| 1. |
- Andersson, Per A., et al.
(författare)
-
Anger and disgust shape judgments of social sanctions across cultures, especially in high individual autonomy societies
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - : Nature Research. - 2045-2322. ; 14:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions.
|
|
| 2. |
- Eriksson, Kimmo, 1967-, et al.
(författare)
-
Cognitive ability and ideology join forces in the culture war : A model of opinion formation
- 2023
-
Ingår i: PNAS Nexus. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 2752-6542. ; 2:6
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- We propose a model of moral policy opinion formation that integrates both ideology and cognitive ability. The link from people's ideology to their opinions is assumed to go via a semantic processing of moral arguments that relies on the individual's cognitive ability. An implication of this model is that the relative quality of arguments that justify supporting vs. opposing a moral policy-the policy's “argument advantage”-is key to how opinions will be distributed in the population and develop over time. To test this implication, we combine polling data with measures of the argument advantage for 35 moral policies. Consistent with the opinion formation model, the argument advantage of a moral policy accounts for how public opinion moves over time, and how support for the policy ideologies varies across different ideological groups and levels of cognitive ability, including a strong interaction between ideology and cognitive ability.
|
|
| 3. |
- Vartanova, I., et al.
(författare)
-
Different Populations Agree on Which Moral Arguments Underlie Which Opinions
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Frontiers in Psychology. - : Frontiers Media S.A.. - 1664-1078. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- People often justify their moral opinions by referring to larger moral concerns (e. g., “It is unfair if homosexuals are not allowed to marry!” vs. “Letting homosexuals marry is against our traditions!”). Is there a general agreement about what concerns apply to different moral opinions? We used surveys in the United States and the United Kingdom to measure the perceived applicability of eight concerns (harm, violence, fairness, liberty, authority, ingroup, purity, and governmental overreach) to a wide range of moral opinions. Within countries, argument applicability scores were largely similar whether they were calculated among women or men, among young or old, among liberals or conservatives, or among people with or without higher education. Thus, the applicability of a given moral concern to a specific opinion can be viewed as an objective quality of the opinion, largely independent of the population in which it is measured. Finally, we used similar surveys in Israel and Brazil to establish that this independence of populations also extended to populations in different countries. However, the extent to which this holds across cultures beyond those included in the current study is still an open question.
|
|
