IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v61y2017i2p424-437.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Intuitive Ethics and Political Orientations: Testing Moral Foundations as a Theory of Political Ideology

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin B. Smith
  • John R. Alford
  • John R. Hibbing
  • Nicholas G. Martin
  • Peter K. Hatemi

Abstract

Originally developed to explain cultural variation in moral judgments, moral foundations theory (MFT) has become widely adopted as a theory of political ideology. MFT posits that political attitudes are rooted in instinctual evaluations generated by innate psychological modules evolved to solve social dilemmas. If this is correct, moral foundations must be relatively stable dispositional traits, changes in moral foundations should systematically predict consequent changes in political orientations, and, at least in part, moral foundations must be heritable. We test these hypotheses and find substantial variability in individual‐level moral foundations across time, and little evidence that these changes account for changes in political attitudes. We also find little evidence that moral foundations are heritable. These findings raise questions about the future of MFT as a theory of ideology.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin B. Smith & John R. Alford & John R. Hibbing & Nicholas G. Martin & Peter K. Hatemi, 2017. "Intuitive Ethics and Political Orientations: Testing Moral Foundations as a Theory of Political Ideology," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 424-437, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:61:y:2017:i:2:p:424-437
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12255
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12255
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12255?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jim A C Everett, 2013. "The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(12), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Deppe, Kristen Diane & Stoltenberg, Scott F. & Smith, Kevin B. & Hibbing, John R., 2013. "Candidate Genes and Voter Turnout: Further Evidence on the Role of 5-HTTLPR," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 375-381, May.
    3. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jin Ho Yun & Yaeri Kim & Eun-Ju Lee, 2022. "ERP Study of Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Moral Reasoning Processes: Evidence from South Korea," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 176(4), pages 723-739, April.
    2. Raphaela Schlicht-Schmälzle & Volha Chykina & Ralf Schmälzle, 2018. "An attitude network analysis of post-national citizenship identities," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(12), pages 1-19, December.
    3. Cullen, Francis T. & Graham, Amanda & Hannan, Kellie & Burton, Alexander L. & Butler, Leah C. & Burton, Velmer S. Jr., 2020. "Catholics and Capital Punishment: Do Pope Francis's Teachings Matter in Policy Preferences?," SocArXiv yv86c, Center for Open Science.
    4. Alrababah, Ala & Casalis, Marine & Masterson, Daniel & Hangartner, Dominik & Wehrli, & Weinstein, Jeremy, 2023. "Reducing Attrition in Phone-based Panel Surveys: A Web Application to Facilitate Best Practices and Semi-Automate Survey Workflow," OSF Preprints gyz3h, Center for Open Science.
    5. Neugart, Michael & Yildirim, Selen, 2020. "What determines perceived income justice? Evidence from the German TwinLife study," Economics & Human Biology, Elsevier, vol. 36(C).
    6. Michael Zakharin & Timothy C Bates, 2021. "Remapping the foundations of morality: Well-fitting structural model of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-26, October.
    7. Shalini Sarin Jain & Shailendra Pratap Jain & Yexin Jessica Li, 2023. "Sustaining Livelihoods or Saving Lives? Economic System Justification in the Time of COVID-19," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(1), pages 71-104, February.
    8. Arnaud Wolff, 2022. "The Signaling Value of Social Identity," Working Papers of BETA 2022-15, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    9. Rossen, Isabel & Hurlstone, Mark J. & Dunlop, Patrick D. & Lawrence, Carmen, 2019. "Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 224(C), pages 23-27.
    10. Raymond Tatalovich & Dane G. Wendell, 2018. "Expanding the scope and content of morality policy research: lessons from Moral Foundations Theory," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 51(4), pages 565-579, December.
    11. Gazi Islam, 2020. "Psychology and Business Ethics: A Multi-level Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-13, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mehmet Özer Demir & Biagio Simonetti & Murat Alper Başaran & Sezgin Irmak, 2021. "Voter Classification Based on Susceptibility to Persuasive Strategies: A Machine Learning Approach," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 155(1), pages 355-370, May.
    2. Matthew Blackwell & James Honaker & Gary King, 2017. "A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 303-341, August.
    3. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    4. Cavaillé, Charlotte & Chen, Daniel L. & Van Der Straeten, Karine, 2022. "Who Cares? Measuring Preference Intensity in a Polarized Environment," IAST Working Papers 22-130, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    5. Sgroi, Daniel & Yeo, Jonathan & Zhuo, Shi, 2021. "Ingroup Bias with Multiple Identities: The Case of Religion and Attitudes Towards Government Size," IZA Discussion Papers 14714, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Saarimaa, Tuukka & Tukiainen, Janne, 2016. "Local representation and strategic voting: Evidence from electoral boundary reforms," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 31-45.
    7. Sylvia Beyer, 2020. "Relation between College Students’ Conservatism and Negative Stereotypes about Social Groups," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Adam Lovett, 2023. "The ethics of asymmetric politics," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(1), pages 3-30, February.
    9. Matej Avbelj & Janez Šušteršič, 2019. "Conceptual Framework and Empirical Methodology for Measuring Multidimensional Judicial Ideology," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 2, pages 129-159, June.
    10. Richard Hanania, 2021. "Cui Bono? Partisanship and Attitudes Toward Refugees," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 166-178, January.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:3:p:401-412 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Funk, Patricia & Gathmann, Christina, 2013. "Voter preferences, direct democracy and government spending," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 300-319.
    13. Jonathan Bendor & Sunil Kumar & David A. Siegel, 2010. "Adaptively Rational Retrospective Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 22(1), pages 26-63, January.
    14. Bert N Bakker & Claes H de Vreese, 2016. "Personality and European Union attitudes: Relationships across European Union attitude dimensions," European Union Politics, , vol. 17(1), pages 25-45, March.
    15. Schneider, Sebastian H. & Eger, Jens & Bruder, Martin & Faust, Jörg & Wieler, Lothar H., 2021. "Does the COVID-19 pandemic threaten global solidarity? Evidence from Germany," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. Liesbet Hooghe & Gary Marks, 2012. "Beyond Federalism - Estimating and Explaining the Territorial Structure of Government," KFG Working Papers p0037, Free University Berlin.
    17. D. Hillygus & Sarah Treul, 2014. "Assessing strategic voting in the 2008 US presidential primaries: the role of electoral context, institutional rules, and negative votes," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 517-536, December.
    18. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    19. Jorge Matute & José Luis Sánchez-Torelló & Ramon Palau-Saumell, 2021. "The Influence of Organizations’ Tax Avoidance Practices on Consumers’ Behavior: The Role of Moral Reasoning Strategies, Political Ideology, and Brand Identification," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 174(2), pages 369-386, November.
    20. Eduardo Levy Yeyati & Lorena Moscovich & Constanza Abuin, 2017. "Leader over policy? The influence of political leaders on policy preferences," School of Government Working Papers 201701, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella.
    21. van Esch, Patrick & Cui, Yuanyuan (Gina) & Jain, Shailendra Pratap, 2021. "The effect of political ideology and message frame on donation intent during the COVID-19 pandemic," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 201-213.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:61:y:2017:i:2:p:424-437. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.