Moral Concerns and Political Behavior: New Approaches

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

The significance of moral values, ideas and beliefs for political behavior has been extensively documented. For example, moral concerns have been tied to phenomena such as political polarization in the United States or the growing political relevance of a libertarian-authoritarian value conflict in Europe. This panel draws on expertise in both Political Economy and American Politics to advance our understanding of the moral underpinnings of mass politics in post-industrial democracies.

A first concern is measurement. Moral reasoning involves a back and forth between abstract principles and specific situations in which these principles are used to generate moral judgements. Past research has mostly focused on identifying these principles. In contrast, Clifford, Austin and Sullivan seek to develop a new measurement strategy that consists of concrete, day-to-day choices, rather than abstract judgments. In her paper, Cavaille, seeks to distinguish between 1) how much people care about an unjust or unfair outcome and 2) their beliefs regarding the prevalence of unfair outcomes in a relevant population.

A second concern is understanding the consequences of moral reasoning. Is moral reasoning an independent driver of political behavior or is it best understood as a post-hoc justification of actions triggered by other considerations? To that avail, Kraft seeks to understand the relationship between moral reasoning and a group’s ability to compromise on a polarizing issue. Similarly, McDonald examines whether moral considerations can outweigh partisan motivated reasoning.

A final concern is understanding the nature and origins of moral reasoning. Drawing from moral psychology literature, McDonald examines the determinants of moral concerns. More specifically, her paper examines the relationship between elite based moral rhetoric and the use of moral considerations in voter decision making. Holding culture constant, Cavaille focuses on individual determinants. Her paper seeks to understand whether beliefs regarding the deservingness of welfare recipients is the manifestation of a latent propensity to over-estimate the number of “false positives” in a given social situation.

Sub Unit

• Division 5: Political Psychology

Individual Presentations

• Improving the Measurement of Moral Judgment - Scott Clifford, University of Houston

• Moral Foundations of Welfare Attitudes: How Bad is Free Riding? - Charlotte Cavaille, University of Michigan, Ford School of Public Policy

• Change My View: Do Moral Appeals Facilitate Compromise? - Patrick Kraft, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

• Policy or Party? The Influence of Moral Cross-Pressures on Voter Decision Making - Maura McDonald, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Chair

• Timothy J. Ryan UNC Chapel Hill

Discussant

• Noam Gidron Hebrew University