Advertisement

Policy Sciences

, Volume 51, Issue 4, pp 565–579 | Cite as

Expanding the scope and content of morality policy research: lessons from Moral Foundations Theory

  • Raymond TatalovichEmail author
  • Dane G. Wendell
Review Article
  • 353 Downloads

Abstract

Scholars have not precisely defined morality policy, and Smith (Policy Stud J 30(3):379–395, 2002) urged an empirical taxonomy be used to identify those policies. We argue that Moral Foundations Theory offers a methodology for empirically identifying issues with moral content. We inventory 15 issues in parliamentary studies of “conscience” voting, 14 morality policies in western democracies compiled by Studlar (in: Mooney (ed) The public clash of private values: the politics of morality policy, Chatham House Publishers, New York, 2001), and then survey MFT empirical studies to identify 22 issues with moral content. Based on this universe of 37 issues, three journals are content analyzed to determine the coverage given them and to outline productive lines for future research.

Keywords

Morality policy Comparative Moral Foundations Theory Content analysis 

References

  1. Baumann, M., Debus, M., & Müller, J. (2015). Personal characteristics of MPs and legislative behavior in moral policymaking. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 40(2), 179–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brady, W. J., Willis, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 7313–7318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Christoph, J. B. (1962a). Capital punishment and British politics. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  4. Christoph, J. B. (1962b). Capital punishment and British party responsibility. Political Science Quarterly, 77(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. Journal of Politics, 75(3), 659–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clifford, S., Jerit, J., Rainey, C., & Motyl, M. (2015). Moral concerns and policy attitudes: Investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. Political Communication, 32(2), 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Conover, P. J., & Miller, P. R. (2017). How republicans won on voter identification laws: The roles of strategic reasoning and moral conviction. Social Science Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper, C. A., & Knotts, H. G. (2006). Region, race, and support for the South Carolina confederate flag. Social Science Quarterly, 87(1), 142–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cowley, P. (Ed.). (1998). Conscience and parliament. London: Frank Cass Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Engeli, I., Green-Pedersen, C., & Larsen, L. T. (Eds.). (2012). Morality politics in Western Europe: Parties, agendas and policy choices. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goren, P., & Chapp, C. (2017). Moral power: How public opinion on culture war issues shapes partisan predispostions and religious orientations. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 110–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., et al. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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(2), 366–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Haider-Markel, D. P., & Meier, K. J. (1996). The politics of gay and lesbian rights: Expanding the scope of the conflict. Journal of Politics, 58(2), 332–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Haidt, J., & Hersh, M. A. (2001). Sexual morality: The cultures and reasons of liberals and conservatives. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(1), 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heichel, S., Knill, C., & Schmitt, S. (2013). Public policy meets morality: Conceptual and theoretical challenges in the analysis of morality policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 318–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hibbing, J. R., & Marsh, D. (1987). Accounting for the voting patterns of British MPs on free votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 12, 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffmann, J. P., Ellison, C. G., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2017). Conservative protestantism and attitudes toward corporal punishment, 1986–2014. Social Science Research, 63, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hunter, J. D. (1991). Culture wars: The struggle to define America. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  25. Hurka, S. (2017). Rampage shootings and gun control. New York, NY: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hurka, S., Adam, C., & Knill, C. (2017). Is morality policy different? Testing sectoral and institutional explanations of policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 45(4), 688–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kertzer, J. D., Powers, K. E., Rathbun, B. C., & Iyer, R. (2014). Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy attitudes. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 825–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knill, C. (2013). The study of morality policy: Analytical implications from a public policy perspective. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 3090–3317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Knill, C., Adam, C., & Hurka, S. (2015). On the road to permissiveness? Change and covergence of moral regulation in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory. World Politics, 16(July), 677–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lowi, T. J. (1988). Foreword: New dimensions in policy and politics. In R. Tatalovich & B. W. Daynes (Eds.), Social regulatory policy: Moral controversies in American politics (pp. x–xxi). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  33. Marietta, M. (2012). The politics of sacred rhetoric: Absolutist appeals and political persuasion. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marsh, D. C., & Read, M. (1988). Private members’ bills. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. 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(4), 978–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McLean, D. S. (2018). Gun talk online: Canadian tools, American values. Social Science Quarterly.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Meier, K. J. (1994). The politics of sin: Drugs, alcohol, and public policy. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  38. Mooney, C. Z. (2001). The public clash of private values. In C. Z. Mooney (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 3–17). New York: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  39. Mooney, C. Z., & Lee, M.-H. (1995). Legislating morality in the American states: The case of pre-roe abortion regulation reform. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mooney, C. Z., & Schuldt, R. G. (2008). Does morality policy exist? Testing a basic assumption. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mucciaroni, G. (2011). Are debates about ‘Morality Policy’ really about morality? Framing opposition to gay and lesbian rights. Policy Studies Journal, 39(2), 187–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oldmixon, E. A. (2017). Religious representation and animal welfare in the U.S. senate. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(1), 162–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Overby, L. M., Raymond, C., & Taydas, Z. (2011). Free votes, MPs, and constituents: The case of same-sex marriage in Canada. American Review of Canadian Studies, 41(4), 465–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Overby, L. M., Tatalovich, R., & Studlar, D. T. (1998). Party and free votes in Canada: Abortion in the house of commons. Party Politics, 4(3), 381–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Plumb, A. (2013). Research note: A comparison of free vote patterns in Westminster style parliaments. Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 51(2), 254–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plumb, A. (2015). How do MPs in Westminister democracies vote when unconstrained by party discipline? A comparison of free vote patterns on marriage equality legislation. Parliamentary Affairs, 68(3), 533–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plumb, A., & Marsh, D. (2011). Divisions in the conservative party on conscience issues: Comment on Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart, ‘Party rules, OK: Voting in the house of commons on the human fertilisation and embryology bill’. Parliamentary Affairs, 64(4), 769–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plumb, A., & Marsh, D. (2013). Beyond party discipline: UK parliamentary voting on fox hunting. British Politics, 8(3), 313–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pothier, D. (1979). Parties and free votes in the Canadian house of commons: The case of capital punishment. Journal of Canadian Studies, 14(2), 80–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Read, M., Marsh, D., & Richards, D. (1994). Why did they do it? Voting on homosexuality and capital punishment in the house of commons. Parliamentary Affairs, 47(3), 374–387.Google Scholar
  51. Richards, P. G. (1970). Parliament and conscience. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  52. Ripberger, J. T., Gupta, K., Silva, C. L., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (2014). Cultural theory and the measurement of deep core beliefs within the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 509–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ryan, T. J. (2014). Reconsidering moral issues in politics. Journal of Politics, 76(2), 380–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ryan, T. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  56. Schwartz, M. A., & Tatalovich, R. (2018). The rise and fall of moral conflicts in the United States and Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Schweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The ‘Big Three’ of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the ‘Big Three’ explanations of suffering. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozen (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  58. Skitka, L. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 588–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Skitka, L. J., & Bauman, C. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29(1), 29–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Sargis, E. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skitka, L. J., & Houston, D. A. (2001). When due process is of no consequence: Moral mandates and presumed defendant guilt or innocence. Social Justices Research, 14(3), 305–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Skitka, L. J., & Mullen, E. (2002). The dark side of moral conviction. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 35–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Smith, T. A. (1975). The comparative policy process. Santa Barbara, CA: CLIO Books.Google Scholar
  64. Smith, K. B. (2002). Typologies, taxonomies, and the benefits of policy classification. Policy Studies Journal, 30(3), 379–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Hatemi, P. K. (2017). Intuitive ethics and political orientations: Testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 424–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Studlar, D. T. (2001). What constitutes morality policy? A cross-national analysis. In C. Z. Mooney (Ed.), The public clash of private values: The politics of morality policy (pp. 37–51). New York, NY: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Studlar, D. T. (2008). U.S. tobacco control: Public health, political economy, or morality policy? Review of Policy Research, 25(5), 393–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Studlar, D. T., Cagossi, A., & Duval, R. D. (2013). Is morality policy different? Institutional explanations for post-war Western Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(3), 353–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tatalovich, R. (1995). Nativism reborn? The official english movement and the American States. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.Google Scholar
  70. Wilson, D. C., & Brewer, P. R. (2016). Do frames emphasizing harm to age and racial-ethnic groups reduce support for voter ID laws? Social Science Quarterly, 97(2), 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loyola University ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Illinois CollegeJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations