Womick, J., et al. (2024).
PsyArXiv Preprints
Abstract
Liberals and conservatives disagree about morality, but explaining this disagreement does not require different moral foundations. All people share a common harm-based mind, making moral judgments based on what seems to cause harm—but people make different assumptions of who or what is especially vulnerable to harm. Liberals and conservatives emphasize different victims. Across eight studies, we validate a brief face-valid assessment of assumptions of vulnerability (AoVs) across methodologies and samples, linking AoVs to scenario judgments, implicit attitudes, and charity behaviors. AoVs, especially about the Environment, the Othered, the Powerful, the Divine, help explain political disagreement about hot-button issues surrounding abortion, immigration, sacrilege, gay rights, polluting, race, and policing. Liberals seem to amplify differences in vulnerability, splitting the world into the very vulnerable versus the very invulnerable, while conservatives dampen differences, seeing all people as similarly vulnerable to harm. AoVs reveal common cognition—and potential common ground—among moral disagreement.
Here are some thoughts:
The study explores the origins of moral disagreement between liberals and conservatives. It argues that both groups share a common harm-based moral framework, but differ in their assumptions about who or what is particularly vulnerable to harm. Liberals emphasize the vulnerability of the marginalized, while conservatives focus on the vulnerability of traditional power structures. These differing perspectives shape their moral judgments and political disagreements on various issues. The study concludes that by understanding these differing assumptions of vulnerability, we can gain a better understanding of moral disagreement and potentially find common ground.
