Understanding the Amoral in the Context of the Moral Foundations Theory: A Sociopsychological and Linguocognitive Study

The article discusses the problem of association between the understanding of the amoral and the level of progressivism, which measures the relative subjective importance of individualizing and binding moral foundations. According to the moral foundations theory (by Johna-than Haidt), progressivists rate higher the importance of individualizing moral foundations (which include Harm/Care and Fairness/Honesty), while traditionalists give an equal appraisal of both individualizing moral foundations and binding ones (including Authority, Loyalty and Purity/Sanctity). On the basis of the moral foundations theory, the authors hypothesize that, in describing the "amoral", progressivists first indicate the transgression of norms of Harm/Care and Fairness (individualizing moral foundations), while traditionalists mostly indicate transgression of norms of Authority, Loyalty, and Purity. To test this hypothesis, the authors conducted an empirical study using the Russian version of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire and a special questionnaire to assess the subjective understanding of the amoral. The sample comprised 300 university students. Two contrasting groups with high (67 respondents) and low (81 respondents) levels of progressivism were formed from the total sample. Their responses were used for further analysis. The responses ("field analysis") were classified using the Semograph information system. The classifier was based on the categories of the moral foundations theory. The frequency analysis of the extracted fields and semantic graphs constructed using the method of graphosemantic modeling allowed detecting some differences in the understanding of the amoral by traditionalists and progressivists. The most frequent and important moral foundation in the group of traditionalists is Purity/Sanctity, while the individualizing moral foundation of Harm/Care is the most frequent in the group or progressivists. These two moral categories are the most frequent in both groups regardless of the level of progressivism, and they form the core of the understanding of the amoral. The frequency of other categories which reflect the moral foundations of Authority, Loyalty, and Fairness/Honesty is much lower, and differences in the usage of these categories by progressivists and traditionalists have not been detected. The frequency of the moral foundation of Fairness/Honesty is the least in both groups revealing its secondary role in the moral consciousness of all the respondents regardless of the level of progressivism. The obtained results clarify some findings of the moral foundations theory and demonstrate the promise of graphosemantic modeling for studying moral representations.

Keywords

Authors

References