Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Predict Different Moral Signatures
- 1k Downloads
Moral Foundations Theory posits five distinct foundations of morality: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, In-group/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. In combination, this should yield between four-to-six moral signatures—distinct combinations or patterns of support for these aspects of morality. We extend previous research by examining the replicability of these moral signatures in a New Zealand-based national sample (n = 3,635). Latent Profile Analysis identified four distinct moral signatures: Individuators, Moderates, Neutrals, and High Moralists. We integrate these moral signatures within the Dual Process Model (DPM) framework and show that Social Dominance Orientation predicts membership in the Neutral moral signature (moderate/lukewarm support for multiple moral foundations); whereas Right-Wing Authoritarianism predicts membership in the High Moralist signature (undifferentiated high support across moral foundations). These findings were observed controlling for Big-Six personality and various demographics. Thus, the authoritarian and dominance-based motives identified by the DPM independently predict categorical differences in the signatures people use to judge morality.
KeywordsMoral Foundations Theory Dual Process Model Latent Profile Analysis
This research was supported by a Templeton World Charity Foundation Grant (ID: 0077). Mplus syntax for the models reported here is available on the NZAVS website (http://www.psych.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/NZAVS).
- Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian spectre. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.Google Scholar
- Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.Google Scholar
- Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2013). Auxiliary variables in mixture modelling: 3-Step approaches using Mplus. Mplus Web Notes, 15, 1–24.Google Scholar
- Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 44–113.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. Personality Psychology in Europe, 7, 7–28.Google Scholar
- Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Deadulus, 133(4), 55–663.Google Scholar
- Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. The innate Mind, 3, 367–392.Google Scholar
- Hoverd, W. J., Bulbulia, J., Partow, N., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Forecasting religious change: A Bayesian model predicting proportional Christian change in New Zealand. Religion, Brain and Behavior, 32, 531–532.Google Scholar
- Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialisation. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide (7. ed.). Los Angeles. CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Salmond, C., Crampton, P., & Atkinson, J. (2007). NZDep2006 index of deprivation. Wellington: University of Otago (Department of Public Health). Retrieved from http://www.wnmeds.ac.nz/academic/dph/research/socialindicators.html.
- Sibley, C. G., Luyten, N., Purnomo, M., Moberly, A., Wootton, L. W., Hammond, M. D., et al. (2011). The Mini-IPIP6: Validation and extension of a short measure of the big-six factors of personality in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 40, 142–159.Google Scholar
- Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar