Moral Judgments on Health Motivated Transgressions: The Interplay of Moral Foundations, Empathy, and Political Identity.

Search for this publication on Google Scholar
Fulton, M. (2023). Moral Judgments on Health Motivated Transgressions: The Interplay of Moral Foundations, Empathy, and Political Identity. Unc Charlotte Electronic Theses And Dissertations.
Download PDF

Analytics

7 views ◎
2 downloads ⇓


Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific guidelines were rejected by many conservatives in the U.S. This polarization could have contributed to conservative counties’ higher mortality rates. Given the potential for political ideology to influence health behaviors that increase death rates during a pandemic, it is important to understand how group characteristics affect reasoning during heightened health-threat. Using the Moral Foundations Theory, in this study (N = 380), I examined whether people rely on their moral foundations to make judgments on others’ health-motivated transgressions, considering situations without health context, a context involving a lesser health threat, and a context involving a COVID health threat. Prior studies suggested that those with progressive ideology would judge health-threat moral transgressions as less egregious in contexts with increased health threat, unlike conservatives. Having established that progressives have higher affective (but not cognitive) empathy than conservatives, I examined the effects of empathy (cognitive and affective), moral foundations (Individualizing associated with progressives and Binding with conservatives), and political ideology (on a continuous spectrum) on health judgments. Data were best explained by a model with Individualizing foundations mediating the effect of empathy on Political Identity and Political Identity mediating the effect of foundations on health-salient judgments. There were also direct effects: judgments in the "no health" context relied on both Individualizing and Binding foundations and on affective empathy. Judgments about the lesser threat relied on affective empathy, Binding foundations, and Political Identity. Judgments about a COVID health threat relied on Binding foundations and Political Identity. In sum, Individualizing foundations had a direct effect only for contexts without a health threat, suggesting that progressives did not use their moral foundations directly to make judgments on health motivated transgressions, instead drawing from their political ideology to make those judgments. In contrast, conservatives used foundations directly for all contexts, and the foundations were mediated by Political Identity for the health threat judgments. These findings suggest that health threats (including those posed by pandemics) are a political issue in the U.S., which has implications for how health messaging should target aspects of empathy (in particular, affective) and moral foundations for specific audiences.

Details
Author

Fulton, Marviene

Title

Moral Judgments on Health Motivated Transgressions: The Interplay of Moral Foundations, Empathy, and Political Identity.

Physical Description

1 online resource ( pages) : PDF

Date

2023

Degree Granting Institution

University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific guidelines were rejected by many conservatives in the U.S. This polarization could have contributed to conservative counties’ higher mortality rates. Given the potential for political ideology to influence health behaviors that increase death rates during a pandemic, it is important to understand how group characteristics affect reasoning during heightened health-threat. Using the Moral Foundations Theory, in this study (N = 380), I examined whether people rely on their moral foundations to make judgments on others’ health-motivated transgressions, considering situations without health context, a context involving a lesser health threat, and a context involving a COVID health threat. Prior studies suggested that those with progressive ideology would judge health-threat moral transgressions as less egregious in contexts with increased health threat, unlike conservatives. Having established that progressives have higher affective (but not cognitive) empathy than conservatives, I examined the effects of empathy (cognitive and affective), moral foundations (Individualizing associated with progressives and Binding with conservatives), and political ideology (on a continuous spectrum) on health judgments. Data were best explained by a model with Individualizing foundations mediating the effect of empathy on Political Identity and Political Identity mediating the effect of foundations on health-salient judgments. There were also direct effects: judgments in the "no health" context relied on both Individualizing and Binding foundations and on affective empathy. Judgments about the lesser threat relied on affective empathy, Binding foundations, and Political Identity. Judgments about a COVID health threat relied on Binding foundations and Political Identity. In sum, Individualizing foundations had a direct effect only for contexts without a health threat, suggesting that progressives did not use their moral foundations directly to make judgments on health motivated transgressions, instead drawing from their political ideology to make those judgments. In contrast, conservatives used foundations directly for all contexts, and the foundations were mediated by Political Identity for the health threat judgments. These findings suggest that health threats (including those posed by pandemics) are a political issue in the U.S., which has implications for how health messaging should target aspects of empathy (in particular, affective) and moral foundations for specific audiences.

Genre

masters theses

Subjects--Topics

Psychology

Degree

M.A.

Keywords

Covid-19 Pandemic
Empathy
Moral Foundations Theory
Moral Reasoning
Political Ideology
Public Health Messaging

Subject Area

Psychology

Advisor(s)

Galati, Alexia

Committee Members

Blanchard, Anita
Levens, Sara

Degree Note

Thesis (M.A.)--University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 2023.

Rights Statement

This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). For additional information, see http://rightsstatements.org/page/InC/1.0/.

Rights Holder Information

Copyright is held by the author unless otherwise indicated.

Identifier

Fulton_uncc_0694N_13481

Permalink

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13093/etd:3263