory: Same or Different Moral Roots?

The objective of this study is to explore and to verify the utility of the five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity) to differentiate between two understudied groups, namely, young offenders who use violence against their parents or dating partners, as well as to predict the extent to which these young people justify violence and perceive themselves as aggressive. Although both types of violence imply, by definition, harming someone (low care) and adopting a position of authority (high authority), we hypothesize a very different role for at least these two moral foundations. Our results support this idea and show a much lower regard for the five moral foundations, including care and authority, in the child-to-parent violence group (CPV; N = 65) than in the dating violence group (DV; N = 69). Additionally, the authority foundation was able to increase the effectiveness of correctly classifying the participants in one group or the other by 29%. Finally, care and authority, along with fairness, served to predict justification of violence and self-perceived aggressiveness. The moral foundations approach provides preliminary evidence to better understand two specific types of youth violence and extract preventive educational and treatment strategies.

Relationships between Ambivalent Sexism and the Five Moral Foundations in Domestic Violence: Is it a Matter of Fairness and Authority?

Ambivalent sexism has served to justify and maintain patriarchy and traditional gender roles characterized by inequality and male domination in the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature; according to the Moral Foundation Theory (MFT) there are two specific moral foundations related to inequality and domination: fairness and authority. We connect these separate fields arguing that sexist attitudes can be related to specific patterns of endorsement of the five moral foundations. Our hypothesis is that ambivalent sexism in men convicted of violence against the partner may be rooted in at least these two moral foundations, and that at least these two moral foundations may also serve to predict intention to change the violent behavior against the partner. Controlling for political orientation, the results show that benevolent sexism correlates positively with the authority foundation; and hostile sexism correlates negatively with the fairness foundation. Both foundations contribute to explaining the two dimensions of ambivalent sexism (benevolent and hostile) and only the fairness foundation predict intention to change the violent behavior against the partner. New treatment approaches could be designed to increase moral concerns about fairness and to reduce moral concerns about authority in people who, at least, have once used violence against their partners.