Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Economic and Social Political Ideology and Homophobia: The Mediating Role of Binding and Individualizing Moral Foundations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Archives of Sexual Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous research has linked conservative political ideology with homophobia. Political ideology has also been linked to differences in moral decision-making, with research suggesting that conservatives and liberals may use different values in their moral decision-making processes. Moral foundations theory is a model of moral decision-making that proposes that individuals emphasize different domains in moral decision-making. Conservatives tend to emphasize binding foundations, while liberals tend to emphasize individualizing foundations. Utilizing large, ethnically diverse college samples, the purpose of these two cross-sectional studies (Study 1 N = 492; Study 2 N = 861) was to explore whether moral foundations mediate the relationship between political ideology and homophobia. These studies explored economic and social political ideology separately and utilized a two-factor model of moral foundations theory (individualizing and binding foundations). Results of both studies found that conservative economic and social political ideology was positively associated with homophobia. Study 1 found that both conservative economic and social political ideology had an indirect effect on homophobia through binding foundations. Study 2 found that both economic and social political ideology had an indirect effect on homophobia through both binding and individualizing foundations. Overall, the results were consistent with the notion that moral foundations may explain the relationship between political ideology and homophobia.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aosved, A. C., Long, P. J., & Voller, E. K. (2009). Measuring sexism, racism, sexual prejudice, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance: The Intolerant Schema Measure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 2321–2354. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00528.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baunach, D. M. (2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 364–378. doi:10.1093/poq/nfs022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, P. B. N. (2013). The public’s compass moral conviction and political attitudes. American Politics Research, 41, 937–964. doi:10.1177/1532673X13481842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, R. C., & Salka, W. M. (2009). Determinants of electoral support for anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments: An examination of 2006 votes on ballot measures in the United States. Journal of Homosexuality, 56, 1071–1082. doi:10.1080/00918360903275476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S., Barnes, R., & Craighill, P. (2015, April 23). Poll: Gay-marriage support at record high. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com.

  • Davies, C. L., Sibley, C. G., & Liu, J. H. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis of the Moral Foundations Questionnaire: Independent scale validation in a New Zealand sample. Social Psychology, 45, 431–436. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico, C. M., Weber, C. R., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. (2013). Mapping the connections between politics and morality: The multiple sociopolitical orientations involved in moral intuition. Political Psychology, 34, 589–610. doi:10.1111/pops.12006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, A. P. (1992). The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review, 99, 689–723. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.99.4.689.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In P. Devine & A. Plant (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366–385. doi:10.1037/a0021847.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haidt, J., Graham, J., & Joseph, C. (2009). Above and below left–right: Ideological narratives and moral foundations. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 110–119. doi:10.1080/10478400903028573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., Haidt, J., & Young, L. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. Public Library of Science, 7, 1–23. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–333.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keleher, A., & Smith, E. R. (2012). Growing support for gay and lesbian equality since 1990. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 1307–1326. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.720540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive developmental approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347–380). Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184–194. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, G. J., & Bates, T. C. (2011). From left to right: How the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations. British Journal of Psychology, 102, 546–558. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.2011.02016.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Loftus, J. (2001). America’s liberalization in attitudes toward homosexuality, 1973–1998. American Sociological Review, 66, 762–782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L. M., Bulbulia, J., Wilson, M. S., Davies, C. L., & Sibley, C. G. (2014). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict different moral signatures. Social Justice Research, 27, 149–174. doi:10.1007/s11211-014-0213-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Napier, J. L., & Luguri, J. B. (2013). Moral mind-sets: Abstract thinking increases a preference for ‘individualizing’ over ‘binding’ moral foundations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 754–759. doi:10.1177/1948550612473783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson, A., & Erlandsson, A. (2015). The Moral Foundations taxonomy: Structural validity and relation to political ideology in Sweden. Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 28–32. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raja, S., & Stokes, J. P. (1998). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The Modern Homophobia Scale. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, 3, 113–134. doi:10.1023/A:1023244427281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosik, C. H., Dinges, L. J., & Saavedra, N. (2013). Moral intuitions and attitudes toward gay men: Can moral psychology add to our understanding of homonegativity? Psychology & Theology, 41, 315–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shweder, R. A., Much, N. C., Mahapatra, M., & Park, L. (1997). The “big three” of morality (autonomy, community, and divinity), and the “the big three” explanations of suffering. In A. Brandt & P. Rozin (Eds.), Morality and health (pp. 119–169). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, I. H., Aquino, K., Koleva, S., & Graham, J. (2014). The moral ties that bind…even to out-groups: The interactive effect of moral identity and the binding moral foundations. Psychological Science, 25, 1554–1562. doi:10.1177/0956797614534450.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Talhelm, T., Haidt, J., Oishi, S., Zhang, X., Miao, F. F., & Chen, S. (2014). Liberals think more analytically (more “WEIRD”) than conservatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 250–267. doi:10.1177/0146167214563672.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 169–173. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, C. R., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34, 107–126. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00922.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whitley, B. J., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 144–170. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02309.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Attribution style and public policy attitudes toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 58–74. doi:10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08501005.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 337–347. doi:10.1023/A:1022172816258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, J. C., & Baril, G. (2011). The role of cognitive resources in determining our moral intuitions: Are we all liberals at heart? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1007–1012. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly. doi:10.1086/297810.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle #311280, Denton, TX, 76203, USA

    Michael D. Barnett, Haluk C. M. Öz & Arthur D. Marsden III

Authors
  1. Michael D. Barnett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Haluk C. M. Öz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Arthur D. Marsden III
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Barnett.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barnett, M.D., Öz, H.C.M. & Marsden, A.D. Economic and Social Political Ideology and Homophobia: The Mediating Role of Binding and Individualizing Moral Foundations. Arch Sex Behav 47, 1183–1194 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0989-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0989-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation