Jessica Bechtel & Andy Christnacht

1. Jessica Bechtel & Andy Christnacht

2. Introduction “Imagine two Americans, Libby and Connie. Libby believes abortion should be legal and supports tight restrictions on gun purchases, while Connie believes that abortion is tantamount to murder and that any restrictions on gun purchases violate the Second Amendment of the US Constitution. Which one of these two people is more likely to favor capital punishment?” How do Americans ‘intuitively’ know this?

3. Introduction • Understanding the conservative-liberal divide • American political “teams”? • psychologically prepared? • or moral foundations? • go above demographics • multiple moral concerns activated by political issues

4. Previous Research • Hunter- Culture Wars • “orthodox” vs “progressives” • Lakoff- Moral Politics • nation as family, government as parent • “strict father” vs “nurturant” parent • Jost and Colleagues Study • personality traits prepare political attitude • basic logic not found in issues but habits of minds

5. Moral Foundations Theory • The 5 foundations • universally present • morality is a complex and culturally variable construction • cultures emphasize different foundations to different extents • liberals-harm and fairness rated higher • conservatives-more equal weight for all • MFT is a broader attempt to identify moral concerns that motivate cultural war positions

6. Study 1 • Moral Foundations quiz • 30 Items • rate how relevant the concerns are to individual when making judgments • subjects rate their agreements with statements that either embody or negate the foundation • ‘‘Here is a list of controversial issues. Regardless of whether or not you think it should be legal, for each one, please indicate whether you personally believe that in general it is morally acceptable or morally wrong.’’ • rated on a scale of 1(morally accepted in all cases) to 5(morally wrong in all cases)

7. Demographics • 10,222 completed study 1 • age ~38 y/o +/- 14.26 • 62% male • religious attendance 1.37 +/- 1.73 • scale from 0-5 (0=never; 5=one or more times each week) • interest in politics 1.7 +/- .5 • scale from 0-3 (0= not much interested; 3= very much interested) • political orientation 2.8 +/- 1.62 • scale from 1-7 (1=very liberal; 7=very conservative)

11. Study 1 Discussion • For 9 out of 13 war issues, strongest unique predictor was a subset of MFT, usually purity • Purity better or comparable to political orientation- fairness and authority weak predictors • Great deal of texture shown • sometimes more concerns at work • most obvious concern was not always the strong predictor • MFT allows to see multiple threads

12. Study 2 • Political Attitudes Questionnaire • asked to select from a list of specific views on an issue • for example “same-sex marriage” (allowed to marry, allowed to have civil union, or not allowed to marry) • “Don’t know” option was given to avoid forcing participants into a position • questions were adapted from nationally representative polls on peoples issue positions • Gallup, New York Times, Pew Research Center • Issues included: • abortion, defense spending, teaching evolution, same-sex marriage, torture, global warming, flag burning, stem cell research, combating terrorism, illegal immigration, & gun control

13. Demographics • age ~39 y/o +/- 15.35 • 56% male • religious attendance 1.37 +/- 1.7 • scale from 0-5 (0=never; 5=one or more times each week) • interest in politics 1.61 +/- .55 • scale from 0-3 (0= not much interested; 3= very much interested) • political orientation 2.75 +/- 1.6 • scale from 1-7 (1=very liberal; 7=very conservative) • * anyone who selected the libertarian, other, or “don’t know/not political” were excluded from the study

17. Study 2 Discussion • All 11 issues were significantly associated with 2 or more moral foundations • Political ideology was the biggest predictor for demographics • Big advantage of MFT=suggest multiple and potentially conflicting motives and tradeoffs • ex. torture in interrogation and illegal immigration • RWO and SDO scores did not eliminate foundation effects

18. General Discussion • results support the “team”hypothesis consistent relationship between liberal-conservative self placement and moral attitudes not the whole picture • MFT useful in showing why certain positions go together • dominating importance of purity and weak importance of fairness/reciprocity was surprising

19. Limitations • Convenience internet sample • more educated, liberal, secular, and interested in politics than average US population • Some MFQ items to similar to issues as DVs could have inflated effect • correlational data-can’t draw conclusions • many more questions to answer with more experimental data

20. Conclusion • there are constraints on political attitudes-some issues go together better than others • can’t be understood looking through surface lens categories-must look at underlying psychological threads • MFT is promising for future research in this aspect