Skip to main content

Moral Foundations and Attitudes Towards the Poor

An Erratum to this article was published on 22 March 2017

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  • Bobbio, A., Canova, L., & Manganelli, A. M. (2010). Conservative ideology, economic conservatism, and causal attributions for poverty and wealth. Current Psychology, 29, 222–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Census Bureau (2013). Poverty: 2013 Highlights. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/about/overview/.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Vintage.

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 28, 98–116.

  • Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • Rudolph, T. J., & Evans, J. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 660–671.

  • 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/.

  • World Bank (2014). Poverty Overview. Retrieved October 24, 2014, from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview.

  • Zucker, G. S., & Weiner, B. (1993). Conservatism and perceptions of poverty: an attributional analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23(12), 925–943.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michelle Low.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-017-9579-7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Low, M., Wui, M.G.L. Moral Foundations and Attitudes Towards the Poor. Curr Psychol 35, 650–656 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9333-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-015-9333-y

Keywords

  • Moral foundations theory
  • Attitudes towards the poor
  • Political affiliation