Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?
Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?
复制标题
从另一个角度审视道德基础理论：威权主义和社会统治取向能否解释自由派与保守派在“道德”直觉上的差异？
DOI：
10.1007/s11211-014-0223-5
复制
发表时间：
2014
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Sharareh Noorbaloochi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Matthew B. Kugler;J. Jost;Sharareh Noorbaloochi
道德基础理论家提出，道德领域不仅应该包括正义和关怀的“自由主义”伦理，还应该包括表面上的“保守主义”伦理，即对群体忠诚、服从权威和执行纯洁标准的美德的关注。这一提议与几十年来将后者与“威权人格”联系起来的政治心理学研究相冲突。结果表明，自由主义者和保守主义者在道德直觉上的差异受权威主义和社会支配取向的影响，保守主义者对内部性、权威和纯洁性的较高评价归因于较高的权威主义水平，而自由主义者对公平和避免伤害的较高评价归因于较低的社会支配水平。我们还发现，对群体内、权威和纯洁性的关注与群体间敌意和对歧视的支持呈正相关，而对公平和避免伤害的关注与这些变量呈负相关。这些发现可能会导致一些人质疑“拓宽”科学道德概念的努力是否明智和适当，以这种方式将基于威权主义和社会支配的偏好视为道德的，而不是不道德的，甚至是不道德的，并表明将保守意识形态纳入道德心理学研究的明确目标（为了增加意识形态的多样性）可能会使研究人员误入歧途。
Moral foundations theorists propose that the moral domain should include not only “liberal” ethics of justice and care but also ostensibly “conservative” concerns about the virtues of ingroup loyalty, obedience to authority, and enforcement of purity standards. This proposal clashes with decades of research in political psychology connecting the latter set of characteristics to “the authoritarian personality.” We demonstrate that liberal-conservative differences in moral intuitions are statistically mediated by authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, so that conservatives’ greater valuation of ingroup, authority, and purity concerns is attributable to higher levels of authoritarianism, whereas liberals’ greater valuation of fairness and harm avoidance is attributable to lower levels of social dominance. We also find that ingroup, authority, and purity concerns are positively associated with intergroup hostility and support for discrimination, whereas concerns about fairness and harm avoidance are negatively associated with these variables. These findings might lead some to question the wisdom and appropriateness of efforts to “broaden” scientific conceptions of morality in such a way that preferences based on authoritarianism and social dominance are treated as moral—rather than amoral or even immoral—and suggest that the explicit goal of incorporating conservative ideology into the study of moral psychology (in order to increase ideological diversity) may lead researchers astray.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
J. Haidt
通讯作者：
J. Haidt