Do moral intuitions influence judges' sentencing decisions? A multilevel study of criminal court sentencing in Pennsylvania

The influence of judges' personal moral values on their sentencing decisions is of longstanding interest to researchers and the public. Few studies, however, have examined this influence empirically. Using a unique data set that combines a survey of 81 criminal court judges with archival data on their 40,385 criminal sentences over a 2-year period, and drawing on Moral Foundations Theory, we hypothesize that judges with strong care and fairness intuitions will sentence defendants less severely while judges with strong loyalty, authority, and sanctity intuitions will sentence defendants more severely. We further hypothesize that these effects will be heightened when the defendant is from a racial minority group. Results show that sentencing outcomes are largely independent of judges' moral intuitions, except that fairness intuitions tend to increase leniency, especially when the defendant is Black, and sanctity intuitions tend to decrease leniency. Implications for future research on sentencing are discussed.

Moral Foundations, Himpathy, and Punishment Following Organizational Sexual Misconduct Allegations

We build on deontic justice and moral foundations theories to shed light on responses to sexual misconduct at work by proposing a model that explains why some third parties punish accusing victims and support alleged perpetrators. We theorize that when third parties are given conflicting he-said, she-said information, they intuitively evaluate organizational injustice based on moral values. We further theorize that binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) give rise to sympathy toward men accused of sexual misconduct and anger toward female accusers. Across five studies (total n = 5,413) utilizing archival, field, and vignette designs, we examined third-party responses to sexual misconduct accusations ranging in severity across several industries. Third-party endorsement of binding moral foundations was linked to increased perpetrator-directed sympathy and victim-directed anger (Studies 1–4). These emotions jointly mediated the relationship between binding values and credibility perceptions of the accusing victim and the alleged perpetrator (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, victim credibility was negatively associated with social sanctions and punishment severity levied toward the accusing victim, and perpetrator credibility was negatively associated with the same punishment outcomes for the alleged perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4). In Study 5, we found that managers framing the accusing victim as disloyal exacerbated negative judgments and emotions toward the victim and positive judgments and emotions toward the perpetrator for individuals who highly ascribe to binding moral foundations. We discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications of moral concerns on third parties’ emotions, judgments, and motivations to punish actors involved in sexual misconduct allegations.

Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1652 .

Moral values, social ideologies and threat-based cognition: Implications for intergroup relations

Moral foundations theory (MFT) has provided an account of the moral values that underscore different cultural and political ideologies, and these moral values of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity can help to explain differences in political and cultural ideologies; however, the extent to which moral foundations relate to strong social ideologies, intergroup processes and threat perceptions is still underdeveloped. To explore this relationship, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 157), we considered how the moral foundations predicted strong social ideologies such as authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) as well as attitudes toward immigrants. Here, we demonstrated that more endorsement of individualizing moral foundations (average of harm and fairness) was related to less negative intergroup attitudes, which was mediated by SDO, and that more endorsement of binding moral foundations (the average of loyalty, authority, and purity) was related to more negative attitudes, which was mediated by RWA. Crucially, further analyses also suggested the importance of threat perceptions as an underlying explanatory variable. Study 2 (N = 388) replicated these findings and extended them by measuring attitudes toward a different group reflecting an ethnic minority in the United States, and by testing the ordering of variables while also replicating and confirming the threat effects. These studies have important implications for using MFT to understand strong ideologies, intergroup relations, and threat perceptions.

Why Are General Moral Values Poor Predictors of Concrete Moral Behavior in Everyday Life? A Conceptual Analysis and Empirical Study

Within moral psychology, theories focusing on the conceptualization and empirical measurement of people's morality in terms of general moral values -such as Moral Foundation Theory- (implicitly) assume general moral values to be relevant concepts for the explanation and prediction of behavior in everyday life. However, a solid theoretical and empirical foundation for this idea remains work in progress. In this study we explore this relationship between general moral values and daily life behavior through a conceptual analysis and an empirical study. Our conceptual analysis of the moral value-moral behavior relationship suggests that the effect of a generally endorsed moral value on moral behavior is highly context dependent. It requires the manifestation of several phases of moral decision-making, each influenced by many contextual factors. We expect that this renders the empirical relationship between generic moral values and people's concrete moral behavior indeterminate. Subsequently, we empirically investigate this relationship in three different studies. We relate two different measures of general moral values -the Moral Foundation Questionnaire and the Morality As Cooperation Questionnaire- to a broad set of self-reported morally relevant daily life behaviors (including adherence to COVID-19 measures and participation in voluntary work). Our empirical results are in line with the expectations derived from our conceptual analysis: the considered general moral values are poor predictors of the selected daily life behaviors. Furthermore, moral values that were tailored to the specific context of the behavior showed to be somewhat stronger predictors. Together with the insights derived from our conceptual analysis, this indicates the relevance of the contextual nature of moral decision-making as a possible explanation for the poor predictive value of general moral values. Our findings suggest that the investigation of morality's influence on behavior by expressing and measuring it in terms of general moral values may need revision.

