Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations
Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0015141
复制
发表时间：
2009-05-01
影响因子：
7.6
通讯作者：
Nosek, Brian A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graham, Jesse;Haidt, Jonathan;Nosek, Brian A.
道德判断如何以及为什么在不同的政治光谱中有所不同？为了检验道德基础理论（J. Haidt & J. Graham，2007; J. Haidt & C.约瑟夫，2004年），作者开发了几种方法来衡量人们对5套道德直觉的使用：伤害/照顾，公平/互惠，团体/忠诚，权威/尊重和纯洁/神圣。在使用多种方法的4项研究中，自由主义者一致表示，与其他3个基金会相比，对伤害/护理和公平/互惠基金会的认可和使用更多，而保守派则更平等地认可和使用5个基金会。这种差异在对与基金会相关的道德相关性的抽象评估中观察到，如暴力或忠诚（研究1），对声明和场景的道德判断（研究2），对禁忌权衡的“神圣”反应（研究3），以及在宗教布道的道德文本中使用与基金会相关的词语（研究4）。这些发现有助于阐明美国“文化战争”中道德分歧的本质和棘手性。"
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."