Moral and Religious Convictions and Intentions to Vote in the 2008 Presidential Election

Abstract

The current research investigated whether people's issue-specific moral and religious convictions had distinct or redundant effects on their intentions to vote in the 2008 presidential election. Participants reported their levels of moral and religious conviction about the issue that they perceived as most important to the 2008 presidential election and their intentions to vote. Results indicated that stronger issue-specific moral convictions and weaker issue-specific religious convictions were associated with increased intentions to vote. In short, people's moral and religious convictions had distinct and dissimilar effects on their intentions to vote in the 2008 presidential election.President George Washington declared in his farewell address, "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these. . .firmest props of the duties of men and citizens." In this bold proclamation, the first president of the United States asserted that morality and religion were and should remain at the center of political life. Consistent with President Washington's assertion, people's moral and religious beliefs do indeed influence their political beliefs and behaviors. For example, people who reported that their candidate preferences or positions on hot-button political issues

Should the moral core of climate issues be emphasized or downplayed in public discourse? Three ways to successfully manage the double-edged sword of moral communication

“…Finally, these emotion and efficacy responses are psychologically unified by, or incorporated in, identification with the relevant group (Van Zomeren 2013). In this sense, moral convictions can be viewed as major motivational catalysts for social action (through the motivational identityemotion-efficacy triad), ranging from predicting voting behaviour in presidential elections (Morgan et al 2010;Skitka and Bauman 2008), to political engagement (Skitka 2010), willingness to protest (Van Zomeren et al 2011, and participation in so-called 'silent marches' (Lodewijkx et al 2008).…”

“…Theoretical models of individuals' moral motivation assume that individuals are motivated to act to promote the realization of their values (e.g., Morgan et al 2010), but also to protect them from perceived threats (e.g., Monin 2007). Indeed, Tetlock et al (2000) sacred value protection model suggests that individuals respond defensively to threats to so-called sacred values, for instance through moral outrage directed at those who dared to violate them.…”

Moralized Rationality: Relying on Logic and Evidence in the Formation and Evaluation of Belief Can Be Seen as a Moral Issue

“…It is therefore not surprising that morally grounded positions are strong predictors of societal and political engagement and activism in support of those positions, and of support for groups that personify such values [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59]. In Study 8 we therefore wished to investigate whether endorsement of rationality as a moral value would be associated with an increased willingness to contribute to a charity that aims to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs.…”

“…As stated earlier, moral standpoints are also perceived as objectively true, and universally applicable “oughts”, indicating that people who hold a certain moral standpoint believe that everyone should adhere to it. As a consequence, moral values and attitudes are particularly strong predictors of people’s societal and political engagement, activism, and support for groups that personify their moral values and attitudes [53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59]. We therefore expect those who moralize rationality to be particularly willing to contribute to activism that serves to prevent the spread of irrational beliefs.…”

Climate Change Helplessness and the (De)moralization of Individual Energy Behavior.

“…Across various social issues, people are more likely to vote (Morgan, Skitka, & Wisneski, 2010;Skitka & Bauman, 2008), to devote political and scientific resources (Rozin, 1999), and to advocate for change even against their material interests (Effron & Miller, 2012;Skitka & Morgan, 2014) for issues that carry greater moral meaning. Moralization of such issues has social consequences as well-for example, distancing oneself from others who do not share one's values (Skitka, Bauman, & Sargis, 2005;Skitka et al, 2013;Wright, Cullum, & Schwab, 2008) and censuring those who fail to act morally (Rozin, 1999).…”