Current Psychology

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 650–656 | Cite as

Moral Foundations and Attitudes Towards the Poor

Article

Abstract

Why does the public have such polarizing views on the poor? This paper attempts to understand this issue by examining and exploring what predicts attitudes towards the poor. The exploration of this issue begins with a reference to the Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) and how this particular framework has been used to explain polarizing issues such as abortion, gay marriage and stem cell research, among others. This paper argues that the MFT can provide a similar insight on attitudes towards the poor. With the MFT as a backdrop, the current study tested out the hypothesis using hierarchical multiple regression and explored the results further by using dominance analysis. Results showed that the Moral Foundations were good predictors of attitudes towards the poor. While Harm emerged as the only significant predictor, dominance analysis revealed the importance of each foundation as predictors. Harm is the strongest predictor followed by Fairness, Authority, Ingroup, and Purity. All five foundations appear to be better predictors as compared to one’s political affiliation.

Keywords

Moral foundations theory Attitudes towards the poor Political affiliation 

References

  1. Bobbio, A., Canova, L., & Manganelli, A. M. (2010). Conservative ideology, economic conservatism, and causal attributions for poverty and wealth. Current Psychology, 29, 222–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Budescu, D. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: a new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114(3), 542–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. US Census Bureau (2013). Poverty: 2013 Highlights. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/.
  4. 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
  5. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: the dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cozzarelli, C., Wilkinson, A. V., & Tagler, M. J. (2001). Attitudes towards the poor and attributions for poverty. Journal of Social Issues, 57(2), 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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(4), 589–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  10. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 28, 98–116.Google Scholar
  11. Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Kraha, A., Turner, H., Nimon, K., Zientek, L. R., & Henson, R. K. (2012). Tools to support interpreting multiple regression in the face of multicollinearity. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, B. K., Konopaske, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2011). Dominance analysis of two measures of organizational justice. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 27(3), 264–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pew Research Center (2014). 2014 Political polarization and typology survey. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://www.people-press.org/files/2014/06/2014-Polarization-Topline-for-Release.pdf.
  16. Pew Research Center (2014). Beyond Red vs. Blue: The Political Typology. Retrieved March 16, 2015, from http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/the-political-typology-beyond-red-vs-blue/.
  17. Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 660–671.Google Scholar
  18. Volsky, I. (2014). Susan Collins Becomes Fourth Republican Senator To Support Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved October 11, 2014, from http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/06/25/3453486/susan-collins-becomes-fourth-republican-senator-to-support-same-sex-marriage/.
  19. World Bank (2014). Poverty Overview. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview.
  20. Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: an attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(12), 925–943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUnited States
  2. 2.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations