Search Results (4)

Previous studies have found a positive relationship between binding moral foundations and negative inter-group attitudes. Nevertheless, some studies have shown that, under specific conditions, binding foundations can also lead to positive outcomes, particularly within the intra-group context. In this research, we hypothesize that when people perceive that some in-group members violate moral norms, individuals with stronger binding moral foundations may exhibit a greater preference for moral choices in hypothetical moral dilemmas. This hypothesis was confirmed in Study 1 (N = 184) and replicated in Study 2 (N = 201), both conducted in Italy. In Study 1, we utilized a questionnaire containing the moral foundation questionnaire, while in Study 2, we employed moral foundation vignettes. In both studies, participants were presented with five scenarios describing hypothetical moral dilemmas that could occur in real-life settings. The findings indicate that binding moral foundations can lead to stronger preferences for moral choices in hypothetical moral dilemmas when the morality of the in-group is perceived to be under threat. These results are discussed in light of their implications for future research on binding foundations. Full article

Journalistic news satire is a satire subgenre that is gaining legitimacy in academic research as well as in the journalistic field as an opinion news format and arena for public debate. News satirists claim journalistic roles and operate under the mandate of exposing moral wrongs and auditing power. The development of a more substantial news satire coincides with an observed repoliticization of humor and comedy and intensified moral negotiation around comedic content, particularly on social media. Based on the Moral Foundation Theory, this study identifies moral judgments in journalistic news satire, using a content analysis of TV news satire material from Sweden and the U.S. The results show an overwhelming majority of moral judgments related to the individualizing foundations of Harm and Fairness, while the binding foundations of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity were less frequent. In addition, the results show strong similarities between the two countries in the material, indicating moral common ground and displaying how moral judgment is connected to the inherent nature of satire in general and the genre conventions of journalistic news satire in particular. Full article

(1) Background: This study explores how threat perception mediates the relationship between binding moral foundations and prejudice toward migrants. We hypothesized that the relationship between binding moral foundations and prejudice against migrants, which is already established in the literature, is mediated through realistic and symbolic threat perception. (2) Methods: Two separate samples were gathered, in Malta (N = 191) and Italy (N = 189). The participants responded to an anonymous questionnaire containing several scales: the Moral Foundation Questionnaire, perceived threat from migrants, prejudice toward migrants, and social distance from several macro-categories of migrants. (3) Results: We confirmed a significant relationship between binding moral foundations and explicit prejudice toward migrants, and also found that this relationship was mediated by perceived realistic and symbolic threats in both countries. However, when the indices of social distance were considered as criterion variables, the direct relationship between binding moral foundations and social distance was not confirmed for all the migrant macro-groups. In addition, in some migrant groups, we found that this relationship was mediated by perceived realistic and symbolic threats. (4) Conclusions: This study indicates that the perception of realistic threats may have a significant role in determining the effect of binding moral foundations; this may have theoretical and practical implications. Full article

Climate change has been increasingly discussed in moral terms in public discourse. Despite the growing body of research on the effectiveness of moral frames in bridging the ideological divide, few studies have examined the role that perceived credibility, an important element of any persuasive appeal, plays in facilitating the framing effect. With the objective of further understanding how moral frames may engage individuals with different ideologies in climate change and refining climate change messaging strategies, two experimental surveys were conducted to examine the effects of moral violation frames on climate engagement. Specifically, a moderated mediation model was tested. The model posits that message credibility mediates the relationship between moral frames and policy support, as well as the relationship between moral frames and behavior intention. Moreover, political ideology moderated the indirect effects of message credibility. Based on moral foundations theory, seven messages were designed to activate individualizing and binding moral foundations. The results indicated that credibility consistently mediated the effects of the moral violation frame on climate engagement and that liberal-leaning individuals were more likely to perceive an individualizing frame as more credible than a binding frame. However, this difference was smaller among conservative-leaning individuals, with evidence for this moderated mediation model found only for policy support among college students. This study suggests that credibility is key for effective moral violations arguments of climate change. Full article