Rape or Homicide: Which Is Worse?

Some people believe rape is just as serious as homicide, or more serious, contrary to law. We examined the prevalence of this belief and whether it reflects an individual's political ideology and moral foundations. Analyses were based on a national YouGov survey of 1,125 US adults gathered in 2021. We found that only 26% of respondents believed rape was less serious than homicide. Most (61%) believed rape and homicide were equally serious, while 13% believed rape was more serious. Social progressives (particularly progressive women) were more likely than social conservatives to view rape as more serious or just as serious as homicide. However, this tendency was partially offset by the tendency of social progressives to view harm as a key factor in judging the morality of a behavior. We suggest that social progressives view rape more seriously than social conservatives because of their concern for gender inequality, but this concern is partially offset by their concern with harm.

Moral foundations and juror verdict justifications.

The purpose of this study was to examine the ways in which mock jurors justified their verdict decisions using moral foundations language. Participants read a trial transcript describing a second-degree murder charge featuring an automatism plea (which negates the physical volition of a crime). They then provided a two-to-three sentence rationale for their verdict choice, which we coded for the contextually-valid presence of words from the Moral Foundations (MF) Dictionary. Mock jurors were most likely to use harm-related language in justifying murder votes. A qualitative description also revealed differences in the content of the justifications.

Examining the role of moral foundations in promoting intergroup contact willingness.

Improving people's motivation to seek meaningful intergroup contact is considered key to facilitating intergroup harmony. Based on moral foundations theory, this study examines how moral foundations as individual traits predict contact willingness with three minority groups (foreign domestic helpers, LGBT, and Chinese expats) and how moral emotions mediate such associations. We tested our hypotheses based on survey data across Hong Kong and Singapore. We found that care/harm foundation positively predicted contact willingness with foreign domestic helpers and LGBT people, mediated by compassion. Sanctity/degradation foundation negatively predicted contact willingness with LGBT people only in Singapore. Loyalty/betrayal foundation served as a positive predictor of willingness to contact Chinese expats. We also found care/harm foundation to be exclusively associated with compassion and promoted willingness to contact with helpers and LGBT people. Our findings highlight the influence of moral foundations, and possibly norms and intergroup dynamics at the societal level in predicting willingness to contact outgroups.

A Teoria dos Fundamentos Morais e as eleições presidenciais brasileiras em 2018 e 2022 / The Moral Foundations Theory and the Brazilian Presidential Elections in 2018 and 2022

A Teoria dos Fundamentos Morais postula que liberais e conservadores são orientados por fun-damentos morais distintos, o que pode ser usado como estratégia de persuasão política, bem como influenciar no comportamento de voto. No presente trabalho, realizamos quatro estudos. Os participantes responderam a um instrumento online composto pelo Questionário de Funda-mentos Morais, uma medida de intenção de votos e informaram dados demográficos. Nos estu-dos foram identificados que a tendência individualizante influenciou a intenção de votos a can-didatos de esquerda, enquanto a tendência coesiva influenciou a intenção para candidatos de direita nas eleições presidenciais de 2018 e 2022. Conclui-se que a TFM é um modelo robusto para compreensão de aspectos do comportamento político brasileiro. (AU)

The Moral Foundations Theory postulates that liberals and conservatives are guided by distinct moral foundations, which can be used as a strategy for political persuasion, as well as influ-encing voting behavior. In the present paper, we carried out four studies. Participants re-sponded to an online instrument composed of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire, their in-tention to vote, to assign the position to candidates for the presidency, and their demographic data. The studies identified that the individualizing foundations influenced the intention to vote for left-wing candidates, while the binding foundations influenced the intention to vote for right-wing candidates in Brazil's 2018 and 2022 presidential elections. Therefore, the MFT is a robust model for understanding aspects of Brazilian political behavior. (AU)

Status politics is the origin of morality policy.

After drawing a distinction between "class" and "status," an early but short-lived sociological literature on status politics is reviewed. That approach has lost favor, but moral foundations theory (MFT) offers a new opportunity to link morality policy to status politics. While any of the five moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity) can provoke conflict over status, most often sanctity is the cause of status politics because it engages the emotion of disgust. Disgust drives the behavioral immune system, which prevents us from being infected by contaminants in tainted food or by "outsiders" who are perceived to follow unconventional practices. This research note concludes by referencing 20 empirical studies in which feelings of disgust targeted certain groups or practices in society (i.e., immigrants, criminals, abortion). Thus, status politics is the origin of morality policy.

Do moral intuitions influence judges' sentencing decisions? A multilevel study of criminal court sentencing in Pennsylvania.

The influence of judges' personal moral values on their sentencing decisions is of longstanding interest to researchers and the public. Few studies, however, have examined this influence empirically. Using a unique data set that combines a survey of 81 criminal court judges with archival data on their 40,385 criminal sentences over a 2-year period, and drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, we hypothesize that judges with strong care and fairness intuitions will sentence defendants less severely while judges with strong loyalty, authority, and sanctity intuitions will sentence defendants more severely. We further hypothesize that these effects will be heightened when the defendant is from a racial minority group. Results show that sentencing outcomes are largely independent of judges' moral intuitions, except that fairness intuitions tend to increase leniency, especially when the defendant is Black, and sanctity intuitions tend to decrease leniency. Implications for future research on sentencing are discussed.

Moral foundations are better predictors of belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories than the Big Five personality traits.

Upon the sudden outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, various conspiracy theories regarding the virus proliferated in the social media. This study focused on the sociodemographic, personality, and moral predictors of these beliefs. More specifically, we asked whether moral values predict belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories over and above sociodemographic variables and the Big Five personality traits. According to Moral Foundations Theory, five cross-cultural moral foundations are more broadly categorized under individualizing (Care & Fairness) and binding (Loyalty, Authority, & Sanctity) foundations. A sixth moral foundation was Liberty which we included along with binding and individualizing foundations. Participants were 227 Iranians (mean age = 31.43, SD = 12.61, 75.3% female) who responded to Moral Foundations Questionnaire and Liberty items, a range of COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, and the 10-Item Personality Measure of the Big Five. Among demographic variables, religiosity and socioeconomic status were the strongest determinants of conspiracy beliefs regarding the origin of Coronavirus. Among the Big Five, only extraversion predicted these beliefs in a positive direction. Moral foundations, most notably Authority and Sanctity, showed incremental predictive power over both demographic variables and the Big Five personality traits. Findings are discussed in light of the role of social media in dissemination of conspiracy beliefs regarding the pandemic. They point to the more relevance of moral foundations, particularly binding foundations, than the Big Five in the context of pandemic-related conspiracy beliefs, and add to the literature on the unique contribution of moral foundations to socio-political attitudes across cultures.

Measuring Morality: An Examination of the Moral Foundation Questionnaire's Factor Structure.

Moral foundations theory proposes five domains of morality-harm, fairness, loyalty, purity, and authority. Endorsement of these moral domains is assessed by the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ), a 30-item scale that has undergone intense measurement scrutiny. Across five samples (N = 464,229), we show greatly improved model fit using a Bifactor model that accounts for two kinds of items in the MFQ: judgment and relevance. We add to this space by demonstrating how using this improved measurement structure changes the strength of correlations of the moral foundations with numerous attitudes, cognitive styles, and moral decision-making. Future research should continue to identify what, if anything, the relevance and judgment factors might substantively capture over and above the substantive domains of moral foundations. In the meantime, we recommend that researchers use the Bifactor model for its improved model structure, rather than dropping the relevant items as some have proposed.

The (moral) language of hate.

Humans use language toward hateful ends, inciting violence and genocide, intimidating and denigrating others based on their identity. Despite efforts to better address the language of hate in the public sphere, the psychological processes involved in hateful language remain unclear. In this work, we hypothesize that morality and hate are concomitant in language. In a series of studies, we find evidence in support of this hypothesis using language from a diverse array of contexts, including the use of hateful language in propaganda to inspire genocide (Study 1), hateful slurs as they occur in large text corpora across a multitude of languages (Study 2), and hate speech on social-media platforms (Study 3). In post hoc analyses focusing on particular moral concerns, we found that the type of moral content invoked through hate speech varied by context, with Purity language prominent in hateful propaganda and online hate speech and Loyalty language invoked in hateful slurs across languages. Our findings provide a new psychological lens for understanding hateful language and points to further research into the intersection of morality and hate, with practical implications for mitigating hateful rhetoric online.

Mapping moral language on US presidential primary campaigns reveals rhetorical networks of political division and unity.

During political campaigns, candidates use rhetoric to advance competing visions and assessments of their country. Research reveals that the moral language used in this rhetoric can significantly influence citizens' political attitudes and behaviors; however, the moral language actually used in the rhetoric of elites during political campaigns remains understudied. Using a data set of every tweet (N=139,412) published by 39 US presidential candidates during the 2016 and 2020 primary elections, we extracted moral language and constructed network models illustrating how candidates' rhetoric is semantically connected. These network models yielded two key discoveries. First, we find that party affiliation clusters can be reconstructed solely based on the moral words used in candidates' rhetoric. Within each party, popular moral values are expressed in highly similar ways, with Democrats emphasizing careful and just treatment of individuals and Republicans emphasizing in-group loyalty and respect for social hierarchies. Second, we illustrate the ways in which outsider candidates like Donald Trump can separate themselves during primaries by using moral rhetoric that differs from their parties' common language. Our findings demonstrate the functional use of strategic moral rhetoric in a campaign context and show that unique methods of text network analysis are broadly applicable to the study of campaigns and social movements.

The Moral Reasoning of Ideology: The Mediating Role of Moral Foundations, Moral Absolutism, and Consistency Norm.

Focusing on the ideological and worldview premises of moral reasoning, our study (N = 313) has as a starting point the well-known relationship between morality and distributive justice norms. We examined the serially mediating role of progressiveness on morality, moral absolutism, and consistency norm on the relationship between ideological/worldview perspectives and distributional criteria. Three groups of respondents were formed based on participants' ideological and worldview perceptions and then serial mediation analysis was conducted. The present findings suggest that morality is predicted by ideology and worldview and predicts attitudes toward the norms of equity and welfare chauvinism, through moral absolutism and interpretations of consistency norm, thus confirming our hypothesis. Moderate Passive Individualists emerged as the group who adopts the most progressive and inclusive attitude towards moral evaluations and practices, while Demobilized Collectivists and Neoliberals maintain a more conservative attitude towards issues that are subjected to moral framing. Our findings shed light on the crucial role of consistency norm, which has not received enough attention until now.

Moral rhetoric in discrete choice models: a Natural Language Processing approach.

This paper proposes a new method to combine choice- and text data to infer moral motivations from people's actions. To do this, we rely on moral rhetoric, in other words, extracting moral values from verbal expressions with Natural Language Processing techniques. We use moral rhetoric based on a well-established moral, psychological theory called Moral Foundations Theory. We use moral rhetoric as input in Discrete Choice Models to gain insights into moral behaviour based on people's words and actions. We test our method in a case study of voting and party defection in the European Parliament. Our results indicate that moral rhetoric have significant explanatory power in modelling voting behaviour. We interpret the results in the light of political science literature and propose ways for future investigations.

The Moral Reasoning of Ideology: The Mediating Role of Moral Foundations, Moral Absolutism, and Consistency Norm

Focusing on the ideological and worldview premises of moral reasoning, our study (N = 313) has as a starting point the well-known relationship between morality and distributive justice norms. We examined the serially mediating role of progressiveness on morality, moral absolutism, and consistency norm on the relationship between ideological/worldview perspectives and distributional criteria. Three groups of respondents were formed based on participants’ ideological and worldview perceptions and then serial mediation analysis was conducted. The present findings suggest that morality is predicted by ideology and worldview and predicts attitudes toward the norms of equity and welfare chauvinism, through moral absolutism and interpretations of consistency norm, thus confirming our hypothesis. Moderate Passive Individualists emerged as the group who adopts the most progressive and inclusive attitude towards moral evaluations and practices, while Demobilized Collectivists and Neoliberals maintain a more conservative attitude towards issues that are subjected to moral framing. Our findings shed light on the crucial role of consistency norm, which has not received enough attention until now. (AU)

For whom is patriotism blind? Examining the roles of moral intuitions and system justification.

Patriotism defines one's attachment and identification to a broad political community. We examine how levels of patriotism are shaped by beliefs about the fairness of institutions, termed system justification, and people's moral intuitions. Using data from a 2021 YouGov survey, we find that system justification and "binding" moral intuitions that prioritize the cohesion of social groups both lead to greater patriotism. Notably, we found a moderating effect of moral intuitions on system justification. Strong binding intuitions reduced the effect of system justification, indicative of blind patriotism, where some people are patriotic even if they perceive the system as unfair. Strong "individualizing" intuitions, which prioritize fairness and protection from harm, increased the effect of system justification. This is consistent with the notion of constructive patriotism, where patriotism among people with strong individualizing intuitions is affected by whether they believe the country is living up to its fairness ideals. We extend prior research on patriotism and system justification by showing the vitally important way that moral intuitions moderate the effects of system justification.

Understanding underlying moral values and language use of COVID-19 vaccine attitudes on twitter.

Public sentiment toward the COVID-19 vaccine as expressed on social media can interfere with communication by public health agencies on the importance of getting vaccinated. We investigated Twitter data to understand differences in sentiment, moral values, and language use between political ideologies on the COVID-19 vaccine. We estimated political ideology, conducted a sentiment analysis, and guided by the tenets of moral foundations theory (MFT), we analyzed 262,267 English language tweets from the United States containing COVID-19 vaccine-related keywords between May 2020 and October 2021. We applied the Moral Foundations Dictionary and used topic modeling and Word2Vec to understand moral values and the context of words central to the discussion of the vaccine debate. A quadratic trend showed that extreme ideologies of both Liberals and Conservatives expressed a higher negative sentiment than Moderates, with Conservatives expressing more negative sentiment than Liberals. Compared to Conservative tweets, we found the expression of Liberal tweets to be rooted in a wider set of moral values, associated with moral foundations of care (getting the vaccine for protection), fairness (having access to the vaccine), liberty (related to the vaccine mandate), and authority (trusting the vaccine mandate imposed by the government). Conservative tweets were found to be associated with harm (around safety of the vaccine) and oppression (around the government mandate). Furthermore, political ideology was associated with the expression of different meanings for the same words, e.g. "science" and "death." Our results inform public health outreach communication strategies to best tailor vaccine information to different groups.

