Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 20

Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 77 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance. Jen Wright, Jerry Cullum, Piper Grandjean, Jed Sawyer, & Ross Little Department of Psychology University of Wyoming. Overview. Background Diversity research Haidt & Skitka Domain theory Our research

Download Presentation

Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance

Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance

Jen Wright, Jerry Cullum,

Piper Grandjean, Jed Sawyer, & Ross Little

Department of Psychology

University of Wyoming


Overview

Overview

  • Background

    • Diversity research

    • Haidt & Skitka

    • Domain theory

  • Our research

    • Study 1 & 2: Tolerance for Different Attitudes/Beliefs

    • Study 3: Willingness to Interact with Dissimilar Others

  • Implications

  • Future directions


Background

Background

  • Diversity research is mixed

    • Some studies show exposure to diversity to be beneficial

    • Others find diversity to have harmful effects

  • People’s reactions to diversity are mixed

    • People support basic rights to free speech

    • Want to deny that right to some groups


Haidt rosenberg hom 2003

Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom (2003)

  • Reaction to diversity depends on two factors

  • Type of diversity

  • Context in which it is encountered

  • People have strongest negative response

    • to moral diversity

    • in intimate contexts (e.g., roommates)


Skitka bauman sargis 2005

Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis (2005)

  • When people have strong moral convictions

    • They are less tolerant of differences of opinion

    • They maintain more social distance from dissimilar others

    • They even sit farther away!

  • This effect is not reducible to attitude strength – it is something unique to moral conviction itself.


Domain theory turiel 1983

Domain Theory (Turiel, 1983)

  • Powerful theoretical framework for understanding these findings

  • Social information is organized into three distinct cognitive domains:

  • Personal

  • Social

  • Moral

  • Best thought of in terms of different “loci of authority”


Domain theory turiel 19831

Domain Theory (Turiel, 1983)

  • Three distinct cognitive domains

  • Personal  domain of autonomy (individual choice)

    • e.g. whether you like raspberry or strawberry jam

  • Social  domain of social agreement

    • e.g. which side of the road we drive on, color of traffic lights

  • Moral  domain of objective, universal standards

    • e.g. torturing innocent children for enjoyment


Our research

Our research

  • Designed to assess people’s domain classification for a wide range of issues

  • Tested whether domain classification predicted important interpersonal outcomes

    • Tolerance for different attitudes/beliefs

    • Willingness to interact with dissimilar others

    • Willingness to help dissimilar others


Study 1

Study 1

  • Participants asked about 20 items

  • Domain classification predicts tolerance

    • F(2,216) = 63.8, p<.001, η2= .37

  • Most tolerant of dissimilar personal beliefs (M = 3.82)

  • Least tolerant of dissimilar moral beliefs (M = 2.53)

  • Context predicts tolerance

    • Student condition: η2= .39, Professor condition: η2= .05

  • Most tolerant in remote contexts (e.g., university)

  • Least tolerant in close contexts (e.g., roommate)


Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance

  • Personal

    • Tattoos/body piercing (94%)

    • Music preferences (93%)

  • Social

    • Speed limit (87%)

    • Environmental preservation (81%)

    • Drinking age (84%)

  • Moral

    • Cheating on an exam/paper (43%)

    • Domestic abuse (43%)


Study 2

Study 2

  • Participants asked about 40 items

  • Domain classification predicts tolerance

    • F(2, 118) = 120.1, p < .001, η2= .67

  • Most tolerant of dissimilar personal beliefs (M = 4.04)

  • Least tolerant of dissimilar moral beliefs (M = 1.84)

  • Context predicts tolerance

    • F(2,118) = 33.22, p < .001, η2= .36

  • Most tolerant in remote contexts (M = 3.24)

  • Least tolerant in close contexts (M = 2.56)


Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance

  • Personal

    • Music preferences (98%)

    • Vegetarianism (98%)

    • Exercise (97%)

  • Social

    • Speed limit (90%) a

    • Children going to school (90%)

  • Moral

    • rape (90%)

    • Putting children with handicaps to death (77%)

    • Parents loving their children (75%)

    • Incest (74%)


Study 3

Study 3

  • Domain classification predicts willingness to interact with dissimilar others

    • F(2,166) = 229.4, p<.001, η2 = .73

  • Personal/social collapse together

  • P (M = 4.94), S (M = 4.80), M (M= 3.27)

  • Context predicts willingness to interact

    • F(2,166) = 109.8, p < .001, η2 = .57

    • Most willing to live in same town as (M = 4.96)

    • Least willing to date (M = 3.60)


Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance

  • Domain classification predicts willingness to help dissimilar others

    • F(2,166) = 104.0, p < .001, η2 = .56

  • P (M = 5.13), S (M = 5.01), M (M= 3.96)

  • Type of helping behavior matters

    • More willing to give change (M = 4.97)

    • than to deliver something across campus (M = 4.43)


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • People view important social issues differently

  • How they view them influences important interpersonal outcomes

    • Expressed tolerance for different attitudes/beliefs

    • Expressed willingness to interact with and/or help dissimilar others

  • These effects are not reducible to political or religious orientation or attitude strength

  • Domain classification itself is a strong predictor


Implications

Implications

  • Tolerance is promoted by encouraging people to view an issue as personal

    • e.g., careers, sexual orientation, marriage

  • Intolerance is promoted by encouraging people to view an issue as moral

    • e.g., domestic violence, genocide, environmental issues


Future directions

Future directions

  • Developmental studies

    • 4th graders through 12th graders

  • Direct behavioral measures

  • Implications of different types of moral beliefs


  • Login