...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of personality and social psychology >Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations
【24h】

Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations

机译:自由主义者和保守主义者依靠不同的道德基础

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war."
机译:道德判断如何以及为什么在整个政治领域有所不同?为了检验道德基础理论(J. Haidt&J. Graham,2007; J。Haidt&C. Joseph,2004),作者开发了几种方法来衡量人们对5组道德直觉的使用:危害/关怀,公平/互惠。 ,团体/忠诚度,权威/尊重和纯度/神圣不可侵犯。在使用多种方法进行的4项研究中,与其他3个基金会相比,自由主义者一贯显示出对Harm / care和Fairness / reciprocity基金会的认可和使用率更高,而保守派则更平等地认可和使用了5个基金会。在对与基金会相关的问题的道德相关性(例如暴力或忠诚度)(研究1),陈述和情景的道德判断(研究2),对禁忌权衡的“神圣”反应(研究3)进行抽象评估时,观察到了这种差异。以及在宗教讲道的道德经文中使用与基础相关的词(研究4)。这些发现有助于阐明美国“文化大战”中道德分歧的性质和顽固性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号