• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Psychology >Moving Morality Beyond the In-Group: Liberals and Conservatives Show Differences on Group-Framed Moral Foundations and These Differences Mediate the Relationships to Perceived Bias and Threat
【24h】

Moving Morality Beyond the In-Group: Liberals and Conservatives Show Differences on Group-Framed Moral Foundations and These Differences Mediate the Relationships to Perceived Bias and Threat

机译：超越群体之外的道德：自由主义者和保守派表现出对框架的道德基础的差异，这些差异调解了与感知偏见和威胁的关系

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Moral foundations research suggests that liberals care about moral values related to individual rights such as harm and fairness, while conservatives care about those foundations in addition to caring more about group rights such as loyalty, authority, and purity. However, the question remains about how conservatives and liberals differ in relation to group-level moral principles. We used two versions of the moral foundations questionnaire with the target group being either abstract or specific ingroups or outgroups. Across three studies, we observed that liberals showed more endorsement of Individualizing foundations (Harm and Fairness foundations) with an outgroup target, while conservatives showed more endorsement of Binding foundations (Loyalty, Authority, and Purity foundations) with an ingroup target. This general pattern was found when the framed, target-group was abstract (i.e., ‘ingroups’ and ‘outgroups’ in Study 1) and when target groups were specified about a general British-ingroup and an immigrant-outgroup (Studies 2 and 3). In Studies 2 and 3, both Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference scores predicted more Attitude Bias and more Negative Attitude Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), more Implicit Bias (Study 3), and more Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). We also demonstrated that increasing liberalism was associated with less Attitude Bias and less Negative Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), less Implicit Bias (Study 3), and less Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). Outgroup-individualizing foundations and Ingroup-Binding foundations showed different patterns of mediation of these effects.
机译：道德基础研究表明，自由主义者关心与危害和公平的个人权利有关的道德价值，而保守党除了关心忠诚，权力和纯洁等群体权利之外的关心。但是，问题仍然是关于保守党和自由派如何与集团级道德原则有关的不同。我们使用了两种版本的道德基础调查问卷，目标群体是摘要或特定的Ingroups或小组。在三项研究中，我们观察到，自由主义者旨在更加认可与小组目标的个性化基础（危害和公平基础），而保守者则与INGROUP目标的结合基础（忠诚度，权威和纯度基础）更多的认可。当框架的目标组是摘要时（即“Ingroups”和“研究中的”Offroups“和'Offrous's'），并且当指定靶群体关于一般英国植物和移民 - 小组时（研究2和3） ）。在研究2和3中，个体化 - ingroup偏好和结合 - ingroup偏好分数预测移民（研究2和3），更隐含的偏差（研究3），以及更多感知来自移民的威胁（研究2和3）。我们还表明，增加的自由主义与移民（研究2和3）的态度偏差和较少的负面偏差有关，较少隐含的偏见（研究3），较少的感知威胁来自移民（研究2和3）。小组 - 个体化基础和Ingroup结合基础显示出不同的这些效果的调解模式。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号