Mapping the personal social and moral domains implications for tolerance
Download
1 / 20

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


  • 109 Views
  • Uploaded on

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

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance' - kiandra


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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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) Implications for Tolerance

  • 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) Implications for Tolerance

  • 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) Implications for Tolerance

  • 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) Implications for Tolerance

  • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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)


  • Personal Implications for Tolerance

    • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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)


  • Personal Implications for Tolerance

    • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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)


  • Domain classification predicts willingness to Implications for Tolerancehelp 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • 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 Implications for Tolerance

  • Developmental studies

    • 4th graders through 12th graders

  • Direct behavioral measures

  • Implications of different types of moral beliefs


ad