Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-9nbrm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T13:46:45.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The role of generalizability in moral and political psychology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2022

Elizabeth A. Harris ,
Philip Pärnamets ,
William J. Brady ,
Claire E. Robertson  and
Jay J. Van Bavel Open the ORCID record for Jay J. Van Bavel [Opens in a new window]
Elizabeth A. Harris
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA eah561@nyu.edu; cer493@nyu.edu; jay.vanbavel@nyu.edu
Philip Pärnamets
Affiliation:
Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm 7165, Sweden philip.parnamets@ki.se
William J. Brady
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06250, USA william.brady@yale.edu
Claire E. Robertson
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA eah561@nyu.edu; cer493@nyu.edu; jay.vanbavel@nyu.edu
Jay J. Van Bavel
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA eah561@nyu.edu; cer493@nyu.edu; jay.vanbavel@nyu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the social and behavioral sciences is to understand human behavior across a wide array of contexts. Our theories often make sweeping claims about human nature, assuming that our ancestors or offspring will be prone to the same biases and preferences. Yet we gloss over the fact that our research is often based in a single temporal context with a limited set of stimuli. Political and moral psychology are domains in which the context and stimuli are likely to matter a great deal (Van Bavel, Mende-Siedlecki, Brady, & Reinero, 2016). In response to Yarkoni (see BBS issue), we delve into topics related to political and moral psychology that likely depend on features of the research. These topics include understanding differences between liberals and conservatives, when people are willing to sacrifice someone to save others, the behavior of political leaders, and the dynamics of intergroup conflict.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e19
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abramowitz, A. I., & Webster, S. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of US elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ELECTSTUD.2015.11.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bago, B., Aczel, B., Kekecs, Z., Protzko, J., Kovacs, M., Nagy, T., … Dutra, N. B. (2021). Moral thinking across the world: Exploring the influence of personal force and intention in moral dilemma judgments. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/9uaqm.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldassarri, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114(2), 408–446. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.1010098.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, L. M. (2000). Partisanship and voting behavior, 1952–1996. American Journal of Political Science, 44(1), 35–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2020). Cross-country trends in affective polarization (No. w26669). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w26669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Burkart, D., Jost, J. T., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2019). An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148(10), 1802–1813. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, M. J., & Wagemans, F. (2017). From the political here and now to generalizable knowledge. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FeldmanHall, O., Mobbs, D., Evans, D., Hiscox, L., Navrady, L., & Dalgleish, T. (2012). What we say and what we do: The relationship between real and hypothetical moral choices. Cognition, 123(3), 434–441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.02.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., IIyengar, S., Klar, S., … Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America: A poisonous cocktail of othering, aversion, and moralization. Science, 370(6516), 533–536. https://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ABE1715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gergen, K. J. (1973). Social psychology as history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, J. D., Sommerville, R. B., Nystrom, L. E., Darley, J. M., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293(5537), 2105–2108. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guest, O., & Martin, A. E. (2020). How computational modeling can force theory building in psychological science. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rybh9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, E. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2021). Preregistered replication of “feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority.” Psychological Science, 32(3), 451–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797620968792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hester, N., & Gray, K. (2020). The moral psychology of raceless, genderless strangers. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(2), 216–230. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691619885840.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kozlowski, A. C., & Murphy, J. P. (2020). Issue alignment and partisanship in the American public: Revisiting the ‘partisans without constraint’ thesis. Social Science Research, 94, Article 102498.Google ScholarPubMed
Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norenzayan, A., & Heine, S. J. (2005). Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know? Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 763–784. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0033-2909.131.5.763.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rehman, S., & Dzionek-Kozłowska, J. (2020). The Chinese and American students and the trolley problem: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 20(2), 31–41.Google Scholar
Sorokowski, P., Marczak, M., Misiak, M., & Białek, M. (2020). Trolley dilemma in Papua. Yali horticulturalists refuse to pull the lever. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 398–403. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-019-01700-y.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, K., Leary, M. R., Asher, M. W., & Jongman-Sereno, K. P. (2013). Feeling superior is a bipartisan issue: Extremity (not direction) of political views predicts perceived belief superiority. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2454–2462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613494848.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Bavel, J. J., Mende-Siedlecki, P., Brady, W. J., & Reinero, D. A. (2016). Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(23), 6454–6459. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1521897113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Rooij, I., & Baggio, G. (2021). Theory before the test: How to build high-verisimilitude explanatory theories in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 682–697. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1745691620970604.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, S. Y. N., & Inbar, Y. (2020). Moral-language use by US political elites. Psychological Science, 32(1), 14–26. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0956797620960397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheeler, M. A., McGrath, M. J., & Haslam, N. (2019). Twentieth century morality: The rise and fall of moral concepts from 1900 to 2007. PLoS ONE, 14(2), e0212267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed