The moral behavior of ethics professors: Relationships among self-reported behavior,expressed normative attitude,and directly observed behavior

Do philosophy professors specializing in ethics behave, on average, any morally better than do other professors? If not, do they at least behave more consistently with their expressed values? These questions have never been systematically studied. We examine the self-reported moral attitudes and moral behavior of 198 ethics professors, 208 non-ethicist philosophers, and 167 professors in departments other than philosophy on eight moral issues: academic society membership, voting, staying in touch with one's mother, vegetarianism, organ and blood donation, responsiveness to student emails, charitable giving, and honesty in responding to survey questionnaires. On some issues, we also had direct behavioral measures that we could compare with the self-reports. Ethicists expressed somewhat more stringent normative attitudes on some issues, such as vegetarianism and charitable donation. However, on no issue did ethicists show unequivocally better behavior than the two comparison groups. Our findings on attitude-behavior consistency were mixed: ethicists showed the strongest relationship between behavior and expressed moral attitude regarding voting but the weakest regarding charitable donation. We discuss implications for several models of the relationship between philosophical reflection and real-world moral behavior.     

Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Race

Late in the 2016 U.S. Presidential primary, Donald Trump attacked Hillary Clinton for playing the “woman’s card.” Theories of system justification suggest that attitudes about gender, particularly endorsement of hostile and benevolent sexism, likely shaped reactions to this campaign attack. Using a set of two studies, we find that hostile sexists exposed to the attack showed increased support for Trump and decreased support for Clinton. Benevolent sexists, however, reacted to Trump’s statements with increased support for Clinton, consistent with benevolent sexism’s focus on protecting women (Study 1). We further found that the woman card attack produced distinct emotional reactions among those with low and high levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. The attack also increased political participation among hostile sexists (Study 2). Our results offer new insights into the role of sexism in the 2016 presidential contest and further the discipline’s understanding of the gendered dimension of negative campaigning.     

农村选民选举行为的结构特征

以云南省两个县八个自然村的 2 62名选民为被试 ,采用心理测量原理与技术探讨了农村选民选举行为的结构特征。结果表明 ,政见取向由“政策效应”、“民生意识”、“村民权益”和“监督机制”4个因素构成 ,非政见取向由“候选人身份”、“候选人德能”、“选民社会关系”、“候选人背景”、“选民自我利益”、“选民自我权利”和“政党意见”7个因素构成。经检验 ,由此构成的农村选举行为问卷具有较高的内部一致性 ,问卷项目具有较高的区分度。文章讨论了农村选民选举行为的结构特征及其意义。     

Anti-egalitarians for Obama? Group-dominance motivation and the Obama vote

The election of the first Black president was a watershed moment in American race relations, and many Obama voters saw their choice as affirming and furthering the dream of racial equality. However, the present study provides evidence that Obama also garnered votes from an unlikely source: those wishing to maintain racial disparities. Data from a longitudinal study of the election suggest that, while some anti-egalitarian voters opposed Obama due to his perceived “foreignness,” others voted for him in order to underwrite the hierarchy-enhancing claim that US racism has been eliminated. Anti-egalitarianism was only associated with an increased tendency to vote for Obama among individuals who claimed that his victory signals the end of racism.     

When implicit fails: Explicit but not implicit attitudes predict choices of decided and undecided voters

IntroductionA recent study (Friese et al., 2012) involving two major political elections in the US and Germany reported that voting behavior was better predicted by explicit than implicit attitudes for both decided and undecided voters and that when voting behavior was predicted by implicit attitudes, the prediction was better for decided than undecided voters.ObjectiveWe conducted a comparable study for the 2012 French presidential election using voter volatility as a measure of voter decidedness, in order to test the generalizability of the findings of Friese et al. (2012).MethodParticipants’ voting intention, explicit and implicit attitudes towards the candidates Sarkozy and Hollande were collected during the 2 weeks separating the two rounds of the election.ResultsOur findings confirm that explicit attitudes outperform implicit attitudes when predicting voting choice, but not that the relationship between implicit attitudes and voting intention is moderated by voter decidedness.ConclusionFurther research is needed in order to test whether the moderation of implicit attitudes by voter decidedness is a robust finding or not.     

How Exposure to the Confederate Flag Affects Willingness to Vote for Barack Obama

Leading up to the 2008 U.S. election, pundits wondered whether Whites, particularly in Southern states, were ready to vote for a Black president. The present paper explores how a common Southern symbol—the Confederate flag—impacted willingness to vote for Barack Obama. We predicted that exposure to the Confederate flag would activate negativity toward Blacks and result in lowered willingness to vote for Obama. As predicted, participants primed with the Confederate flag reported less willingness to vote for Obama than those primed with a neutral symbol. The flag did not affect willingness to vote for White candidates. In a second study, participants primed with the Confederate flag evaluated a hypothetical Black target more negatively than controls. These results suggest that exposure to the Confederate flag results in more negative judgments of Black targets. As such, the prevalence of this flag in the South may have contributed to a reticence for some to vote for Obama because of his race.     

Personality correlates of party preference: The Big Five in five big European countries

The Big Five Model was used to assess the role of personality traits in orienting voting choice across five European countries (n = 1288). Findings from Italy, Spain, Germany, Greece, and Poland showed that the Big Five were linked to party preference in theoretically consistent ways. Traits had substantial effects on voting, whereas the socio-demographic characteristics of gender, age, income, and educational level had weaker influences. In each country, voters’ traits are seemingly congruent with the policies of their preferred party. The Openness trait has been shown to be the most generalizable predictor of party preference across the examined cultures. Conscientiousness was also a valid predictor, although its effect was less robust and replicable. Similarities and differences across countries were discussed and linked to the nature of the respective political discourses.     

Basic Personal Values,Core Political Values,and Voting: A Longitudinal Analysis

We theorize that political values express basic personal values in the domain of politics. We test a set of hypotheses that specify how the motivational structure of basic values constrains and gives coherence to core political values. We also test the hypothesis that core political values mediate relations of basic personal values to voting demonstrated in previous research. We measured the basic personal values, core political values, and vote of Italian adults both before (n = 1699) and after (n = 1030) the 2006 national election. Basic values explained substantial variance in each of eight political values (22% to 53%) and predicted voting significantly. Correlations and an MDS projection of relations among basic values and political values supported the hypothesized coherent structuring of core political values by basic values. Core political values fully mediated relations of basic values to voting, supporting a basic values—political values—voting causal hierarchy.     

“I'm Not Prejudiced,but . . .”: Compensatory Egalitarianism in the 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary

The historic 2008 Democratic presidential primary race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton posed a difficult choice for egalitarian White voters, and many commentators speculated that the election outcome would reflect pitting the effects of racism against sexism ( Steinem, 2008 ). Because self‐reported prejudices may be untrustworthy, we used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess White adults’ (1) condemnation of prejudices, and (2) attitudes toward the candidates in relation to voting decisions, as part of an online survey. Results supported the proposed compensatory egalitarianism process, such that Whites’ voting choice was consistent with their implicit candidate preference, but in an effort to remain egalitarian, participants compensated for this preference by automatically condemning prejudice toward the other candidate's group. Additional findings showed that this process was moderated by participants’ ethnicity and level of prejudice, as expected. Specifically, compensatory egalitarianism occurred primarily among Whites and individuals low in explicit prejudice. Implications for candidate support, aversive racism theory, and implicit compensation processes are discussed.