Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance

1. Mapping the Personal, Social, and Moral Domains: Implications for Tolerance Jen Wright, Jerry Cullum, Piper Grandjean, Jed Sawyer, & Ross Little Department of Psychology University of Wyoming

2. Overview • Background • Diversity research • Haidt & Skitka • Domain theory • Our research • Study 1 & 2: Tolerance for Different Attitudes/Beliefs • Study 3: Willingness to Interact with Dissimilar Others • Implications • Future directions

3. Background • Diversity research is mixed • Some studies show exposure to diversity to be beneficial • Others find diversity to have harmful effects • People’s reactions to diversity are mixed • People support basic rights to free speech • Want to deny that right to some groups

4. Haidt, Rosenberg, & Hom (2003) • Reaction to diversity depends on two factors • Type of diversity • Context in which it is encountered • People have strongest negative response • to moral diversity • in intimate contexts (e.g., roommates)

5. Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis (2005) • When people have strong moral convictions • They are less tolerant of differences of opinion • They maintain more social distance from dissimilar others • They even sit farther away! • This effect is not reducible to attitude strength – it is something unique to moral conviction itself.

6. Domain Theory (Turiel, 1983) • Powerful theoretical framework for understanding these findings • Social information is organized into three distinct cognitive domains: • Personal • Social • Moral • Best thought of in terms of different “loci of authority”

7. Domain Theory (Turiel, 1983) • Three distinct cognitive domains • Personal  domain of autonomy (individual choice) • e.g. whether you like raspberry or strawberry jam • Social  domain of social agreement • e.g. which side of the road we drive on, color of traffic lights • Moral  domain of objective, universal standards • e.g. torturing innocent children for enjoyment

8. Our research • Designed to assess people’s domain classification for a wide range of issues • Tested whether domain classification predicted important interpersonal outcomes • Tolerance for different attitudes/beliefs • Willingness to interact with dissimilar others • Willingness to help dissimilar others

9. Study 1 • Participants asked about 20 items • Domain classification predicts tolerance • F(2,216) = 63.8, p<.001, η2= .37 • Most tolerant of dissimilar personal beliefs (M = 3.82) • Least tolerant of dissimilar moral beliefs (M = 2.53) • Context predicts tolerance • Student condition: η2= .39, Professor condition: η2= .05 • Most tolerant in remote contexts (e.g., university) • Least tolerant in close contexts (e.g., roommate)

10. Personal • Tattoos/body piercing (94%) • Music preferences (93%) • Social • Speed limit (87%) • Environmental preservation (81%) • Drinking age (84%) • Moral • Cheating on an exam/paper (43%) • Domestic abuse (43%)

12. Study 2 • Participants asked about 40 items • Domain classification predicts tolerance • F(2, 118) = 120.1, p < .001, η2= .67 • Most tolerant of dissimilar personal beliefs (M = 4.04) • Least tolerant of dissimilar moral beliefs (M = 1.84) • Context predicts tolerance • F(2,118) = 33.22, p < .001, η2= .36 • Most tolerant in remote contexts (M = 3.24) • Least tolerant in close contexts (M = 2.56)

13. Personal • Music preferences (98%) • Vegetarianism (98%) • Exercise (97%) • Social • Speed limit (90%) a • Children going to school (90%) • Moral • rape (90%) • Putting children with handicaps to death (77%) • Parents loving their children (75%) • Incest (74%)

15. Study 3 • Domain classification predicts willingness to interact with dissimilar others • F(2,166) = 229.4, p<.001, η2 = .73 • Personal/social collapse together • P (M = 4.94), S (M = 4.80), M (M= 3.27) • Context predicts willingness to interact • F(2,166) = 109.8, p < .001, η2 = .57 • Most willing to live in same town as (M = 4.96) • Least willing to date (M = 3.60)

16. Domain classification predicts willingness to help dissimilar others • F(2,166) = 104.0, p < .001, η2 = .56 • P (M = 5.13), S (M = 5.01), M (M= 3.96) • Type of helping behavior matters • More willing to give change (M = 4.97) • than to deliver something across campus (M = 4.43)

18. Conclusions • People view important social issues differently • How they view them influences important interpersonal outcomes • Expressed tolerance for different attitudes/beliefs • Expressed willingness to interact with and/or help dissimilar others • These effects are not reducible to political or religious orientation or attitude strength • Domain classification itself is a strong predictor

19. Implications • Tolerance is promoted by encouraging people to view an issue as personal • e.g., careers, sexual orientation, marriage • Intolerance is promoted by encouraging people to view an issue as moral • e.g., domestic violence, genocide, environmental issues

20. Future directions • Developmental studies • 4th graders through 12th graders • Direct behavioral measures • Implications of different types of moral beliefs