Different values, different consequences –

As part of the APSA Public Scholarship Program, political science graduate students prepare summaries of new research for the American Political Science Review. This article, written by Dirck de Kleerreports on the new article by Jae-Hee Jung and Scott Clifford, “Diversity of values: Moral values ​​are uniquely divisive.”

Values ​​are important in politics. They help explain opinions on issues such as homelessness, foreign policy, and our political orientation. Moral values ​​in particular may help explain why liberals and conservatives don’t like each other. But how do moral values ​​differ from other values? In a new APSR article, Jae-Hee Jung and Scott Clifford show that we don’t think of all values ​​as a matter of right and wrong. But for those we do think of as such, disagreement over value positions increases social polarization.

Values ​​can be thought of as goals, some more important, some less so, that apply to different situations and provide us with some guiding principles. Scientists have classified values ​​into different value systems. Social psychologist Shalom Schwartz, for example, postulates ten basic human values. Other psychologists have postulated five moral foundations under the title “moral foundation theory.” Then we can think of different political values ​​(e.g., “more or less equality?” or “more or less government?”) that overlap with other value systems.

But not all values ​​are the same. Within and across these value systems, there are some values ​​that focus more on the self, thinking about personal achievement or power, while others are more about how we work with others, such as fairness or loyalty. People tend to associate these cooperative values ​​more with basic notions of right and wrong. In other words, these values ​​are more likely to be moralized.

Disagreements about these moralized values ​​increase polarization. The authors argue that we perceive moral values ​​as objective and universally true. There is right and wrong. When someone disagrees, it can be perceived as a threat. This triggers a strong reaction because we want to correct the views of those who disagree with us (or exclude them from our lives altogether).

“These fictional people, with different ages, party affiliations and hobbies, agreed or disagreed with one of the values ​​that the respondents had previously rated in the survey.” The authors conducted an online survey of 863 Americans to examine which values ​​are moralized and how disagreements about those values ​​increase polarization. Respondents were asked their opinions on 21 values; some were more self-serving, others more cooperative. The survey found two things. First, some values ​​are indeed more moral than others. There is a great deal of variety. For all 21 values, respondents rated the extent to which the value was related to their “basic beliefs about right and wrong.” More cooperative values, such as caring, fairness, or kindness, scored much higher on moralization than more self-serving values, such as stimulation, hedonism, or power.

Second, the authors built an experiment into the survey that shows that disagreement about these and other moral values ​​leads to more polarization. In the experiment, the authors showed respondents hypothetical people. These fictional people, with different ages, party affiliations, and hobbies, agreed or disagreed with one of the values ​​that respondents had previously rated in the survey.

Respondents were then asked a few questions measuring social polarization. They were asked how “positive or negative” they felt about the person, how “happy or unhappy” they would be to have the person as a neighbor, and how comfortable they would feel having that person watch their house while they were out of town. The effect of disagreement over a value position was much stronger for moralized values.

This study shows how different values ​​have different consequences. This helps us better understand when and why value differences lead to social divisions. It also helps us better understand how certain attitudes can become moralized when they are linked to broader beliefs about right and wrong.