Moral Identity Predicts Adherence to COVID-19 Mitigation Procedures Depending on Political Ideology: A Comparison Between the USA and New Zealand

Reducing the spread of infectious viruses (e.g., COVID-19) can depend on societal compliance with effective mitigations. Identifying factors that influence adherence can inform public policy. In many cases, public health messaging has become highly moralized, focusing on the need to act for the greater good. In such contexts, a person's moral identity may influence behavior and serve to increase compliance through different mechanisms: if a person sees compliance as the right thing to do (internalization) and/or if a person perceives compliance as something others will notice as the right thing to do (symbolization). We argue that in societies that are more politically polarized, people's political ideology may interact with their moral identity to predict compliance. We hypothesized that where polarization is high (e.g., USA), moral identity should positively predict compliance for liberals to a greater extent than for conservatives. However, this effect would not occur where polarization is low (e.g., New Zealand). Moral identity, political ideology, and support for three different COVID-19 mitigation measures were assessed in both nations (N = 1,980). Results show that while moral identity can influence compliance, the political context of the nation must also be taken into account.

Integrating relational systems theory with ethical leadership: how ethical leadership relates to employee turnover intentions

Purpose

As ethical leadership has advanced as a construct, the degree to which healthy relational systems explain its effect on employee outcomes has been understudied. With this manuscript we conceptualize and test a model based on a Relational Systems approach to ethical leadership and its relationship with conflict and turnover intentions.

Design/methodology/approach

Two studies were conducted to test our hypothesized first- and second-stage moderated mediation model. In Study 1, online surveys were completed by 168 working adults across two different time points. Study 2 extended Study 1 by surveying 115 working adults across three time points using the Mechanical Turk platform.

Findings

The indirect relationship between ethical leadership and turnover intentions via relationship conflict was conditional based on follower moral identity. The negative influence of ethical leadership on relationship conflict and, in turn, turnover intentions was stronger for followers who had higher moral identities. In addition, our findings suggest that leader holding behaviors strengthen the negative indirect effects of ethical leadership on turnover intentions.

Originality/value

This paper demonstrates the usefulness of a Relational Systems theoretical approach to understanding ethical leadership. Specifically, ethical leaders, through their desire and ability to help employees feel known and not alone at work, are better able to reduce relationship conflict and, in turn, reduce employees' desire to leave the organization.

Performing intersectional identity work over time: the historic case of Viola Turner

Purpose

This study aims to analyze the exemplary historic case of Ms Viola Turner – an African-American insurance executive in the early 1900s to gain insights into how individuals negotiate the tension between intersecting identities and moral foundational values over time.

Design/methodology/approach

This study uses a mixed research design and a genealogical-pragmatic approach to analyze this exemplary case. This study uses computer-aided textual analysis software to analyze interviews conducted with Ms Turner, generating quantitative insights. This study qualitatively codes the interviews to aid in establishing the behavioral patterns across Ms Turner’s lifespan.

Findings

This study found that Ms Turner altered her underlying configurations of moral foundations to better align with her intersecting identities. This study also revealed cross-level interactions of intersecting identities, life stages and social contexts. Individuals manage and cope with power imbalances through these identity-value alignments.

Originality/value

The findings shed light on how intersectional history contributes to understanding the ways in which individuals deal with power relationships embedded in intersecting identities over time.

The Mediating Role of Moral Absolutism Between the "Binding Moral Foundations" and Sexist Attitudes: A Path That May Lead to Intimate Partner Violence

The binding foundations (loyalty, authority, and purity) constitute adaptive mechanisms for preserving groups' interests. However, they have also been related to intergroup prejudice and violence. We show that the known relationship between the binding foundations and sexist attitudes is mediated by moral absolutism, a variable that reflects the degree to which people believe that their own definition of morality is objectively correct. Two different samples are used: a conventional one (Study 1, N  =  321), and a forensic one at the beginning (T1) and at the end (T2) of court-mandated psychological therapy (Study 2, N  =  354; N  =  327).

