A relational perspective of social influence on moral issues
Making social judgments and deciding how to act on our deepest moral convictions and virtues rarely occurs in a vacuum; these events typical transpire within close relationships, especially those with romantic partners. In this chapter, we discuss why it is important indeed essential to adopt a relational perspective to fully comprehend when, how, and why individuals are (or are not) influenced by their romantic partners when moral issues tied to core moral virtues arise. Working with Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model of moral judgment, we discuss a few of the relationship relevant variables that may moderate the strength of influence between partners when such issues are discussed. We then focus on what should happen when romantic partners hold different amounts of power within their relationship. Our primary focus is on what Haidt calls "interpersonal effects" instances in which an individual's intuition, judgment, and reasoning regarding a specific moral issue should be more versus less strongly influenced by his or her partner's intuition, judgment, and reasoning on that issue. Morality and Relationships 3 A Relational Perspective of Social Influence on Moral Issues Imagine the following event: You and your romantic partner are watching the nightly news on television. You see a story about people who may have indirect ties to Al Qaida being detained by the U.S. government for very long periods of time in what appear to be harsh conditions without normal due process. You feel strongly that it is not fair for any government to detain anyone without good evidence and proper due process, and you also worry about the harm being done to the detainees. Your partner, however, thinks this is fine, particularly given the need to protect the U.S. in light of current terroristic threats around the world. After the story ends, you and your partner discuss whether these people should continue to be detained under these conditions. You mention the importance of fairness, due process, and avoiding unnecessary harm, but your partner stands firm in her belief that legitimate governments must take a hard stance with respect to potential terrorists. At the end of the discussion, you begin to agree with your partner without really knowing why, and you slide your opinion on the matter closer to your partner's position. Early psychological theorists on moral thinking and development, such as Piaget (1932) and Kohlberg (1969) conceptualized morality as an effortful cognitive process that, although shaped by cultural norms, tends to occur in the absence of immediate interpersonal influences. However, situations such as the one described above suggest that these processes do not occur in a vacuum, and that other people can influence our moral thinking without us engaging in elaborate thinking. The "new synthesis" in moral psychology, which has risen in prominence during the past two decades, adopts a different perspective: Much moral thinking is an automatic, emotionally driven process that often is biased by the social context in which judgments are Morality and Relationships 4 taking place (Haidt, 2008) As Rai and Fiske (2011) assert, ".moral intuitions are defined by the particular types of social relationships in which they occur" (pp. 57) Despite the theoretical importance of social relationships on moral intuitions, judgments, and thinking, little research has examined how interpersonal relationships actually impact these variables. Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model proposes some interpersonal links through which interaction partners may directly or indirectly influence each other's moral judgments and reasoning, but little research has tested these links and what strengthens or weakens them. In this chapter, we use relationship science to suggest when, and to what extent, romantic partners are likely to influence one another when discussing moral issues. The chapter is divided into three sections. In the first section, we describe Haidt's (2001) Social Intuitionist Model (SIM) of moral judgment and the five "moral foundations" that constitute the major content areas underlying moral judgments. In addition, we briefly review the rather limited research that has tested the interpersonal links (social and reasoned persuasion) contained in Haidt's model. In section two, we discuss what a relational perspective on this model especially the interpersonal links can contribute to the morality field. We focus on romantic relationships because they are a social context in which a great deal of important persuasion can and often does occur on a daily basis. In particular, we discuss how certain relationship relevant variables might moderate the strength of influence that "actors" (one partner in a relationship) have on their "partners" (the other partner in a relationship) within the social intuitionist model framework. We also showcase how one major relationship variable the amount of power each partner has in a relationship can be applied to extend our understanding of when, how, and why certain individuals are more versus less influenced by Morality and Relationships 5 their partners. In the final section, we offer concluding comments and further ideas for future research. The Social Intuitionist Model and Moral Foundations According to Haidt's (2001) social intuitionist model (SIM) of social judgment, moral judgments and decisions frequently occur in interpersonal contexts. Thus, according to Haidt, moral judgment is an inherently interpersonal process. The SIM, which is shown in Figure 1, claims that eliciting situations (e.g. watching a TV news story about long detentions of suspected terrorists) evoke automatic intuitions akin to gut level sentiments within an individual (Person A) These intuitions are experienced as diffuse feelings that fall somewhere on a goodto bad dimension regarding the eliciting situation. Intuitions are perceived very quickly, automatically, and with little or no deliberate or rational thinking. Once activated, they affect the individual's judgment of the eliciting situation, which often is expressed in observable verbal or nonverbal behavior. Following the expression of the judgment, individuals often engage in post hoc reasoning to support their judgment. During this reasoning process, individuals attempt to explain, justify, or make sense of their intuition and judgment. Insert Figure 1 here What makes this model dyadic are the pathways that connect Person A's judgment and reasoning to Person B's intuition, judgment, and reasoning about the eliciting situation, and vice versa. There are two sets of interpersonal pathways through which social influence can occur. Reasoned persuasion, represented by paths A1 and A2 in Figure 1, runs from one individual's explicit reasoning to the other's intuition. Reasoned persuasion occurs when Persons A and B directly communicate the reason(s) for their judgments to one another, which may then influence each other's intuitions. Social persuasion, represented by paths B1 and B2 in Figure 1, runs from Morality and Relationships 6 one individual's judgment of the eliciting situation to the other's intuition. Social persuasion occurs when one person conforms to the other's judgment, even if there are no attempts to change opinions (or virtues) about the eliciting situation. Both sets of pathways (reasoned and social) suggest that individuals can and sometimes do influence each other's intuitions once an eliciting situation launches the process depicted in Figure 1. Which variables are the wellspring of the intuitions, judgments, and reasoning that guide how partners perceive and evaluate specific moral issues? According to Haidt and Joseph (2004) there are six moral foundations, which are mental modules that reflect a person's core virtues: (1) care/harm (the extent to which an individual values cherishing and protecting other people) (2) fairness/cheating (the extent to which an individual values fair, equal, and just treatment of others) (3) loyalty/betrayal (the extent to which an individual values standing up for his or her group, family, or nation [the ingroup] (4) authority/subversion (the extent to which an individual values respect for legitimate authority and obeying social traditions) (5) sanctity/degradation (the extent to which an individual values decency and purity, and abhors disgusting things or actions) and (6) liberty/oppression (the extent to which an individual values freedom and loathes tyranny) Eliciting situations automatically activate one or more of these basic virtues in the minds of perceivers, which then rapidly and automatically affect their intuitions (see Figure 1) Research Testing the Reasoned and Social Persuasion Links in the Social Intuitionist Model What has research revealed about the social intuitionist model, especially in the context of relationships? Although the SIM was published 14 years ago, there has been surprisingly little research examining the social components of the model (see the A and B paths in Figure 1) The literature still largely ignores the interpersonal contexts in which moral judgments and reasoning Morality and Relationships 7 are made (Ellemer, Pagliaro, Barreto, 2013; Haidt, 2013; Rai Fiske, 2011) There is some support for these interpersonal effects in studies examining employee employer/organization and ingroup contexts (e.g. Ellemer, et al. 2013; Hornsey et al. 2003; Kundu Cummins, 2013) Kundu and Cummins (2013) for example, used the Asch conformity paradigm and found that moral judgments made by confederates influenced participants' own judgments. More specifically, when confederates judged an impermissible moral transgression as permissible, participants did as well, whereas those in the control group (who were not exposed to social influences) did not. Likewise, participants were more likely to judge a permissible moral judgment as impermissible if they w