The Mediating Role of Meta-Relational Threat Sensitivity on the Relationship between Parental Motivation and Moral Judgments

Abstract

Research shows that parental motivation is associated with moral sensitivity. Previous research also concurs that high levels of parental motivation are associated with high levels of moral sensitivity. This is grounded in the fact that individuals’ needs allow them to bring a child in a society where moral values are preserved and maintained. By extending previous research, the current study aims to examine the mediative role of meta-relational threat sensitivity introduced by Tepe and Aydinli-Karakulak (2019) (evaluating immoral behaviors at the society level) as an individual predisposition on this link. More specifically, individuals’ high levels of parental motivation will be associated with moral wrongness judgments about a violation of social relationships between in-group members such as family or friends (unity violation, e.g., a mother who does not care about her child or an incest relationship between two siblings), through their high levels of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity. Data (N= 127) were collected from university undergraduates in Turkey. Results showed that there are indirect effects of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity on the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments of unity violation despite their marginal significance. In addition to contributing meta-relational threat sensitivity as a measure of individual predisposition to the field of moral psychology, the current study not only suggests a mediative role of meta-relational threat sensitivity on the link between parental motivation and moral wrongness judgments but also emphasizes the role of parental motivation (even among nonparents) on the maintenance of the moral systems at the society level. This highlighted further a different perspective on the link between parenting and morality. In simpler terms, high levels of parental motivation are associated with high levels of community-based meta-relational threat sensitivity, which in turn leads to harsher moral wrongness judgments. Moreover, the current study focuses on relationship regulation theory, relational motivations, social conservatism, and life-history strategy to discuss the findings.

Keywords

• Meta-relational threat
• moral judgments
• parental motivation
• relationship regulation theory

Ebeveynlik Motivasyonu ile Ahlaki Yargı Arasında Meta-İlişkisel Tehdit Hassasiyetinin Aracı Rolü

Abstract

Ebeveynlik motivasyonu ile ahlaki hassasiyetin ilişkili olduğunu gösteren birçok çalışma mevcuttur. Mevcut çalışmalara göre yüksek ebeveynlik motivasyonu, yüksek ahlaki hassasiyet ile ilişkilidir, bunun arka planında bireylerin değerleri koruyan ve sürdüren bir topluma çocuk getirmeyi istemesi yatmaktadır. Alan yazındaki çalışmaları temel alan bu çalışmanın amacı ise Tepe ve Aydınlı-Karakulak’ın (2019) önerdiği meta-ilişkisel tehdit kavramının (bireylerin ahlaki durumları bireysel düzeyde değil, toplumsal düzeyde düşünmeleri), bir kişilik özelliği olarak bu ilişkide aracı rol oynayıp oynamadığını incelemektir. Özellikle aile üyeleri ya da iç grup üyeleriyle kurulan sosyal ilişkiyi bozan (birlik motivasyonu ihlali, örneğin, annenin çocuğu ile ilgilenmemesi ya da iki kardeş arasındaki ensest ilişki) durumlara yönelik ahlaki yargının ebeveynlik motivasyonu yüksek bireylerde, toplumsal düzeyde yüksek meta-ilişkisel tehdit hassasiyeti ile ilişkili olacağı ve bunun da olumsuz ahlaki yargıyı yordayacağı beklenmektedir. Çalışmanın verileri (N =127), İstanbul’da bir vakıf üniversitesindeki öğrencilerden toplanmıştır. Analiz sonuçlarına göre, birlik motivasyonu ihlaline yönelik ahlaki yargı ve ebeveynlik motivasyonu arasında toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit yatkınlığının aracı rolü olduğu tespit edilmiş, fakat bu aracılığın sınırda anlamlılık gösterdiği bulunmuştur. Bu çalışma, meta-ilişkisel tehdit algısı kavramını bireysel bir ölçüm olarak ahlak psikolojisi alan yazınına kazandırmanın yanı sıra, ebeveynlik motivasyonunun ahlaki yargıyı, toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit eğilimi vasıtasıyla yordayabileceğini önermektedir. Dolayısıyla ebeveyn olma halinin (olunmasa dahi) toplumsal düzeyde ahlak mekanizmasının sürmesindeki rolünü göstererek ahlak ve ebeveynlik ilişkisine yönelik farklı bir bakış açısı kazandırmaktadır. Kısaca kişilerin yüksek ebeveynlik motivasyonuna sahip olmaları, onların ahlaki ihlallerde toplumsal düzeyde meta-ilişkisel tehdit algılamaları ile ilişkilenmekte ve bu durum da katı ahlaki yargı ile ilişkilenmektedir. Bu çalışmanın bulguları, ilişki düzenleme kuramı, ilişki motivasyonları, sosyal muhafazakarlık ve yaşam tarihi stratejisi üzerinden ele alınmış ve tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• Ebeveynlik motivasyonu
• ahlaki yargı
• meta-ilişkisel tehdit
• ilişki düzenleme kuramı

