The Effect of Moral Foundations on Intergroup Relations: The Salience of Fairness Promotes the Acceptance of Minority Groups

Abstract

Previous research suggests that moral foundations have consequences for intergroup relations, but the evidence is mostly correlational and gathered mainly in north American countries. This work aimed to replicate the conceptual findings in the European context and test the effects of manipulating a moral framing on the perceived (im)morality of minority groups, willingness to defend their rights collectively and support for anti-immigration policies. A correlational study showed that binding and individualizing foundations contributed to predict support for anti-immigration policies and willingness to participate in collective actions for immigrants’ rights. A follow-up experiment suggested that emphasizing the benefits for society of fairness—an individualizing foundation—(vs. authority—a binding foundation) may improve intergroup evaluations, increase collective action intentions, and reduce support for anti-immigration policies. Although a second preregistered experiment could not replicate the results, complementary analyses suggested some positive effects of fairness compared with the control and authority conditions. These results open a path to investigate whether a fairness moral reasoning might improve attitudes toward immigrants.

The Pathway between Social Dominance Orientation and Drop out from Hierarchy-Attenuating Contexts: The Role of Moral Foundations and Person-Environment Misfit

“…Moreover, the SDO-driven competitive worldview and the desire to promote dominance-submission forms of intergroup relations [ 13 ] appear incompatible with the moral concerns of protecting the community by morally sanctioning harm to others and making people respect other individuals’ rights. Consistently, the endorsement of individualizing foundations has consequences for the solidarity and inclusivity of individuals in groups by promoting the acceptance of minority groups [ 37 , 38 ] or reporting greater prosocial behavioral tendencies [ 39 ]. In this sense, individualizing morality appears to fit into hierarchy-attenuating contexts promoting social welfare, human rights, and group equality.…”