Individuals’ political stances tend to place them into the conservative “right,” the liberal “left,” or the moderate “middle.” What might explain this pattern of division? Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996) holds that political attitudes arise from moral worldviews that are conceptually anchored in contrasting family models—the strict-father and nurturant-parent models—while the political middle is morally “biconceptual,” endorsing both models simultaneously. The present research examined these...
Thu Jun 27, 2019 07:00
Our relations with other animals are ubiquitous in human life, yet the psychological structure of our connection with animals is just beginning to receive empirical attention. Drawing on theories of social identification and intergroup relations, we investigate the various ways that people identify with animals. Across 7 studies, we introduce the Identification with Animals Measure (IWAM) and uncover 3 dimensions by which humans identify with animals as a group: solidarity with animals, animal pride,...
Thu Jun 27, 2019 07:00
Measuring moral politics: How strict and nurturant family values explain individual differences in conservatism, liberalism, and the political middle. Thu Jun 27, 2019 07:00
via Online First Publication: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Individuals’ political stances tend to place them into the conservative “right,” the liberal “left,” or the moderate “middle.” What might explain this pattern of division? Moral Politics Theory (Lakoff, 1996) holds that political attitudes arise from moral worldviews that are conceptually anchored in contrasting family models—the strict-father and nurturant-parent models—while the political middle is morally “biconceptual,” endorsing both models simultaneously. The present research examined these postulations empirically. Studies 1 and 2 tested the conceptual and predictive validity of the theorized models by developing an instrument assessing strict and nurturant parenting beliefs (the Moral Politics Scale [MPT]), and examining its power to predict political stances on issues seemingly unrelated to parenting attitudes (e.g., abortion, taxes, and same-sex marriage). Studies 3a and 3b explored construct validity while testing whether the family models translate into more general moral worldviews, which then serve as a foundation of political attitudes. Studies 4a through 4c tested generalizability, examining the relationship between the family models and political stances across different countries, data-collection modalities, and a representative American sample. Finally, Studies 5–7 explored biconceptualism and the tendency for these individuals to shift political attitudes as a consequence of situational factors, particularly moral framing, such that strict-father frames lead to increased support for conservative stances while nurturant-parent frames lead to increased support for liberal stances. Overall, we found support for each of MPT’s assertions, suggesting that an important aspect of the conceptual and experiential basis of people’s political attitudes lies in the strict-father and nurturant-parent family models. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
Social identification with animals: Unpacking our psychological connection with other animals. Thu Jun 27, 2019 07:00
via Online First Publication: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Our relations with other animals are ubiquitous in human life, yet the psychological structure of our connection with animals is just beginning to receive empirical attention. Drawing on theories of social identification and intergroup relations, we investigate the various ways that people identify with animals. Across 7 studies, we introduce the Identification with Animals Measure (IWAM) and uncover 3 dimensions by which humans identify with animals as a group: solidarity with animals, animal pride, and human–animal similarity. First, we establish the reliability, factorial structure, and predictive validity of the 3-factor IWAM. Next, we find that these factors predict a distinct set of attitudes and behaviors toward animals. Solidarity with animals is defined by feeling connected to other animals and is associated with more contact with animals (i.e., pets) and a greater desire to help animals and to engage in collective actions on their behalf, even if this implies withdrawing privileges to humans. Human–animal similarity is defined by the perception that animals share similarities with humans; this dimension is associated with increased moral concern for their welfare and a greater attribution of typically human traits to other animals. Finally, animal pride is defined by a direct recognition and positive endorsement of the social category that includes all animals, and is associated with viewing humans as more animal-like, and with more competitive and instrumental intergroup relations. The findings confirm that identification with animals is a multidimensional construct that is colored by the unique and complex nature of our relations with nonhuman animals. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
No comments:
Post a Comment