Suppr超能文献

自由主义者和保守主义者依赖不同的道德基础。

Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.

作者信息

Graham Jesse, Haidt Jonathan, Nosek Brian A

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22904, USA.

出版信息

J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009 May;96(5):1029-46. doi: 10.1037/a0015141.

Abstract

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."

摘要

道德判断如何以及为何在政治光谱上存在差异?为了检验道德基础理论(J. 海特和J. 格雷厄姆,2007年;J. 海特和C. 约瑟夫,2004年),作者开发了几种方法来衡量人们对五组道德直觉的运用:伤害/关怀、公平/互惠、内群体/忠诚、权威/尊重以及纯洁/神圣。在四项采用多种方法的研究中,与其他三种基础相比,自由主义者始终更倾向并更多地运用伤害/关怀和公平/互惠基础,而保守主义者对这五种基础的认可和运用则更为均衡。这种差异在对与基础相关的问题(如暴力或忠诚)的道德相关性的抽象评估中(研究1)、对陈述和情景的道德判断中(研究2)、对禁忌权衡的“神圣性”反应中(研究3)以及宗教布道的道德文本中与基础相关词汇的使用中(研究4)都有所体现。这些发现有助于阐明美国“文化战争”中道德分歧的本质和棘手程度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验