Social Justice Research

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 413–431 | Cite as

Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?

  • Matthew Kugler
  • John T. Jost
  • Sharareh Noorbaloochi
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Political orientation Ideology Authoritarianism Social dominance Morality 

References

  1. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  2. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.Google Scholar
  3. Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Altemeyer, B. (2006). The authoritarians. Available online from http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf.
  6. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (2014). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1–54.Google Scholar
  9. Federico, C. M., Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: The multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34, 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. (2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haidt, J. (2008). What makes people vote Republican? Retrieved September 09, 2008, from http://edge.org/conversation/what-makes-vote-republican.
  15. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  16. Haidt, J., & Bjorklund, F. (2008). Social intuitionists reason, in conversation. In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 241–254). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2009). Planet of the Durkheimians, where community, authority, and sacredness are foundations of morality. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 371–401). New York: Oxford.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left-right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Helzer, E., & Pizarro, D. A. (2011). Dirty liberals! Reminders of cleanliness promote conservative political and moral attitudes. Psychological Science, 22, 517–522.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  22. Jacobsin, D. (2008). Does social intuitionism flatter morality or challenge it? In W. Sinnott-Armstrong (Ed.), Moral psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 219–232). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. Jones, J.M. (2010). Americans’ opposition to gay marriage eases slightly. Retrieved May 25, 2010 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/Americans-Opposition-Gay-Marriage-Eases-Slightly.aspx.
  24. Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jost, J. T. (2009). Left & right, right & wrong: A system justification analysis of ideology and morality. Talk Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, Tampa, FL.Google Scholar
  26. Jost, J. T. (2012). Left and right, right and wrong. [Book review of The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion by J. Haidt]. Science, 337, 525–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jost, J. T., West, T. V., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality and ideology as determinants of candidate preferences and “Obama conversion” in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. The Dubois Review: Social Science on Race, 6, 103–124.Google Scholar
  29. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
  30. McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R. L., & Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 978–990.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McFarland, S. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 425–449.Google Scholar
  32. Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  33. Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L. M., Bulbulia, J., Wilson, M. S., Davies, C. L., et al. (2014). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict different moral signatures. Social Justice Research, 27, 149–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  35. Nagel, T. (2012). The taste for being moral. [Book review of The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion by J. Haidt and Dignity: Its history and meaning by M. Rosen]. New York Review of Books, December 6 issue, pp. 40–42.Google Scholar
  36. Napier, J. L., & Jost, J. T. (2008). The “anti-democratic personality” revisited: A cross-national investigation of working class authoritarianism. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 595–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Oppenheimer, D. M., Meyvis, T., & Davidenko, N. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rummel, R. J. (1997). Death by government. Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  41. Russell, B. (1938). Power: A new social analysis. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  42. Saad, L. (2010). Americans’ acceptance of gay relations crosses 50% threshold. Retrieved 25 May, 2010 from http://www.gallup.com/poll/135764/Americans-Acceptance-Gay-Relations-Crosses-Threshold.aspx.
  43. Shermer, M. (2011). The believing brain: From ghosts and gods to politics and conspiracies—How we construct beliefs and reinforce them as truths. New York: Times/Holt.Google Scholar
  44. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Big-five personality, social worldviews, and ideological attitudes: Further tests of a dual process cognitive-motivational model. Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 545–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stone, W. F., & Smith, L. D. (1993). Authoritarianism: Left and right. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strength and weakness: The authoritarian personality today (pp. 144–156). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  50. Turiel, E. (2006). The development of morality. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 789–857). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
  51. Van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 169–173.Google Scholar
  52. Whitley, B. E, Jr. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Whitley, B. E, Jr, & Lee, S. E. (2000). Relationships of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1007–1012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Matthew Kugler
    • 1
  • John T. Jost
    • 2
  • Sharareh Noorbaloochi
    • 2
  1. 1.University of ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations