User:Schmidsa/MoralPsychology

This is my sandbox page. I am using it to edit the Wikipedia page Moral Psychology.

Introduction:

Moral Psychology is a novel branch within the field of Psychology. The study of moral identity is one aspect of psychology that shows the most potential for growth due to the numerous sections within the field regarding its structure, mechanisms, and dynamics. . A moral act is a type of behavior that refers to an act that has either a moral or immoral consequence. Moral Psychology can be applied across a broad range of studies, including philosophy and psychology. However it is implemented in different ways depending on culture. In many cultures, a moral act refers to an act that entails free will, purity, liberty, honesty, and meaning. An immoral act refers to an act that entails corruption and fraudulence and usually leads to negative consequences. Some of the main topics of the field are moral judgment, moral reasoning, moral responsibility, moral development, moral character, altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, moral disagreement, moral psychology, moral action, moral forecasting, emotion, and affective forecasting.

Background

Moral Psychology began with early philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. They believed that “to know the good is to do the good.” They analyzed the ways in which people make decisions with regards to moral identity. The battle of good versus evil has been studied since the time moral psychology became accepted as a formal branch of psychology/philosophy up until the present and it continues to expand. As the field of psychology began to divide away from philosophy, moral psychology expanded to include risk perception and moralization, morality with regards to medical practices, concepts of self-worth, and the role of emotions when analyzing one’s moral identity. In most introductory psychology courses, students learn about moral psychology by studying the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg, who introduced the cognitive developmental theory in 1969. This theory emphasized that sound moral reasoning would innately motivate moral action. Psychologists Hardy and Carlo elaborated on this theory by providing a greater understanding of moral motivation and commitment. Today, psychologists and students alike rely on Blasi’s self-model that link ideas of moral judgment and action. This model illustrates that in order to predict moral behavior, one must first examine the moral judgments. A moral judgment can become a mortal action by not only being moral, but by also being something the individual is responsible for doing. This can only be accomplished when a person’s identity is centered on morality. One must possess the desire to live a lifestyle that is constant with one’s sense of self. Of course individual differences prohibit some from achieving a moral identity. However, those who are motivated will attain a unique moral identity (Hardy, Carlo, 2011).

History

Historically, early philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato engaged in both empirical research and a priori conceptual analysis about the ways in which people make decisions about issues that raise moral concerns. Moral psychological issues have been central theoretical issues explored by philosophers from the early days of the profession right up until the present. With the development of psychology as a discipline separate from philosophy, it was natural for psychologists to continue pursuing work in moral psychology, and much of the empirical research of the 20th century in this area was completed by academics working in psychology departments. Today moral psychology is a thriving area of research in both philosophy and psychology, even at an interdisciplinary level.[4] For example, the psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg questioned boys and young men about their thought processes when they were faced with a moral dilemma,[citation needed] producing one of many very useful empirical studies in the area of moral psychology. As another example, the philosopher Joshua Knobe recently completed an empirical study on how the way in which an ethical problem is phrased dramatically affects an individual's intuitions about the proper moral response to the problem.[citation needed] More conceptually focused research has been completed by researchers such as John Doris. Doris (2002) discusses the way in which social psychological experiments---such as the Stanford Prison Experiments involving the idea of situationism---call into question a key component in virtue ethics: the idea that individuals have a single, environment-independent moral character. As a further example, Shaun Nichols (2004) examines how empirical data on psychopathology suggests that moral rationalism is false.

Cultural Values

Morality didn’t arise from individual choice but from a collection of human decisions to try and create a structure while living together. Constraints by their environments and natural human desires influenced these decisions. The evolution of human social instincts overlap with the evolution of culture. Cultural morality has provided a way of managing conflict. Cultural morality requires behavior that is cooperative and considerate of others, it discourages potentially unhealthy self-interest, and encourages other-regarding emotions beneficial in society. Furthermore, it can provide an outlet of self-interest motivations in other-regarding actions.[25] In his 1992 study, Schwartz, in collaboration with Roccas and Sagiv, studies how value priorities are effected by the “social experience,” how they affect “behavioral orientation and choices,” (p. 1)[26] and how/why they differ across cultures and nations. Shwartz writes, “Studies combining our abstract level of measurement with contextually specific measures would increase our understanding of how values enter into concrete decision-making” (Shwartz, 47) and he proposes that, "Identifying moderators of universal or culture-specific value priorities would help us better understand the operation and functioning of value priorities"(Shwartz, 2). The valuable observation is made that "Structures probably evolve alongside transformations of societies and social conditions, or “may even change rapidly in response to major technological, economic, political, and security upheavals” (Schwartz, 47). He finds that the majority of cultures prioritize these 10 value types: Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism, Achievement, Power, Security, Conformity, Tradition, Benevolence, and Universalism. Within these value types there are values that cultures all prioritize to varying degrees. The study ultimately concludes that its data and postulations are supported enough, according to researchers, to justify their use when conducting further research into similar questions about values and universality, and “about how the whole integrated system of value priorities relates to background, attitude, and behavior variables.” The article is clear that ”By identifying universal aspects of value content and structure, this article has laid the foundations for investigating culture-specific aspects in the future,” (Shwartz, 60).

Schwartz created a theory of the types of values of which various cultures can be contrasted to one another. The data was collected from 49 nations around the world and then used to create seven value types according to the nation’s priorities of values. Schwartz selected the 7 value types based on their compatibilities and contradictions to one another. The value types were conservatism vs. autonomy and affective autonomy, hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, and mastery vs. harmony. The value types were used to draw light upon nations whose cultures were closely related as opposed to those that were drastically different. The theory is based on culture level dimensions, rather than individual level dimensions, so that conclusions can be drawn accounting for the entire nation as a whole (majority), rather than the individual person. The value profiles of the five nations had significant results in that not only did the students and teachers yield similar results, but the majority of the divided up regions had similar values that were emphasized as well. The results of the study essentially validated Schwartz study design and set the ground work for assessing the cultural implications of values and formulating hypothesis based on the co plots. Furthermore, the research done on neighboring nations exhibited a correlation between geographical proximity and shared cultural values. Schwartz contributes these relationships to the “shared history, religion, level of development, culture contact and other factors” (p. 37)[27]

CAD Triad Hypothesis:

Previous research on moral development has generally focused on rationality and cognitive development. Since Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist, developed what is now known as Kohlberg’s stages of moral development in 1958, it has been universally accepted that moral development is driven by cognitive processes. However, recently psychologists have begun to examine the relationship between morality and emotionality. It has been widely debated among philosophers and psychologists what concepts comprise the foundation of human morality: cognition or emotion. Human social life has been evolving to incorporate both aspects of moral judgment. As technology advances and social interactions become more complicated, the definition of morality has morphed into an expanding notion that includes emotional reactions. It is human nature to attach emotion to uncontrollable events in life in an attempt to provide meaning (Rozin, 1999). An emotional reaction allows humans to more accurately gauge the morality of any given situation. Many psychologists have argued that emotional reactions are the best predictors of moral judgment. In an effort to learn more about the link between morality and emotionality, anthropologist and psychologist Richard Shweder and his colleagues affirmed that there are three distinct values that cultures implement to resolve moral issues: community, autonomy, and divinity. These three principals are known as the CAD Triad Hypothesis. This theory provides an innovative way to associate emotions to moralization by emphasizing that morality not only includes reasoning, but also emotional reactions. 1. Community: a moral obligation to care for the community in an attempt to not violate hierarchy. According to the CAD Triad Hypothesis, it is considered a breach of morality if a person fails to carry out his or her duties within a community. In order to deem an act within the community as immoral, one must consider respect for authority, loyalty, duty, obligation, and honor. 2. Autonomy: a moral obligation to uphold individual freedom and to prevent the violation of personal rights. An act is considered an immoral breach of autonomy if it directly hurts another person or defies another person’s individual rights. One must think about harm, fairness, individualism, liberty, and justice. 3. Divinity: a moral obligation to inhibit violations against purity. An act is considered an immoral breach of divinity when a person disrespects the inviolability of God or causes impurity to himself/herself or others. One must think about sanctity, sin, and degradation (Rozin, 2012). Shweder expanded the CAD Triad Hypothesis by linking the three moral codes to three moral emotions. He proposed that anger connects to autonomy, contempt connects to community, and disgust connects to divinity. Moral psychologists acknowledge contempt, anger, and disgust as three logical pillars of moral emotion because they are often experienced in daily life. All three moral emotions involve condemnation of others, yet they illustrate very diverse ideas within the realm of moralization. Anger has always been viewed as a nonmoral emotion. When ones autonomy is broken, a natural human reaction is to get angry. Anger is linked to acts such as insults, transgressions, and the violation of rights against the self. We experience the feeling of disgust when people act without dignity or dignity is taken away unwillingly from others. Dignity encompasses the purity of the body, which includes maintaining control of all bodily functions such as sex, eating, and hygiene. Actions taken that somehow contaminate the body with regards to bodily functions are considered immoral and humans reaction with disgust. Research has shown that people who feel physical disgust towards an image or action will also feel an equal amount of moral disgust. This term is known as “moral hypervigilance” (Jones & Fitness, 2008). Moral hypervigilance is specifically prominent in United States culture where people often describe immoral acts against dignity by utilizing physical characteristics. Contempt is often linked with hierarchy and community. The feeling of contempt differs from anger and disgust because although it does involve disapproval, it also entails a component of indifference. Moral superiority and contempt are often felt concerning individuals who violate the morality of the community (Rozin, 2012). With the help of the CAD Triad Hypothesis, people can grasp a better understanding at how important a role emotions play in moralization.

Moralization of Smoking:

Moral Psychology can be broken into two divisions: moralization that occurs individually and moralization that becomes institutionalized. Due to popular epidemiology, people have the freedom to govern themselves with regards to individual autonomy. Today, smoking has stimulated controversy within the field of moral psychology pertaining to whether it is considered an act of morality or immorality. Morality is typically defined as the collective beliefs that comprise and attribute to a good life. Based on religious morality, a good life means a long and healthy life. Within the past ten years, there has been a shift from religious morality to a “here-and-now” secular value system. The health and fitness movement has had a major influence on our society’s social structure and attitudes concerning moralization. The present negative connotation of cigarette smoking in the United States is used to illustrate moralization. Being a morally sound person entails “a high-quality life that is extendable in years well beyond the lifespan of the previous generation – a relative immortality, won by a redoubled commitment to the health and fitness lifestyle” (Katz, 1997). Smoking has been proven to diminish your lifespan and therefore, under the standards of this new secular value system, would be considered immoral. Many people argue that smoking is in fact not immoral because the health and fitness movement requires a great deal of conformity, which infringes basic individual rights. The tobacco companies over exaggerate this infringement in an attempt to turn the public away from the morality and health issues that have been created due to new advancement in scientific findings. Twenty years ago, the negative effects of smoking tobacco were not well known to the general public and therefore smoking was not moralized. Tobacco companies attempted to keep sales up by creating a false sense of superiority and switching the blame to make the consumer feel immoral instead of the company. By claiming that there are healthier options to smoking, for example filtered and low-tar products, the costumer feels as though they are making an immoral purchase by buying a regular pack of cigarettes as oppose to the healthier alternatives. Tobacco companies have also strategized to target teenagers as potential smokers because they are known to ignore risks due to the belief in their invulnerability and high moral status. Because smoking is highly moralized in the United States, multiple moral and social psychologists have researched the relationship between risk perception and moralization across cultures. A study by Helweg-Larsen and Nielsen (2009) found cross-cultural differences in risk perception and moralization among Danish and American smokers. The results showed that moralization was correlated with greater personal risk perception among American smokers but not among Danish smokers. This can be attributed to many cultural differences. Moralization permeates culture and attitudes relating to risk. Moralization may influence peoples risk perceptions more heavily in the United States then in Denmark. This could be attributed to the severity of the smoking attitudes in the United States compared to the more relaxed attitudes in Denmark (Helweg-Larsen, 2010). To further illustrate the harsh antismoking attitudes in the United States, the media has scrutinized President Barack Obama for his smoking habit. President Obama’s promise to quit smoking increased the already high moralization attitudes. The media attempted to “encourage privately held attitudes and beliefs to become sufficiently public as to provide consensus for moral action” (Katz, 1997). Antismoking campaigns and lobbying groups focus their attention on questioning the voluntary nature of smoking in an effort to enhance the moralization of smoking (Brandt, 2004).

References

2. Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 10(3), 218.

3. Rozin, P., Lowery, L., Imada, S., & Haidt, J. (1999). The CAD triad hypothesis: A mapping between three moral emotions (contempt, anger, disgust) and three moral codes (community, autonomy, divinity). Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 76(4), 574-586. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.4.574

4. Jones, A., & Fitness, J. (2008). Moral hypervigilance: The influence of disgust sensitivity in the moral domain. Emotion, 8(5), 613-627. doi:10.1037/a0013435

5. Katz, S. (1997). Secular morality. In A. M. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and Health (pp. 295-330). New York, NY: Routledge.

6. Helweg-Larsen, M., Tobias, M. R., & Cerban, B. M. (2010). Risk perception and moralization among smokers in the USA and Denmark: A qualitative approach. British Journal of Health Psychology, 15, 871-886.

7. Brandt, A. M. (2004). Difference and diffusion: Cross-cultural perspectives on the rise of anti-tobacco policies. In E. A. Feldman & R. Bayer (Eds), Unfiltered: Conflicts over tobacco policy and public health (pp. 255-380). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

8. Rozin, P., & Singh, L. (1999). The moralization of cigarete smoking in the United States. Journal Of Consumer Psychology, 8(3), 339-342. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0803_07

9. Roeser, S. (2006). The role of emotions in judging the moral acceptability of risks. Safety Science, 44(8), 689-700. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2006.02.001

10. Teper, R., Inzlicht, M., & Page-Gould, E. (2011). Are we more moral than we think?: Exploring the role of affect in moral behavior and moral forecasting. Psychological Science, 22(4), 553-558. doi:10.1177/0956797611402513