Traditionally, it has been the cognitive-developmental approach that has dominated moral judgment research. Specifically, it has been Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (1969, 1986) that has provided the theoretical framework for much of the research in the field. According to the Kohlbergian perspective, individuals are rational agents who engage in conscious deliberation in order to reach a moral judgment or decision. In contrast to this, the social intuitionist model of moral judgment (Haidt, 2001; Haidt & Bjorklund, 2007) proposes that it is the individual’s immediate affective reactions to events are the overriding cause of moral judgment. In addition to this, the model proposes that the social context is an equally important determinant of moral judgment. Emergent group norms are said to directly shape the moral judgments of the individual, with the moral judgments of friends, allies and acquaintances having a direct bearing on the moral judgments one makes, even those made and held privately. In the current thesis, the impact of social persuasion - group norms, audience, and social identity - on moral judgment was investigated, using the methods and meta-theoretical framework of the social identity approach. In Studies 1 (N = 98) and 2 (N = 60) the influence of group norms and level of identification with the reference group on participants’ moral evaluations was assessed. The results of these studies revealed that participants’ evaluation of the target issue (the sex selection of children) was not influenced by the group norms to which they were exposed. In both studies, the interaction between norm and identification was also found to be non-significant. Under investigation in Studies 3, 4, and 5 was the impact of normative influence on participants’ moral evaluations. In Study 3 (N = 186) the impact of group norms, level of identification, and audience expectation on participants’ moral evaluations of morally-tinged scenarios and issues were assessed. Those exposed to a norm portraying the reference group as judgmental tended to be harsher in their evaluations than those exposed to a non-judgmental norm, but the effect was weak and inconsistent. Contrary to expectation, identification and audience were not found to interact with the norm manipulation. Study 4 (N = 93) focused exclusively on the impact of audience expectation on participants’ moral evaluation. Participants evaluated a number of morally-tinged scenarios either alone, under the expectation that their responses would be visible to an audience (with either the opportunity to justify their evaluations, or not), or under the pretext of being connected to a lie-detector. Contrary to expectation, no significant difference in participants’ moral evaluations was found across the four audience conditions. To discount the possibility that the lack of normative influence on moral evaluation obtained in Study 4 was due to methodological limitation (i.e., the audience category was too broad), the selection of participants and the choice of audience were modified for Study 5 (N = 54). In Study 5, Christian students were required to make their moral evaluations under the expectation that their responses would be made visible to either a Christian or student audience. Contrary to expectation, only a subtle effect of audience was found in relation to both the morally tinged issues and the morally tinged scenarios. Participants in the Christian audience condition were found to evaluate only a small number of the issues (3 of 10), and only one of the four scenarios more negatively than those in the student audience condition. In Studies 6 and 7 the impact of social identity factors on participants’ moral evaluations was investigated. In Study 6 (N = 45), the extent to which participants’ moral evaluation were influenced by their social identity was assessed. In this study, participants had either their Christian identity or their student identity made salient when making their evaluations. No difference in participants’ moral evaluations was found between the Christian identity and student identity salience conditions. In Study 7 (N = 68), the extent to which participants’ political identity influenced their moral evaluation of government policy was assessed. Participants (who were either Australian Labor Party supporters or Australian Liberal Party supporters) were led to believe that the policies had been proposed by either the Australian Labor Party or the Australian Liberal Party. It was found that participants’ political affiliation contributed to their moral evaluation of the presented policies. Overall, the current program of studies provides a first step toward understanding the impact that group norms, audience, and social identity factors have on the evaluation component of moral judgment. It suggests that morality is complex, and that moral judgments may be amenable to social influence, albeit weakly. Theoretical and practical implications for this research are discussed with reference to social identity theory and the broader literature on moral psychology.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:ADTP/288123 |
| Creators | Lisa Abel |
| Source Sets | Australiasian Digital Theses Program |
| Detected Language | English |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds