Moral Mind-Sets: Abstract Thinking Increases a Preference for "Individualizing" Over "Binding" Moral Foundations

Jaime Napier, Jamie B. Luguri

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Moral foundations theory contends that people's morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people's moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals' mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)754-759
Number of pages6
JournalSocial Psychological and Personality Science
Volume4
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2013

Fingerprint

Social Justice
Research
Thinking
Direction compound

Keywords

  • construal level
  • mind-set
  • moral foundations
  • morality

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology

Cite this

Moral Mind-Sets : Abstract Thinking Increases a Preference for "Individualizing" Over "Binding" Moral Foundations. / Napier, Jaime; Luguri, Jamie B.

In: Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 4, No. 6, 01.11.2013, p. 754-759.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{53034ab74a2d4af184504b75835a96c1,
title = "Moral Mind-Sets: Abstract Thinking Increases a Preference for {"}Individualizing{"} Over {"}Binding{"} Moral Foundations",
abstract = "Moral foundations theory contends that people's morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people's moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals' mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.",
keywords = "construal level, mind-set, moral foundations, morality",
author = "Jaime Napier and Luguri, {Jamie B.}",
year = "2013",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1177/1948550612473783",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "754--759",
journal = "Social Psychological and Personality Science",
issn = "1948-5506",
publisher = "Sage Periodicals Press",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moral Mind-Sets

T2 - Abstract Thinking Increases a Preference for "Individualizing" Over "Binding" Moral Foundations

AU - Napier, Jaime

AU - Luguri, Jamie B.

PY - 2013/11/1

Y1 - 2013/11/1

N2 - Moral foundations theory contends that people's morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people's moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals' mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.

AB - Moral foundations theory contends that people's morality goes beyond concerns about justice and welfare, and asserts that humans have five innate foundations of morality: harm and fairness (individualizing foundations) and in-group loyalty, deference to authority, and purity (binding foundations). The current research investigates whether people's moral judgments are consistently informed by these five values, or whether individualizing and binding foundations might be differentially endorsed depending on individuals' mind-sets. Results from our study demonstrated that when participants were experimentally manipulated to think abstractly (vs. concretely), which presumably makes their higher level core values salient, they increased in their valuations of the individualizing foundations and decreased in their valuations of the binding foundations. This effect was not moderated by political ideology. Implications and areas for future directions are discussed.

KW - construal level

KW - mind-set

KW - moral foundations

KW - morality

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84880419275&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84880419275&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/1948550612473783

DO - 10.1177/1948550612473783

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84880419275

VL - 4

SP - 754

EP - 759

JO - Social Psychological and Personality Science

JF - Social Psychological and Personality Science

SN - 1948-5506

IS - 6

ER -