Psychology of Respect

Respect is a bipolar relational concept describing a person’s social status and likeability within a social group.

Groups vary in size. Groups may be small such as family members, a classroom, or a department at work. And groups may be as large as a university, professional association, multinational corporation, or nation.

Respect is a bipolar concept. The nature of respect is evident in the anchor words we use to describe level of respect as high or low. Not surprisingly, level of respect varies based on the perception group members have of the words and deeds of another group member. Of course, different people have may different opinions regarding the level of respect that should be accorded to a group member.

Social status is linked to a group’s values. Groups have different qualities that they highly value such as loyalty, kindness, wealth, fitness, attractiveness, musical talent, writing ability, and so forth. People who have high levels of several values gain higher status, which is an aspect of respect. Sometimes the social status is evident in observable ways such as clothing, medals, places to sit at a meeting, and so forth. In some cultures, social status along with respectful treatment can be purchased such as buying a first-class plane ticket.

Likeability refers to personal qualities, which are highly valued within a group. People who appear cheerful, interested, respectful of others, sincere, and so forth get high respect. Physically attractive people often get high respect evident by people wanting to spend more time with them.

Different groups may hold competing values. For example, high levels of wealth are highly valued in many western cultures. However, a poor person who has given her life to helping the poor can also be regarded with a high level of respect.

Loss of respect. Loss of respect happens when there is evidence of a serious breach of a group’s values. Groups that value freedom from sexual harassment will quickly devalue the respect status of the person who harasses. When it comes to moral violations, one powerful driver of disrespect is the emotion of disgust. Disgust is often, but not exclusively, linked to socially unacceptable sexual behavior.

Respect for the office. In western cultures, people are expected to treat people holding certain positions with culturally defined ways of showing respect. When an officeholder has behaved disrespectfully, members are expected to show respect to the position even if they consider the officeholder as a person who does not deserve respect. This can happen with high level political leaders like presidents and prime ministers.

Respect and Virtues. In some groups, the possession of certain traditional virtues gain high levels of respect. In some groups, people feel conflicted about the virtues. For example, self-confident leaders may border on being arrogant and violate a value of humility.

For an application of respect to parenting and teaching, see Discipline with Respect. 

Buy on AMAZON

Connections

   My Page    www.suttong.com

   My Books   AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

   FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

   TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

   PINTEREST  www.pinterest.com/GeoffWSutton

Publications (many free downloads)

  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)     

  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) was developed by  Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post). A good overview of the theory can be found in the book, The Righteous Mind (2012).


 There are five core moral foundations in Moral Foundations Theory.

1 Care-Harm
2 Fairness/cheating (*equality-Fairness)
3 Loyalty-Betrayal
4 Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
5 Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

An additional foundation of liberty has been added to the theory so there are now six foundations.

The core moral foundations

1 Care-Harm: derived from the development of attachment and empathy, people value the moral virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance and abhor causing pain to others.

2 Fairness/cheating: people have developed a sense of reciprocal altruism, which leads to concerns for justice, rights, and autonomy. Equality was dropped in favor of a sense of proportionality.

3 Loyalty-Betrayal: people form groups and tribes and a sense of loyalty to the group, which supports patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice for the group.

4 Authority/subversion: people organize themselves into hierarchies and consider leadership a virtue. Followers are expected to defer to legitimate leaders and show respect for group traditions.

5 Sanctity/degradation: derived from research into the psychology of disgust and contamination, people find certain things and by extension, some people, to be disgusting. There is a separation for that which is unclean. In religion, that which is sacred is set apart from that which is profane. Cleanliness of self and clothing are virtues. The body is a temple in some religious teachings.

The expanded theory includes a consideration of liberty.

6. Liberty/ oppression: people resist oppression and leaders who restrict their liberty. People hate bullies and tyrants.

Researchers usually find support for a two factor model. 

Conservatives view moral issues from 3-5 perspectives with an emphasis on the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Sociopolitical liberals emphasize care and fairness foundations. In A House Divided, you will  find examples of Christians using the same moral foundations in different ways. For example, in abortion arguments conservatives focus on care and harm of the unborn child and liberals emphasize care-harm concerns of the mother.


Notes
*I added the "aka" because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.



Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.

Available on AMAZON in multiple countries

Here are some applications of moral foundations theory:

For applications to Christian views of moral issues see A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality and Christian Cultures.

For a recent study of Moral Foundations Theory, Identity, and Politics, see Sutton, Kelly, and Huber (2019).

Link to learn more about the Moral Foundations Questionnaire

References

Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415

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

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

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

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York: Pantheon.

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

Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555

Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366

Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.

Sutton, G. W. (2016). A House Divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888

Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H. L., & Huver, M. (2019). Political identities, religious identity, and the pattern of moral foundations among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, xx, pp. xx-xx. Accepted 6 September 2019. ResearchGate Link     Academia Link