Moral Disagreement across Politics is Explained by Different Assumptions about who is Most Vulnerable to Harm

Womick, J., et al. (2024). 

PsyArXiv Preprints

https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/qsg7j

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.

The pdf is here.

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.

Psychology Trainees’ & Professionals’ Perceived Importance of & Engagement in Advocacy for Marginalized Groups

Forestieri, K. J., et al. (2024).

Professional Psychology, Research and Practice.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000543

Abstract

The recent sociopolitical climate necessitates psychology professionals advocating for their clients under a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups (e.g., people of color, immigrants, refugees, women, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, intersex, asexual+ individuals, and unhoused individuals) and causes (e.g., police-community relations, and criminal justice reform) is sparse. Data for the present study were gathered as part of a larger research project conducted in 2018. A total of 165 participants began the survey, with only 104 completing all questions. The study aimed to understand psychology trainees’ and professionals’ attitude toward advocacy for others, frequency and type of advocacy behaviors that they engage in, and potential barriers to advocacy work. Results showed a large discrepancy between participants’ highly self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and low actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to the original hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement in advocacy; instead, it appears that a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role. Implications for remedying this discrepancy among psychology trainees and professionals are discussed (e.g., training), as well as strengths and limitations of the present study.

Public Significance Statement

Psychology trainees and professionals endorse advocacy for marginalized groups as important, but infrequently engage in such behaviors. A less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation may play more of an integral role in predicting advocacy behavior.

Here are some thoughts:

The recent sociopolitical climate has highlighted the need for psychology professionals to advocate for their clients within a social justice framework. However, research on the prevalence of advocacy by psychology trainees and professionals for marginalized groups and causes is limited. This study, conducted in 2018, aimed to understand psychology trainees' and professionals' attitudes toward advocacy, their engagement in advocacy behaviors, and potential barriers to advocacy work.

The study revealed a significant discrepancy between participants' self-reported beliefs in the importance of advocacy and their actual engagement in advocacy behaviors. Contrary to initial hypotheses, barriers to advocacy were not the most salient predictors of lack of engagement. Instead, a less positive attitude toward advocacy and conservative political affiliation appeared to play a more significant role.

Across all groups and causes, working directly on changing legislative policies was the least endorsed actionable step, while attending protests and donating money were among the most endorsed behaviors. Educating oneself and others were the most frequently reported educational steps. The study found that barriers such as lack of awareness of issues and disinterest in advocacy resulted in less participation in advocacy behaviors.

Interestingly, political affiliation emerged as a significant predictor of engagement in advocacy for certain groups, with more conservative-identifying participants less likely to advocate for people of color, women's issues, and LGBTQIA+ individuals. The study suggests that low levels of engagement in advocacy may be due to training deficits, lack of time, a micro-level focus on clients rather than systems, and insufficient knowledge about advocacy opportunities and methods.

The researchers propose that addressing advocacy training in psychology programs could help bolster engagement. This includes exploring political affiliation in training programs to understand the discrepancy in advocacy engagement between self-identifying liberals and conservatives, and framing advocacy from an empathetic, social justice lens. The study acknowledges limitations, including the timing of data collection in 2018, prior to recent significant sociopolitical events.