The sanctity of life: The role of purity in attitudes towards abortion and euthanasia.

Although abortion and euthanasia are highly contested issues at the heart of the culture war, the moral foundations underlying ideological differences on these issues are mostly unknown. Given that much of the extant debate is framed around the sanctity of life, we argued that the moral foundation of purity/sanctity-a core moral belief that emphasises adherence to the "natural order"-would mediate the negative relationship between conservatism and support for abortion and euthanasia. As hypothesised, results from a nation-wide random sample of adults in New Zealand (N = 3360) revealed that purity/sanctity mediated the relationship between conservatism and opposition to both policies. These results demonstrate that, rather than being motivated by a desire to reduce harm, conservative opposition to pro-choice and end-of-life decisions is (partly) based on the view that ending a life, even if it is one's own, violates God's natural design and, thus, stains one's spiritual purity.

Qeirat Values and Victim Blaming in Iran: The Mediating Effect of Culture-Specific Gender Roles.

Sexual assaults are a social problem in Iran; however, psychological factors that predict perceptions of sexual assault remain largely unexamined. Here, we examine the relationship between moral concerns, culture-specific gender roles, and victim blaming in sexual assault scenarios in Iranian culture. Relying on Moral Foundations Theory and recent theoretical developments in moral psychology in the Iranian context, we examined the correlations between five moral foundations (Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity), a culture-specific set of values called Qeirat (which includes guarding and [over]protectiveness of female kin, romantic partners, broader family, and country), and victim blaming. In a community sample of Iranians (N = 411), we found Qeirat values to be highly correlated with victim blaming, and that this link was mediated by a number of culture-specific proscriptions about women's roles and dress code (i.e., Haya). In a regression analysis with all moral foundations, Qeirat values, Haya, and religiosity as predictors of victim blaming, only Haya, religiosity, high Authority values, and low Care values were found to predict how strongly Iranian participants blamed victims of sexual assault scenarios.

Deciding between moral priorities and COVID-19 avoiding behaviors: A moral foundations vignette study.

Novel moral norms peculiar to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in tension between maintaining one's preexisting moral priorities (e.g., loyalty to one's family and human freedoms) and avoiding contraction of the COVID-19 disease and SARS COVID-2 virus. By drawing on moral foundations theory, the current study questioned how the COVID-19 pandemic (or health threat salience in general) affects moral decision making. With two consecutive pilot tests on three different samples (ns ≈ 40), we prepared our own sets of moral foundation vignettes which were contextualized on three levels of health threats: the COVID-19 threat, the non-COVID-19 health threat, and no threat. We compared the wrongness ratings of those transgressions in the main study (N = 396, M age = 22.47). The results showed that the acceptability of violations increased as the disease threat contextually increased, and the fairness, care, and purity foundations emerged as the most relevant moral concerns in the face of the disease threat. Additionally, participants' general binding moral foundation scores consistently predicted their evaluations of binding morality vignettes independent of the degree of the health threat. However, as the disease threat increased in the scenarios, pre-existing individuating morality scores lost their predictive power for care violations but not for fairness violations. The current findings imply the importance of contextual factors in moral decision making. Accordingly, we conclude that people make implicit cost-benefit analysis in arriving at a moral decision in health threatening contexts. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-01941-y.

Purity, politics, and polarization: Political ideology moderates threat-induced shifts in moral purity beliefs.

There is considerable research showing that economic threat influences people's social and political views. There are two prevailing perspectives on threat and political attitudes, broadly defined as the Conservative Shift Hypothesis and the Entrenching Hypothesis. The former predicts that threat induces change in the conservative direction (for both conservatives and liberals), whereas the latter predicts that threat causes people to adhere more strongly to their prexisting political perspective. In two experimental studies (one pre-registered replication), we find evidence in support of the Entrenching Hypothesis. Conservatives responded to Economic Threat with increased endorsement of the conservative moral foundation Purity, whereas liberals responded to Economic Threat with decreased endorsement of the Purity foundation. Economic Threat appears to increase commitment to one's pre-existing political ideology and not conservatism specifically. Implications for psychological theory and future directions are discussed.