When the going gets tough, the tough are let go? The effects of political ideology on leader tenure in organisations

Purpose

Drawing on moral foundations theory (MFT), this paper aims to examine the relationship between community-level political ideology, organisational performance and leader tenure by proposing and testing an “ideology-authority hypothesis” wherein political ideology moderates the relationship between organisational performance decline and leader tenure in organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors used archival data pertaining to the performance of teams from the National Basketball Association (NBA), the tenure of the head coaches and the voting record of the communities in which the teams are located. The authors used hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) to test the relationships among these variables at multiple levels.

Findings

The results provided empirical support for the “ideology-authority hypothesis”. Specifically, the magnitude of team winning percentage decrease from the previous season is positively associated with the tenure of the head coach in teams located in more conservative communities but not in teams located in more liberal communities.

Originality/value

This study examines leadership stability and change by highlighting the moral foundation of authority/subversion. The findings also illustrate the importance of a community-level variable – the general political climate of the community in which an organisation is embedded – in organisational decision-making.

How are moral foundations associated with empathic traits and moral identity?

We examined the relationship between moral foundations, empathic traits, and moral identity using an online survey via Mechanical Turk. In order to determine how moral foundations contribute to empathic traits and moral identity, we performed classical correlation analysis as well as Bayesian correlation analysis, Bayesian ANCOVA, and Bayesian regression analysis. Results showed that individualizing foundations (harm/care, fairness/reciprocity) and binding foundations (ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, purity/sanctity) had various different relationships with empathic traits. In addition, the individualizing versus binding foundations showed somewhat reverse relationships with internalization and symbolization of moral identity. This suggests that moral foundations can contribute to further understanding of empathic traits and moral identity and how they relate to moral behavior in reality. We discuss the implications of these results for moral educators when starting to teach students about moral issues.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-02372-5.

The Extreme Moral Diversity of Men Convicted of Violence Against Their Partners: Four Profiles Based on the Five Moral Foundations

The aim of this study is to identify homogeneous profiles based on the five moral foundations in a sample of 376 men undergoing court-mandated treatment for violently abusing their partners. To understand better the meaning of these new profiles as well as their temporal consistency, the profiles were related to different outcomes of the current psychological treatments, before and after a prescribed one, such as self-deception, moral self-concept, benevolent sexism, and hostile sexism. Results from Latent Profile Analysis and Latent Transition Analysis showed good fit for a four-profile solution. This solution was stable from Time 1 to Time 2, both in terms of the scores on the moral foundations and the participants included in each profile. The participants included in each profile were called "Sacralizers", "All for one", "Moral outsiders", and "Purists". Comparing with standard samples and consistent with the predictions of the moral foundation theory and the sacredness hypothesis, their scores on the moral foundations were clearly different by excess or defect. Those tending to exaggerate or sacralize the moral concerns ("Sacralizers" and "Purists") were the most self-deceived, the less hostile sexists, and the ones with the highest moral self-conceptualization. Future research will have to test the role of the moral variables in the psychological treatments and think of strategies to change the importance that men convicted of domestic violence give to the five moral foundations, but at least two strategies seem to be needed: one to reduce the exaggerations and another to increase the deficits of the moral foundations.

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

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.

Binding moral values gain importance in the presence of close others

A key function of morality is to regulate social behavior. Research suggests moral values may be divided into two types: binding values, which govern behavior in groups, and individualizing values, which promote personal rights and freedoms. Because people tend to mentally activate concepts in situations in which they may prove useful, the importance they afford moral values may vary according to whom they are with in the moment. In particular, because binding values help regulate communal behavior, people may afford these values more importance when in the presence of close (versus distant) others. Five studies test and support this hypothesis. First, we use a custom smartphone application to repeatedly record participants' (n = 1166) current social context and the importance they afforded moral values. Results show people rate moral values as more important when in the presence of close others, and this effect is stronger for binding than individualizing values-an effect that replicates in a large preregistered online sample (n = 2016). A lab study (n = 390) and two preregistered online experiments (n = 580 and n = 752) provide convergent evidence that people afford binding, but not individualizing, values more importance when in the real or imagined presence of close others. Our results suggest people selectively activate different moral values according to the demands of the situation, and show how the mere presence of others can affect moral thinking.