References

1. Alexander, R. D. (1987). The biology of moral systmes. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. google scholar
2. Chakroff, A. ve Young, L. (2015). Harmful situations, impure people: An attribution asymmetry across moral domains. Cognition, 136, 30-37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2014.11.034 google scholar
3. Curry, O. S. (2016). Morality as Cooperation: A problem-centred approach. T.K. Shackelford ve R. D. google scholar
4. Hansen (Ed.). The evolution of morality (s. 27-51) içinde. Springer International Publishing. google scholar
5. de Waal, F. B. M. (1996). Good natured: The origins of right and wrong in humans and other animals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. google scholar
6. Doğruyol, B., Alper, S. ve Yilmaz, O. (2019). The five-factor model of the moral foundations theory is stable across WEIRD and non-WEIRD cultures. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109547. google scholar
7. Dungan, J. A., Chakroff, A. ve Young, L. (2017). The relevance of moral norms in distinct relational contexts: Purity versus harm norms regulate self-directed actions. PLoS One, 12, e0173405. https:// dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173405 google scholar
8. Dunkel, C. S., Gladden, P. R. ve Mathes, E. W. (2016). Sex differences in moral reasoning: The role of intelligence and life history strategy. Hum Ethol Bull, 31, 5-16. google scholar

9. Eibach, R. P. ve Mock, S. E. (2011). The vigilant parent: Parental role salience affects parents’ risk perceptions, risk-aversion, and trust in strangers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 694-697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016Zj.jesp.2010.12.009. google scholar
10. Eibach, R. P., Libby, L. K. ve Ehrlinger, J. (2009). Priming family values: How being a parent affects moral evaluations of harmless but offensive acts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(5), 1160-1163. google scholar
11. Fessler, D. M. T. ve Haley, K. J. (2003). The strategy of affect: Emotions in human cooperation. P. Hammerstein (Ed.), Genetic and cultural evolution of cooperation (s. 7-36) içinde. Cambrigde: MIT Press google scholar
12. Figueredo, A. J., Vasquez, G., Brumbach, B.H., Schneider, S.M., Sefcek, J.A., Tal, I., Hill, D., Wenner, C.J. ve Jacobs, W.J. (2006). Consilience and Life History Theory: From genes to brain to reproductive strategy. Developmental Review, 26, 243- 275. google scholar
13. Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689-723. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689 google scholar
14. Fiske, A. P. (2011). Metarelational models: Configurations of social relationships. European Journal of Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.847 google scholar
15. Gilead, M. ve Liberman, N. (2014). We take care of our own: Caregiving salience increases out-group bias in response to out-group threat. Psychological Science, 25, 1380-1387. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0956797614531439. google scholar
16. Giner-Sorolla, R. ve Chapman, H. A. (2016). Beyond purity: Moral disgust toward bad character. Psychological Science, 28, 80-91. DOI: 10.1177/0956797616673193 google scholar
17. Gladden, P. R. ve Cleator, A. M. (2018). Slow life history strategy predicts six moral foundations. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 9, 43-63. google scholar
18. Gladden, P. R., Welch, J., Figueredo, A. J. ve Jacobs, W. J. (2009). Moral intuitions and religiosity as spuriously correlated life history traits. Journal of Evolutionary Psychology, 7(2), 167-184. google scholar
19. Graham. J., Haidt. J., Koleva. S., Motyl. M., Iyer. R., Wojcik. S. ve Ditto. P. H. (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 47, 55-130. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-407236-7.00002-4 google scholar
20. Graham, J., Haidt, J. ve Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/a0015141 google scholar
21. Haidt, J., Koller, S. H. ve Dias, M. G. (1993). Affect, culture, and morality, or is it wrong to eat your dog? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 613-628. http.//dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.613 google scholar
22. Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. http://afhayes.com/introduction-to-mediation-moderation-and-conditional-process-analysis.html adresinden alınmıştır. google scholar
23. Hofer, M. K., Buckels, E. E., White, C. J., Beall, A. T. ve Schaller, M. (2018). Individual differences in activation of the parental care motivational system: An empirical distinction between protection and nurturance. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(8), 907-916. google scholar
24. Horberg, E. J., Oveis, C., Keltner, D. ve Cohen, A. B. (2009). Disgust and the moralization of purity. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 97, 963-976. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017423 google scholar
25. Kenny, D. A. (2017). MedPower: An interactive tool for the estimation of power in tests of mediation [Computer software]. https://davidakenny.shinyapps.io/MedPower/ adresinden alınmıştır. google scholar
26. Kerry, N. ve Murray, D. R. (2018). Conservative parenting: Investigating the relationships between parenthood, moral judgment, and social conservatism. Personality and Individual Differences, 134, 88-96. google scholar
