Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Three studies demonstrated that the moral judgments of religious individuals and political conservatives are highly insensitive to consequentialist (i.e., outcome-based) considerations. In Study 1, both religiosity and political conservatism predicted a resistance toward consequentialist thinking concerning a range of transgressive acts, independent of other relevant dispositional factors (e.g., disgust sensitivity). Study 2 ruled out differences in welfare sensitivity as an explanation for these findings. In Study 3, religiosity and political conservatism predicted a commitment to judging “harmless” taboo violations morally impermissible, rather than discretionary, despite the lack of negative consequences rising from the act. Furthermore, non-consequentialist thinking style was shown to mediate the relationship religiosity/conservatism had with impermissibility judgments, while intuitive thinking style did not. These data provide further evidence for the influence of religious and political commitments in motivating divergent moral judgments, while highlighting a new dispositional factor, non-consequentialist thinking style, as a mediator of these effects.

Keywords

religiosity political conservatism moral judgment consequentialist thinking deontology moral dumbfounding intuitive thinking disgust sensitivity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alexander

Moore

(2008). Deontological ethics. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.standord.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/ethics-deontological

Altemeyer

(1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–91). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Baron

Spranca

(1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.

Bartels

D. M.

Pizarro

D. A.

(2011). The mismeasure of morals: Antisocial personality traits predict utilitarian responses to moral dilemmas. Cognition, 121, 154–161.

Carlsmith

K. M.

Sood

A. M.

(2009). The fine line between interrogation and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 191–196.

Duckitt

(2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113.

Frederick

(2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42.

Graham

Haidt

(2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150.

Graham

Haidt

Nosek

(2009). Liberals and conservatives use different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.

10.

Greene

J. D.

(2008). The secret joke of Kant’s soul. In Sinnott-Armstrong

(Ed.), Moral psychology: The neuroscience of morality (pp. 35–79). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

11.

Guth

J. L.

Kellstedt

L. A.

Smidt

C. E.

Green

J. C.

(2006). Religious influences in the 2004 presidential election. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 36, 223–242.

12.

Haidt

(2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834.

13.

Haidt

(2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998–1002.

14.

Haidt

Bjorklund

Murphy

(2000). Moral dumbfounding: When intuition finds no reason. Unpublished manuscript. University of Virginia.

15.

Haidt

Joseph

(2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus, 133, 55–66.

16.

Haidt

Koller

Dias

(1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613–628.

17.

Haidt

McCauley

Rozing

(1994). Individual differences in sensitivity to disgust: A scale sampling seven domains of disgust elicitors. Personality and Individual Differences, 16, 701–713.

18.

Inbar

Pizarro

Iyer

Haidt

(2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 537–544.

19.

Inbar

Pizarro

Knobe

Bloom

(2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9, 435–439.

20.

Janoff-Bulman

Sheikh

Baldacci

K. G.

(2008). Mapping moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099.

21.

Jost

J. T.

Glaser

Kruglanski

A. W.

Sulloway

F. J.

(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

22.

Kant

(1797/1966). On a supposed right to lie from philanthropy. In Gregor

M. J.

(Ed.), Practical philosophy (pp. 611–615). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Kohlberg

(1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In Goslin

D. A.

(Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

24.

Layman

G. C.

Carmines

E. G.

(1997). Cultural conflict in American politics: Religious traditionalism, postmaterialism, and U.S. political behavior. Journal of Politics, 59, 751–777.

25.

Lombrozo

(2009). The role of moral commitments in moral judgment. Cognitive Science, 33, 273–286.

26.

Mill

J. S.

(1861/1998). Utilitarianism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

27.

Olson

L. R.

Green

J. C.

(2006). The religion gap. PS: Political Science and Politics, 39, 455–459.

28.

Piazza

(2012). “If you love me keep my commandments:” Religiosity increases preference for rule-based moral arguments. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 285–302.

29.

Piazza

Landy

(2013). Because God commands it: Belief that morality is founded on divine authority explains the link between religiosity and non-consequentialist moral thinking. Manuscript submitted for publication.

30.

Piazza

Russell

P. S.

Sousa

(2013). Moral emotions and the envisioning of mitigating circumstances for wrongdoing. Cognition & Emotion, 27, 707–722. doi:10.1080/02699931.2012.736859

31.

Plante

T. G.

Boccaccini

(1997). The Santa Clara strength of religious faith questionnaire. Pastoral Psychology, 45, 375–387.

32.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

33.

Putnam

R. D.

Campbell

D. E.

(2010). American grace: How religion divides and unites us. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

34.

Rosen

(2003). Classical utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. New York, NY: Routledge.

35.

Russell

P. S.

Piazza

(2012). When do deontological arguments communicate more moral conviction than consequentialist arguments? Unpublished manuscript.

36.

Shenhav

Rand

D. G.

Greene

(2011). Divine intuition: Cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 423–428.

37.

Sinnott-Armstrong

(2009a). Consequentialism. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.science.uva.nl/∼seop/archives/spr2009/entries/consequ-entialism

38.

Sinnott-Armstrong

(2009b). Morality without God? New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

39.

Tetlock

P. E.

(2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 320–324.

40.

Tybur

J. M.

Lierberman

Griskevicius

(2009). Microbes, mating, and morality: Individual differences in three functional domains of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 103–122.

41.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Zhu

Tannenbaum

(2013). When it takes a bad person to do the right thing. Cognition, 126, 326–334.

42.

van Leeuwen

Park

J. H.

(2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 169–173.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.13 MB

Religiosity,Political Orientation,and Consequentialist Moral Thinking

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material