The Puzzle of Moral Foundations Theory

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

The Puzzle of Moral Foundations Theory

puzzle

If the evidence for cultural variation in moral psychology is at best weak,
and if the theoretical argument for moral reframing is flawed,
why does moral reframing seem to work?

The scalar invariance and Lars-et-al puzzles are nicely complementary: if the first fails and the evidence *is* correct, then the second objection gets you.

1. ‘Moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes’

2. There are at least two foundational domains of human morality, including harm and purity.

3. ‘liberals and conservatives possess different moral profiles’

4. ‘liberals express greater levels of environmental concern than do conservatives in part because liberals are more likely to view environmental issues in moral terms.’

5. ‘exposing conservatives to proenvironmental appeals based on moral concerns that uniquely resonate with them will lead them to view the environment in moral terms and be more supportive of proenvironmental efforts.’

The standard explanation. Only known to work if MFQ-1-based findings can be trusted. Which they cannot. (NB: THis doesn’t mean we can rule the explanation out, only that we have no reason to accept it.)

These authors also mention two further factors: fluency and source.

‘Why does moral reframing work?

The primary explanation is that morally reframed messages are influential because targets perceive a “match” between their moral convictions and the argument’ (Feinberg & Willer, 2019, p. 4).

Why does perceiving a match increase willingness to mitigate climate change?

Feinberg & Willer (2013): because it increases the probability that you will think of climate change as an ethical issue.

And now you can see why those objections matter.

Theoretically, if conservatives give equal weight to harm and purity, framing climate change in terms of purity rather than harm should not change the probability that they will think of climate change as a moral issue.

And if the MFQ-1 questionnaire used in all these surveys is not measurement invariant, then we cannot be sure that conservatives differ from liberals in putting less weight on harm and more weight on purity and authority: in which case they may not be perceiving a greater match at all.

Why does moral reframing work?

hypothesis 1

match

targets perceive a match

Hypothesis 2: source. Maybe people are more likely to act when a message is framed in terms of care or purity because they identify the message as coming from their own in-group?

other words: Morally reframed messages provide cues about the source of the message, and people are more influenced by messages from members of their own ingroups.

and so construe the issue as an ethical one

evidence: Fielding, Hornsey, Thai, & Toh (2020)

Fielding et al. (2020, p. figure 1)

Asked about support for carbon tax; then shown article about carbon tax being endorsed by either Rep or Dem; then asked again about support for carbon tax.

‘this is the first research to test whether messages about climate change that come from political ingroup members can positively influence responses to climate change policy.’ (Fielding et al., 2020).

Add a slide opposing this: ‘conservatives high in Fairness are more supportive of policies proposed by President Obama than liberals who are low in Fairness’ (Miles, 2016, p. 486). Can also use their figures!

‘it is possible that the values framing in past studies worked because it provided conservatives with information about the source of the message: when messages aligned with conservative values, Republicans [conservatives] filled in the gaps and simply presumed that the message came from a Republican source’ (Fielding et al., 2020, p. 196).

Why does moral reframing work?

hypothesis 1

match

targets perceive a match

hypothesis 2

source

targets identify the source as an in-group

and so construe the issue as an ethical one

and so construe the message favourably

evidence: Fielding et al. (2020)

ok so we looked at the evidence from Fielding et al. (2020)

additional support comes from pope-prime ...

Indirect evidence comes from the effect of the pope-prime ...

Schuldt et al, 2017

‘A nationally representative survey of 1212 U.S. adults was fielded online by GfK (formerly KnowledgeNetworks) between April 15 and May 1, 2016, approximately 11 months after the release of the encyclical and 7 months after the pope’s U.S. visit.’

How much do you know about Pope Francis’ views on climate change? [inexact wording]

‘Do you consider climate change to be a moral or ethical issue?’

Results

‘Whereas a minority (46%) of respondents reported perceiving climate change as a moral issue in the control condition, this figure rose to 51% among those in the pope prime condition’ (Schuldt, Pearson, Romero-Canyas, & Larson-Konar, 2017).

‘the pope prime exerted a stronger effect on the moral beliefs of Republicans: 30% of Republicans in the control group reported perceiving climate change as a moral issue compared to 39% of Republicans in the pope prime condition, X2(469) = 4.32, p = .04. By comparison, Democrats were equally likely to report perceiving climate change as a moral or ethical issue regardless of condition (61% vs. 58% in the treatment versus control group, respectively), X2 (662) = .57, p=.45.’

‘the pope prime exerted a stronger effect on the moral beliefs of Republicans

‘Democrats were equally likely to report perceiving climate change as a moral or ethical issue regardless of condition’

Why does moral reframing work?

hypothesis 1

match

targets perceive a match

hypothesis 2

source

targets identify the source as an in-group

and so construe the issue as an ethical one

evidence: Wolsko (2017)

and so construe the message favourably

evidence: Fielding et al. (2020)

‘common in-group’

‘a large number of both liberal and conservative politicians, scientists, executives, and religious leaders have argued that traditionally conservative values are extremely well-suited for protecting the natural environment. Traditional conservative values that have been favored include:

1 Demonstrating your patriotism by protecting our natural environment

2 Taking personal responsibility — for yourself and for the land you call home

[...]

5 Respecting your elders and teaching your children good values’

(Wolsko, 2017, p. 290)

(Wolsko, 2017, p. figure 5)

(Wolsko, 2017, p. figure 5)

(Wolsko, 2017, p. figure 5)

The common in-group looks to have really hit gold!!!

Why does moral reframing work?

hypothesis 1

match

targets perceive a match

hypothesis 2

source

targets identify the source as an in-group

and so construe the issue as an ethical one

evidence: Wolsko (2017); Miles (2016)

and so construe the message favourably

evidence: Fielding et al. (2020)

This (Miles, 2016) and the next study (Bretter, Unsworth, Kaptan, & Russell, 2023) work directly on the foundations rather than on political identity.

they provide evidence that variation in moral foundations can influence repsonse to messages regardless of political identity

This indicates that message source is not the only factor.

Miles (2016, p. figure 1)

Miles is addresing the ‘message source’ issue by looking directly at where people are on the fairness foundation.

‘conservatives high in Fairness are more supportive of policies proposed by President Obama than liberals who are low in Fairness’

this is additional info (not from figure)

this also answers the Lars-Joan-... objection!

further evidence: food-waste

Wasting is food linked to believing it morally wrong to do so

measuring self-reported food waste

Harm-based messages e.g., “Food waste harms the environment”

Disgust-based messages e.g., “Food waste attracts dirty animals and pests”

They are measuring intentions to waste less

Note that Disgust-based messages did not influence moral judtements, only intentions to waste less food.

(Bretter et al., 2023)

Why does moral reframing work?

hypothesis 1

match

targets perceive a match

hypothesis 2

source

targets identify the source as an in-group

and so construe the issue as an ethical one

evidence: Wolsko (2017); Miles (2016)

and so construe the message favourably

evidence: Fielding et al. (2020)

puzzle

If the evidence for cultural variation in moral psychology is at best weak,
and if the theoretical argument for moral reframing is flawed,
why does moral reframing seem to work?

The scalar invariance and Lars-et-al puzzles are nicely complementary: if the first fails and the evidence *is* correct, then the second objection gets you.

Keyboard Shortcuts?f

The Puzzle of Moral Foundations Theory

Keyboard Shortcuts`?f`