Politics Turns Moral Foundations Into Consequences of Intergroup Attitudes

Abstract. Applying a longitudinal design, we tested the directions of the relationships between moral foundations and attitudes toward Muslim immigrants. The study was conducted during the official campaign period of the Hungarian parliamentary elections in 2018. It was found that moral foundations are consequences of intergroup attitudes. Latent change modeling showed that while individualizing foundations were independent of anti-Muslim attitudes, longitudinal change in binding foundations was predicted by prior anti-Muslim attitudes, but not the other way around. Furthermore, this relationship was moderated by exposure to the anti-Muslim and anti-immigration campaigns led by the government. These results suggest that people are motivated to harmonize their moral concerns with their prior social beliefs, and they actively utilize available political messages in this process.

“They should have followed the rules”: Trade-offs Between Fairness and Authority Values Predict Judgments of Social Justice Protests

In 2017, Colin Kaepernick drew global attention by kneeling during the national anthem before a football game. The protest divided the country into two groups: those who supported Kaepernick’s stand against inequality and those who believed it was disrespectful. The current study investigates whether differences in moral values (i.e., fairness vs. respect for authority) predict an individual’s opinion of the protestors and whether priming one of those values influences opinions on social justice protests more broadly. Our data support the moral trade-off hypothesis by demonstrating that when values are in conflict, the degree to which individuals value fairness versus authority predicts their opinions of the protesters. These differences in fairness versus authority also extended to judgments of other kinds of social justice protests. These findings support the moral foundations theory as a useful tool for investigating the influence of moral values on perceptions of social issues and subsequent behavior.

Tree-Huggers Versus Human-Lovers: Anthropomorphism and Dehumanization Predict Valuing Nature Over Outgroups

Previous examinations of the scope of moral concern have focused on aggregate attributions of moral worth. However, because trade-offs exist in valuing different kinds of entities, tabulating total amounts of moral expansiveness may conceal significant individual differences in the relative proportions of moral valuation ascribed to various entities. We hypothesized that some individuals ("tree-huggers") would ascribe greater moral worth to animals and ecosystems than to humans from marginalized or stigmatized groups, while others ("human-lovers") would ascribe greater moral worth to outgroup members than to the natural world. Additionally, because moral valuation is often treated as being zero-sum, we hypothesized that there would be no difference in aggregate levels of moral concern between tree-huggers and human-lovers. Finally, because attributions of mental capacities substantially contribute to moral valuation, we predicted that tree-huggers and human-lovers would show different patterns of mind attribution for animals versus humans. Three studies (N = 985) yielded evidence in support of our hypotheses. First, over one-third of participants valued nature over outgroups. Second, extending moral value to animals and nature was not indicative of more expansive moral concern overall; instead, tree-huggers and human-lovers were identical in their aggregate ascriptions of moral worth. Third, tree-huggers had relatively amplified tendencies to attribute mental capacities to animals and relatively reduced tendencies to attribute mental capacities to outgroup members-thus having elevated rates of both anthropomorphism and dehumanization. These findings necessitate a reconceptualization of both the extension of moral worth and the attribution of minds.

Reanalysing the factor structure of the moral foundations questionnaire

The moral foundations theory (MFT) is an influential multifactorial model that posits how decision-making in the moral context originates from a set of six intuitive moral foundations: care, fairness, authority, loyalty, purity, and liberty. The established measure of these foundations-the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (MFQ)-has been used extensively in a range of empirical projects. However, recent analyses of its factor structure and the internal consistency of each of the foundation clusters have called its validity into question. In this paper, data from a large sample of British voters were used to re-examine the factor structure of the MFQ. As opposed to a 6-factor structure, only three meaningful clusters emerged in an exploratory principal factors analysis (Study 1; N = 428): traditionalism, compassion, and liberty. This structure was broadly confirmed in an independent sample (Study 2; N = 322). Concurrent validity was established via correlations with measures of 'social change' and 'systemic inequality' insecurities (Study 1) and voting behaviour and preferences (Study 2). Significant differences on each of the three factors of the revised MFQ (MFQ-r) were observed between the voters of different political parties (Study 1) and sides of the Brexit issue (Study 2). Implications for moral foundations theory and its measurement are discussed.

