Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) suggests there are five distinct moral dimensions, which define morality as a whole. MFT can be broken down into two groups binding: in group/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity-which encompass group morality. Harm/Care, fairness/reciprocity are individualizing dimensions, which highlight individual morality. Recent work has found MFT predicts sociopolitical ideologies, as well as sociopolitical attitudes. In an effort to better understand the existing relationships we investigate MFT as a predictor of sociopolitical parties, and attitudes Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). We also draw on similarities between Individualism/Collectivism and MFT. Specifically we demonstrate individualizing foundations, and dimensions of individualism predict SDO, where as Binding dimensions and dimensions of Collectivism relate to RWA.

The aim of the proposed work is to verify the hypothesis based on Jonathan Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory, which says that the wider the range of the so-called moral foundations a political party addresses with its programme, the higher its chances of a good election result. This hypothesis is examined within the framework of Czech political reality. The first part of the work introduces Haidt's Theory of Moral Foundations and examines the question of its applicability to the Czech political sphere. In the next step, the mentioned theory is used (with the help of appropriate operationalization) as a means of analysing the election results of Czech political parties in the elections to the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament in 2017 in order to verify this hypothesis. The programme points of the election programmes of ten Czech political parties are subjected to the analysis. These are the parties that, according to pre-election surveys, had the greatest chance of exceeding the 5 % electoral threshold for joining the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Republic (i. e. ANO 2011, ČSSD, ODS, SPD, TOP 09, KDU-ČSL KSČM, STAN, Pirate Party and Green Party). The second part of this work handles the analysis of the representation of the different moral foundations in the programme of all examined...

Subordination of judgment is a fundamental threat to auditor objectivity. Subordination of judgment occurs when auditors agree with their superiors either in spite of or without forming their own independent judgments. Many audit procedures rely on independent, critical thinking at every level of the audit team; however, a number of studies suggest that auditors tend to agree with superiors even when a superior's views clearly run contrary to generally accepted accounting principles. While there is general agreement among scholars that subordination of judgment is "bad," very little attention has been given to moral biases that might influence an auditor's tendency to subordination of judgment, or to potential remedies that could mitigate an auditor's tendency to subordinate judgment. Moral Foundations Theory suggests that individuals tend to make intuitive, normative evaluations of situations based upon a set of personal moral biases or preferences called "moral foundations." Two specific moral foundations could influence subordination of judgment in divergent ways. The moral foundation of loyalty-respect may make agreement with a superior's views seem more acceptable than would disagreement. Meanwhile, the moral foundation of fairness may make an auditor more sensitive to the observance of rules, resulting in less subordination of judgment when a superior's views run contrary to professional rules. Social Identity Theory suggests that in-group favoritism may exacerbate subordination of judgment in general; however, strengthening an auditor's professional identity salience (PIS) could strengthen an auditor's objectivity. PIS is the temporary, heightened awareness of an auditor's identity as a professional and their role as guardian of professional rules. As a result, PIS may interact with an auditor's innate sense of fairness, resulting in less subordination of judgment than when professional identity is less salient. Results supported the hypothesis that auditors tend to subordinate their judgment to that of a superior, but not that PIS mitigates the effect of subordination of judgment. Results also supported the hypotheses that the moral foundations of loyalty-respect and fairness influence the tendency of auditors to subordinate their judgment to that of a superior. Specifically, auditors with higher levels of loyalty-respect were more likely to agree with a superior who suggested an incorrect accounting treatment than auditors with lower levels of loyalty-respect. Whereas, auditors with higher levels of fairness were less likely to agree with a superior who suggested an incorrect treatment than were auditors with lower levels of fairness. Therefore, this dissertation provides evidence that moral foundations bias professional judgment and decision making in auditing and calls for further research into the influence of moral heuristics.

This dissertation examines correlations between religiousness and spirituality, to moral orientations using moral foundations theory as a framework. Using the 2012 Measuring Morality dataset, which provides a representative sample of the population of the United States, I create linear regressions which test associations between religiousness, spirituality, and each of the five moral foundations ((harm/care, fairness, in-group loyalty, respect for authority, and purity). I find that religiousness is negatively associated with concern for harm, and positively associated with respect for authority, a finding which implies that the moral behavior of religious people is rooted in respect for authority more than in any other moral concern. Spirituality is positively associated with concern for fairness. The implications of all findings are discussed, as well as limitations and recommendations for future research.

Submitted by Rodrigo Dias (dsdias.rodrigo@gmail.com) on 2018-05-14T20:00:10Z No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertation - Rodrigo Dias.pdf: 1200543 bytes, checksum: 55982ff5b80c53cb3762bce772efae63 (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by ÁUREA CORRÊA DA FONSECA CORRÊA DA FONSECA (aurea.fonseca@fgv.br) on 2018-05-18T21:03:48Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertation - Rodrigo Dias.pdf: 1200543 bytes, checksum: 55982ff5b80c53cb3762bce772efae63 (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2018-06-15T12:25:14Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Dissertation - Rodrigo Dias.pdf: 1200543 bytes, checksum: 55982ff5b80c53cb3762bce772efae63 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-12-18 / In this paper, we examine why attitudes toward marijuana legalization are split along ideological lines. In a survey, we found that conservatives were more likely to oppose this policy partly because of their greater reliance on the authority and purity foundations of morality. Curiously, concerns about harm were found to play no role in determining attitudes toward marijuana legalization, even though those who were against this policy frequently explained their views with harm-related accounts. In an experiment, we found that opponents of legalization were more likely to adopt a more favorable view towards it when exposed to arguments and sources that were consistent with the authority and purity dimensions of morality. Precisely, subjects who initially opposed legalization were more likely to change their attitudes when exposed to arguments that were based on the purity (vs. harm) foundation of morality, and when they were led to believe that these arguments were given by religious (vs. business) leaders.