Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • Next step
  • Previous step
  • Skip this slide
  • Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Week 05 Questions:

Moral Psychology

The National Student Survey

You can access the NSS at www.thestudentsurvey.com and fill in the survey following a few simple steps. You will also be sent a personalised link by Ipsos MORI later this week.

Louis B

Why do you suggest that moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes when to my understanding this claim suggests moral convictions evoke emotions, which a large part of the 1st part of the course could be considered to argue against?

This is on the assumption that by conviction you might mean belief. I did look for a definition in amongst week 4/5 glossaries but could not find it.

So what is ‘moral conviction’
It’s a quote.

‘Moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes’ (Feinberg & Willer, 2013, p. 1).

‘Moral conviction refers to a strong and absolute belief that something is right or wrong, moral or immoral’ (Skitka et al., 2005, p. 896).

They have quite a lot of detail in the intro about moral convictions
But always check how it was measured ...

‘Moral conviction was assessed with a single-item measure, specifically, “How much are your feelings about ______ connected to your core moral beliefs or convictions?”

(Skitka et al., 2005, p. 899).

We’re leaving it up to the subject to interpret the notion.

A moral conviction is whatever your participants think it is.

Louis B

Why do you suggest that moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes when to my understanding this claim suggests moral convictions evoke emotions, which a large part of the 1st part of the course could be considered to argue against?

This is on the assumption that by conviction you might mean belief. I did look for a definition in amongst week 4/5 glossaries but could not find it.

So what is ‘moral conviction’

Does moral conviction evoke emotion?

conviction -> emotion

Pt 1: Does emotion influence moral judgement?

emotion -> judgement

Louis B

Why do you suggest that moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes when to my understanding this claim suggests moral convictions evoke emotions, which a large part of the 1st part of the course could be considered to argue against?

This is on the assumption that by conviction you might mean belief. I did look for a definition in amongst week 4/5 glossaries but could not find it.

So what is ‘moral conviction’

Anna B

Could you explain in a bit more depth what fluency is?

fluent speaking vs fluent thinking

metacognitive feelings

... of familiarity

... of it being on the tip of your tongue

... of someone’s eyes are boring into your back

... of agency (that was me)

... of being right

Thompson et al. (2013, p. Experiment 1a) asked people to give a fast answer, a confidence judgement, and then take as much time as they like to give a final answer.

[rough results] Faster answers -> stronger feeling of being right -> less thinking subsequently

Fluency and surprise

‘the intensity of felt surprise is not only influenced by the unexpectedness of the surprising event, but also by the degree of the event's interference with ongoing mental activity’ (Reisenzein, 2000, p. 271)

Can make things more unexpected by increasing cognitive load.

Anna B

Could you explain in a bit more depth what fluency is?

Louis B

You made the claim that there are at least two fundamental domains of morality (harm and purity) and that these are not reducible to one another.

Surely the evidence from Van Leeuwen et al., where the historical prevalence of pathogens significantly 'predicted endorsement of [...] Purity/sanctity'

[connecting evolution to MFT]: ‘pathogens are among the principle existential threats to organisms, so those who could best avoid pathogens would have enhanced evolutionary fitness. Van Vugt and Park contend that human groups develop unique practices for reducing pathogen exposure---particularly in how they prepare their foods and maintain their hygiene. When groups are exposed to the practices of a foreign culture, they may perceive its members as especially likely to carry pathogens that may contaminate one’s ingroup’ (Graham et al., 2013, p. 93)

van Leeuwen et al, 2012 figure 1

Louis B

You made the claim that there are at least two fundamental domains of morality (harm and purity) and that these are not reducible to one another.

Surely the evidence from Van Leeuwen et al., where the historical prevalence of pathogens significantly 'predicted endorsement of [...] Purity/sanctity'

- (which you go on to say fits in well with the idea that cultures in specific areas adapted with this knowledge to avoid pathogens, which is ultimately a great personal harm, as well as a social one) -

could plausibly be reduced to the domain of survival, of which the moral foundation of harm/bodily harm is also part.

Graham et al, 2013 table 2.1

theorists’ perspective vs subjects’ perspective

meta perspective: if we have a domain of moral concern now because of its adaptive value in the past, should we re-evaluate?

Can we step outside of moral foundations in that way? Cultural learning ...

Louis B

You made the claim that there are at least two fundamental domains of morality (harm and purity) and that these are not reducible to one another.

Surely the evidence from Van Leeuwen et al., where the historical prevalence of pathogens significantly 'predicted endorsement of [...] Purity/sanctity'

- (which you go on to say fits in well with the idea that cultures in specific areas adapted with this knowledge to avoid pathogens, which is ultimately a great personal harm, as well as a social one) -

could plausibly be reduced to the domain of survival, of which the moral foundation of harm/bodily harm is also part.

Sziszi

a question concerning the next essay title.

To what extent should we give emphasis on 'the feasibility of democratically mitigating climate change'?

I am a bit confused here because this is a very political part of the question and there are different approaches to the meaning of 1) 'feasibility and' 2) 'democratic'.

As I understand - and because it is a Moral Psychology module - we should discuss and focus more on what Moral Psychology can offer so far.

Sziszi

However, as there are severalapproaches to the second part of the question, should we try to definewhat feasibility (or democratic) means in the 500 words or it should not necessarily be the focus of the essay?

Democratic: changing people’s minds rather than relying on force.

Feasibility: obstacles can be removed.

Sziszi

Special issue of Social Cognition links to moral psychology

https://guilfordjournals.com/toc/soco/39/1

Louis B

Could it be said that liberals and conservatives have differing moral perspectives' whereby one is focused on binding 'social group' needs and the other on individual needs.

This appears to me to sort out the Joan-Lars-Joseph objection at the very least, as this does not claim individual needs and 'social group' needs to be of equal value.

Graham et al, 2009 figure 1

The Joan-Lars-Joseph objection

The evidence on cultural variation says socially conservative participants tend to regard all five foundations as roughly equally morally relevant.

(van Leeuwen & Park, 2009, p. figure 1a)

van Leeuwen & Parks, 2009 figure 1a

Subjects are Dutch students

Louis B

Could it be said that liberals and conservatives have differing moral perspectives' whereby one is focused on binding 'social group' needs and the other on individual needs.

This appears to me to sort out the Joan-Lars-Joseph objection at the very least, as this does not claim individual needs and 'social group' needs to be of equal value.

Anya

On Feinberg & Willer (2013)

the framing of moral appeals greatly influences one's pro-environmental attitude

when they reframe this issue in terms of purity, this produces greater appeal towards conservatives and their concern levels increase,

however I do not understand why the liberal levels do not significantly decrease?

Feinberg & Willer, 2013 figure 2

Wolsko et al. (2016, p. figure 5)

Anya

On Feinberg & Willer (2013)

the framing of moral appeals greatly influences one's pro-environmental attitude

when they reframe this issue in terms of purity, this produces greater appeal towards conservatives and their concern levels increase,

however I do not understand why the liberal levels do not significantly decrease?

Questions?

The National Student Survey

You can access the NSS at www.thestudentsurvey.com and fill in the survey following a few simple steps. You will also be sent a personalised link by Ipsos MORI later this week.