"You're still worth it": The moral and relational context of politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks

Political disagreements in social media can result in removing (i.e., “unfriending”) a person from one’s online network. Given that such actions could lead to the (ideological) homogenization of networks, it is pivotal to understand the psychological processes intertwined in unfriending decisions. This requires not only addressing different types of disagreements but also analyzing them in the relational context they occur. This article proposes that political disagreements leading to drastic measures such as unfriending are attributable to more deeply rooted moral dissents. Based on moral foundations theory and relationship regulation research, this work presents empirical evidence from two experiments. In both studies, subjects rated political statements (that violated different moral foundations) with regard to perceived reprehensibility and the likelihood of unfriending the source. Study 1 (N = 721) revealed that moral judgments of a political statement are moderately related to the unfriending decision. Study 2 (N = 822) replicated this finding but indicated that unfriending is less likely when the source of the morally reprehensible statement is relationally close to the unfriender and provides emotional support. This research extends unfriending literature by pointing to morality as a new dimension of analysis and offers initial evidence uncovering the psychological trade-off behind the decision of terminating digital ties. Drawing on this, our findings inform research on the homogenization of online networks by indicating that selective avoidance (in the form of politically motivated unfriending) is conditional upon the relational context and the interpersonal benefits individuals receive therein.

Personal Values and Moral Foundations: Examining Relations and Joint Prediction of Moral Variables

I examined the relationship between personal values and moral foundations by conducting a mini meta-analysis of the values–foundations links in five large-scale cross-cultural samples (overall N = 32,492). I further tested whether the two theories predicted unique variance in moral variables. I found support for values and foundations as unique constructs with consistent and theoretically meaningful relationships. Broadly, self-transcendence versus self-enhancement values dimensions were associated with individualizing foundations, whereas conservation versus openness-to-change values dimensions were associated with binding foundations. Links between values and foundations categories followed the expected theoretical values theory circumplex structure sinusoidal pattern. Dimensions of the two theories predicted unique variance in morality attitudes, behavior, and individual differences. All materials, data sets, and code are available on https://osf.io/6qs5g/ .

Theta resting EEG in the right TPJ is associated with individual differences in implicit intergroup bias

Why are some people more biased than others in their implicit evaluations during social interaction? The dispositional determinants of individual differences in implicit intergroup bias are poorly understood. Here, we explored whether such variability might be explained by stable neural traits. For that purpose, we used the source-localized resting electroencephalograms of 83 members of naturalistic social groups to explain their bias in an in-/outgroup implicit association test. Lower levels of resting theta current density in the right temporo-parietal junction (TPJ) were associated with stronger implicit intergroup bias and explained unique variability in bias beyond relevant personality questionnaires. These findings demonstrate the added value of the neural trait approach in predicting inter-individual differences in implicit social cognition. Given that low levels of resting theta current density during wakefulness likely reflect increased cortical activation, our results suggest that individuals with an efficiently working right TPJ possess capacities to mediate specific cognitive processes that predispose them towards stronger implicit intergroup bias. As the human species has evolved living in distinct social groups, the capacity to quickly differentiate friend from foe became highly adaptive and might thus constitute an essential part of human nature.

Handedness and the neurocognitive foundations of public attitudes about international laws and norms

Whether Geneva Conventions (GC) rights should apply to terrorists is a contentious question that has received little attention in public opinion research. Both personality and contextual factors may be important. We queried participants' support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists, but first we measured participants' authoritarianism and presented them with a scenario concerning an alleged terrorist. We manipulated whether (1) the scenario contained examples of GC rights and (2) the alleged terrorist's religious affiliation was Muslim or non-Muslim. Support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists was high and unaffected by providing examples of GC provisions, but it was negatively related to authoritarianism. Support was reduced by priming with a Muslim terrorist, but only among participants exhibiting a behavioral marker for limited interhemispheric interaction - consistent-handedness. Consistent-handers in our sample expressed greater authoritarianism, suggesting that limited interhemispheric interaction promotes greater authoritarianism, which decreases support for applying the GC to alleged terrorists.

Economic and Social Political Ideology and Homophobia: The Mediating Role of Binding and Individualizing Moral Foundations

Previous research has linked conservative political ideology with homophobia. Political ideology has also been linked to differences in moral decision-making, with research suggesting that conservatives and liberals may use different values in their moral decision-making processes. Moral foundations theory is a model of moral decision-making that proposes that individuals emphasize different domains in moral decision-making. Conservatives tend to emphasize binding foundations, while liberals tend to emphasize individualizing foundations. Utilizing large, ethnically diverse college samples, the purpose of these two cross-sectional studies (Study 1 N = 492; Study 2 N = 861) was to explore whether moral foundations mediate the relationship between political ideology and homophobia. These studies explored economic and social political ideology separately and utilized a two-factor model of moral foundations theory (individualizing and binding foundations). Results of both studies found that conservative economic and social political ideology was positively associated with homophobia. Study 1 found that both conservative economic and social political ideology had an indirect effect on homophobia through binding foundations. Study 2 found that both economic and social political ideology had an indirect effect on homophobia through both binding and individualizing foundations. Overall, the results were consistent with the notion that moral foundations may explain the relationship between political ideology and homophobia.

