Pinned down: the politics of social taboo
Ever considered sticking a pin into a child’s hand? How about kicking a dog in the head, hard? What about undergoing plastic surgery to add a two inch tail to the end of your spine?
Surprising as it may seem, your answers to these questions may throw some light on your political loyalties and affiliations. Recent research from the US has produced surprising data about differing attitudes towards social taboos across the political spectrum. The authors include Jonathan Haidt, whose thoughts on the moral and political choices facing Barack Obama are featured in this month’s edition of Prospect in an essay that is free to read online.
According to the study (pdf), published this Spring in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, conservatives are likely to feel more strongly about social taboos revolving around purity, authority and ingroup loyalty, while liberals feel a stronger sense of obligation around issues of harm to animals and other people. Libertarians, those rootless individualists, scored lower in every moral category.
The researchers selected over 1,500 politically committed volunteers, and subjected them to a range of questions exploring their attitudes to different taboos and trangressions. Asked about impaling a child’s hand, 78 per cent of the conservatives responded that they would refuse to do this “for any amount of money,” compared with 70 per cent of liberals and just 59 per cent of libertarians.
In fact, more of the liberal respondents felt strongly about kicking a dog than about harming a child (75 per cent versus 70 per cent refusal for any amount of money), while fifty per cent of the libertarians would agree to surgery giving them a prosthetic tail if they were paid enough to do so.
Some of the questions seem to be inspired by traumas specific to the researchers. One question testing “Purity” asks whether respondents would be willing to “attend a performance art piece in which all participants (including you) have to act like animals for 30 minutes, including crawling around naked and urinating on stage.”
Are these results culturally specific to the US? Or do they reveal a more universal set of moral principles underlying political choice?
CLARIFICATION 24/02/09: I can see from the comments that some people have found this post confusing. The PDF we linked to does not contain the full survey data from Haidt, Graham and Nosek’s research, just the conclusions they’ve drawn from it. But here at Prospect, we’ve seen the full survey data (Johathan Haidt sent it us), and I can confirm that they are as reported in the post, however bizarre that may seem. Apologies for any confusion.
Share
Comments
Print
Add Comment
“Asked about impaling a child’s hand”
Sticking a pin in someones hand is not usually considered to be impaling it.
These questions appear so ridiculous and contrived that I genuinely wonder what conclusions can be drawn from the data. What about if I accepted “any amount of money” (presumably large) and with that money set up a foundation that saved many children’s lives? I’d be willing to stick a pin in my own hand, in another child’s and even in my own child’s for that end. In fact I allowed a doctor to stick a needle into my 3 month old baby (for a vaccination).
These researchers need to put their subjects into more subtle moral situations to get a real idea of people’s character.
[...] it turns out that toddlers (and small animals) may have reason to wary of libertarians: According to the study (pdf), published this Spring in the Journal of Personality and Social [...]
If you’re sticking a pin in a child’s hand you’re violating the NAP, and therefore hardly a libertarian.
“Asked about impaling a child’s hand, 78 per cent of the conservatives responded that they would refuse to do this “for any amount of money,” compared with 70 per cent of liberals and just 59 per cent of libertarians.”
Where did these figures come from? They don’t appear anywhere in the PDF.
[...] “…while fifty per cent of the libertarians would agree to surgery giving them a prosthet… [...]
I agree with Jester. You seem to be pulling these numbers out of your backside.
Why is this item a litmus test for whether or not to throw out data? I, for one, find it useful to consider the beliefs of those who let their imaginations get the better of their minds. If someone believes in an imaginary personal sky god or that vague descriptions of the upcoming day are contained within the patterns of the stars, it raises a red flag in my mind and causes me to carefully consider what this person is saying and whether or not I think it’s right or wrong.
nice strong scientific study you site there in your article! and way to twist the results to make it sound like it is a bad thing to be a libertarian! you reek of liberals. but don’t worry. after your proletariat destroys the country we will, libertarians, will swoop back in to clean up his mess.
“If you’re sticking a pin in a child’s hand you’re violating the NAP, and therefore hardly a libertarian.”
“Hey Kid, that guy wants to pay me money to stick this needle in your hand. How much money would I have to pay you to let me stick this needle in your hand?”
(Considering ability of child to consent, etc. etc.)
libertarians have a better sense of humor perhaps? i’d be checking yes on a question about a prosthetic tail for a cool hypothetical billion with a big old smile on my face.
these aren’t real moral issues… they’re hilarious.
y’all just need to lighten up.
This study is flawed in so many ways… from the PDF:
“In Study 3, we elicited stronger visceral responses by presenting subjects with moral tradeoffs by asking them how much money they would require to perform foundation-violating behaviors.”
This assumes that sticking a pin in a child’s hand, by itself, is a foundation violating behavior. It does not take into account the possibility of a reason for doing so. What sort of pin (large, small)? How far into the hand (you took it to mean impale, I take it to mean just into the skin)? Is there a medical reason (acupuncture, vaccination, stitches, etc)? Will there be lasting harm done to the child (scars, impaired function, etc)? If money is involved, what will be done with the money? None of this is covered by the question, which makes me believe that it was perhaps expanded upon by the interviewer, which means that interviewer bias could have intruded on and tainted the study.
Also, see this from the PDF:
“In Study 4, we analyzed moral texts—religious sermons delivered in liberal and conservative churches—to see if speakers in the different moral communities spontaneously used foundation-related words in different ways.”
This excludes some of your sample set that does not go to a church. According to their own definition of liberals, who are supposedly more about personal liberty, would more often support the liberty of not believing in a religious text. It is at this point where conservatives were studied in greater numbers than liberals. Conservatives were studied at a greater percentage than were liberals.
It seems to me that they started with an exceedingly narrow and biased hypothesis: “We propose a simple hypothesis: political liberals construct their moral systems primarily upon two psychological foundations —Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity—whereas political conservatives construct moral systems more evenly upon five psychological foundations—the same ones as liberals, plus Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity.”
And then set out to gather evidence to prove that it was true, rather than trying to find out if it whether it was true or not. The difference is subtle, but has profound effects on the validity and impartiality of the study.
Basically, when you go into a study with preconceived notions you can craft questions guaranteed to produce the results you want. Then: Surprise, surprise, it turns out you were right.
So, what this study proves is that libertarians are the most honest? Because everyone has a price for pretty much anything.
Put a libertarian, conservative, and a liberal on a lifeboat with two life vests. The libertarian and the conservative will get ‘em every time.
Anyway, asking people questions doesn’t mean shit. Revealed preference is what’s important. Until you do a study where you actually offer a million bucks to a person to get a tail put on the, you’re really not proving anything.
I am a little confused over the moral implications of getting a tail put on for a vast sum of money. How is this hurting anyone? I’m not insulted that you’re implying that libertarians have lower morals, I consider my morals to be variable to a degree, but honestly, I see no moral harm in something of that nature. Is this a vague reference to the X-files episode with the shape shifter who has a tail and impregnates random women?
[...] Some psychologists believe that people gravitate to different ideologies because they hold different values and tastes. According to this general view, liberals and conservatives want different things, and, as a result, they are inevitably drawn towards different visions of society that is promoted by politicians of different parties. These different visions are not rationally chosen but are to a significant extent based on emotions and perhaps even innate preferences. Just a few days ago, for example, we discussed the possibility that conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. [...]