27. Nesse, R. M. (2001). Evolution and the capacity for commitment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. google scholar
28. Parkinson, M. ve Byrne, M. J. R. (2017). Judgments of moral responsibility and wrongness for intentional and accidental harm and purity violations. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71(3), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2016.1276942 google scholar
29. Pianka, E. R. (1970). On r- and K-selection. American Naturalist, 104, 592-596. google scholar
30. Rai, T. S. ve Fiske. A. P. (2011). Moral psychology is relationship regulation: Moral motives for unity, hierarchy, equality, and proportionality. Psychological Review. 118, 57-75. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0021867 google scholar
31. Rai, T. S. ve Fiske, A. P. (2012). Beyond harm, intention, and dyads: Relationship regulation, virtuous violence, and metarelational morality. Psychological Inquiry, 23, 189-193.https://dx.doi. org/10.1080/1047840X.2012.670782 google scholar
32. Rottman, J., Kelemen, D. ve Young, L. (2014). Purity matters more than harm in moral judgments of suicide: Response to Gray (2014). Cognition, 133, 332-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. cognition.2014.06.008 google scholar
33. Rushton, J. P. (1985). Differential K theory: The sociobiology of individual and group differences. Personality & Individual Differences, 6, 441-452. google scholar
34. Sabo, J. S. ve Giner-Sorolla, R. (2017). Imagining wrong: Fictitious contexts mitigate condemnation of harm more than impurity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 134-153. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000251 google scholar
35. Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C, Mahapatra, M. ve Park, L. (1997). The “Big Three” of morality (autonomy, community, divinity) and the “Big Three” explanations of suffering. A. Brandt ve P. Rozin (Ed.), Morality and health (s. 119-169) içinde. New York: Routledge. google scholar
36. Simpson, A. ve Laham, S. M. (2015a). Different relational models underlie prototypical left and right positions on social issues. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 204-217. https://dx.doi. org/10.1002/ejsp.2074 google scholar
37. Simpson, A. ve Laham, S. M. (2015b). Individual differences in relational construal are associated with variability in moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 74, 49-54. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.09.044 google scholar
38. Simpson, A., Laham, S. M. ve Fiske, A. P. (2016). Wrongness in different relationships: Relational context effects on moral judgment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156, 594-609. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1140118 google scholar
39. Sunar, D. (2009). Suggestions for a new integration in the psychology of morality. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(4), 447-474. google scholar
40. Sunar, D., Cesur, S., Piyale, Z. E., Tepe, B., Biten, A. F., Hill, C. T. ve Koç, Y. (2020). People respond with different moral emotions to violations in different relational models: A cross-cultural comparison. Emotion, 21(4), 693-706. google scholar
41. Tepe. B. ve Aydinli-Karakulak. A. (2019). Beyond harmfulness and impurity: Moral wrongness as a violation of relational motivations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(2), 310-337. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000169 google scholar
42. Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A. ve Diermeier, D. (2015). A person-centered approach to moral judgment. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(1), 72-81. google scholar
43. Vezzali, L., Brambilla, M., Giovannini, D. ve Colucci F. P. (2017). Strengthening purity: Moral purity as a mediator of direct and extended cross-group friendships on sexual prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 716-730. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1196998 google scholar
44. Vonasch, A. J., Reynolds, T., Winegard, B. M. ve Baumeister, R. F. (2018). Death before dishonor: Incurring costs to protect moral reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5) 604-613,, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720271. google scholar
45. Wagemans, F. M. A., Brandt, M. J. ve Zeelenberg, M. (2018). Disgust sensitivity is primarily associated with purity-based moral judgments. Emotion, 18, 277-289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/emo0000359 google scholar
46. Yalçındağ, B., Özkan, T., Cesur, S., Yilmaz, O., Tepe, B., Piyale, Z. E., Biten, A. F. ve Sunar, D. (2017). An investigation of moral foundations theory in Turkey using different measures. Current Psychology, 38(2), 440-457. google scholar
47. Yilmaz, O., Harma, M., Bahçekapili, H. G. ve Cesur, S. (2016). Validation of the moral foundations questionnaire in Turkey and its relation to cultural schemas of individualism and collectivism. Personality and Individual Differences, 99, 149-154. google scholar
48. Young, L. ve Saxe, R. (2011). When ignorance is no excuse: Different roles for intent across moral domains. Cognition, 120, 202-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2011.04.005 google scholar