A closer look at intergroup threat within the dual process model framework: The mediating role of moral foundations

In our study we investigated how right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are related to perceived intergroup threat, and also tested the potential mediating role of individualizing and binding moral foundations within this relationship pattern. According to our results, both RWA and SDO enhanced the perceived threat related to immigration. Furthermore, the effect of SDO was partly mediated by individualizing moral foundations, while the effect of RWA was partly mediated by both kinds of moral foundations. It seems that perceived intergroup threat, at least to some extent, is influenced by personal moral preferences that can be derived from individual dispositions and motivations.

Relationships between Ambivalent Sexism and the Five Moral Foundations in Domestic Violence: Is it a Matter of Fairness and Authority?

Ambivalent sexism has served to justify and maintain patriarchy and traditional gender roles characterized by inequality and male domination in the intimate partner violence (IPV) literature; according to the Moral Foundation Theory (MFT) there are two specific moral foundations related to inequality and domination: fairness and authority. We connect these separate fields arguing that sexist attitudes can be related to specific patterns of endorsement of the five moral foundations. Our hypothesis is that ambivalent sexism in men convicted of violence against the partner may be rooted in at least these two moral foundations, and that at least these two moral foundations may also serve to predict intention to change the violent behavior against the partner. Controlling for political orientation, the results show that benevolent sexism correlates positively with the authority foundation; and hostile sexism correlates negatively with the fairness foundation. Both foundations contribute to explaining the two dimensions of ambivalent sexism (benevolent and hostile) and only the fairness foundation predict intention to change the violent behavior against the partner. New treatment approaches could be designed to increase moral concerns about fairness and to reduce moral concerns about authority in people who, at least, have once used violence against their partners.

Binding Moral Foundations and the Narrowing of Ideological Conflict to the Traditional Morality Domain

Moral foundations theory (MFT) posits that binding moral foundations (purity, authority, and ingroup loyalty) are rooted in the need for groups to promote order and cohesion, and that they therefore underlie political conservatism. We present evidence that binding foundations (and the related construct of disgust sensitivity) are associated with lower levels of ideological polarization on political issues outside the domain of moral traditionalism. Consistent support for this hypothesis was obtained from three large American Internet-based samples and one large national sample of New Zealanders (combined N = 7,874). We suggest that when political issues do not have inherent relevance to moral traditionalism, binding foundations promote a small centrist shift away from ideologically prescribed positions, and that they do so out of desire for national uniformity and cohesion.

Organizational Justice, Behavioral Ethics, and Corporate Social Responsibility: Finally the Three Shall Merge

Issues of ethics, justice, and social responsibility are as fundamental to organizational behavior as they are to society at large. As contracts are forged, individuals employed, and power differentials created, opportunities for exploitation, oppression, and victimization emerge. In contrast, as social structures evolve, coordinated opportunities arise for imparting positive social change at the community, environmental, and societal levels. Inherent to all of these phenomena is the application of norms surrounding moral behavior. Norms about what is considered fair and ethical underlie how individuals perceive and evaluate the behaviors and decisions of others; how groups and societies define acceptable behavior; and how individuals, groups, and societies evaluate the decisions and actions of organizations. In addition to defining standards, these norms also drive the reactions (or sanctions) against those who violate them.

Religion and morality

The relationship between religion and morality has long been hotly debated. Does religion make us more moral? Is it necessary for morality? Do moral inclinations emerge independently of religious intuitions? These debates, which nowadays rumble on in scientific journals as well as in public life, have frequently been marred by a series of conceptual confusions and limitations. Many scientific investigations have failed to decompose "religion" and "morality" into theoretically grounded elements; have adopted parochial conceptions of key concepts-in particular, sanitized conceptions of "prosocial" behavior; and have neglected to consider the complex interplay between cognition and culture. We argue that to make progress, the categories "religion" and "morality" must be fractionated into a set of biologically and psychologically cogent traits, revealing the cognitive foundations that shape and constrain relevant cultural variants. We adopt this fractionating strategy, setting out an encompassing evolutionary framework within which to situate and evaluate relevant evidence. Our goals are twofold: to produce a detailed picture of the current state of the field, and to provide a road map for future research on the relationship between religion and morality.