Right-wing attitudes and moral cognition: Are Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation related to utilitarian judgment? Dries H. Bostyn ⁎, Arne Roets, Alain Van Hiel Ghent University, Department of Developmental, Personality, and Social Psychology, Henri Dunantlaan 2, B-9000 Ghent, Belgium abstract article info Article history: Received 30 October 2015 Received in revised form 3 March 2016 Accepted 3 March 2016 Available online xxxx The present study investigated whether and to what extent ideological attitudes relate to moral reasoning. Specifically, in three studies we tested if Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) are associated with a general tendency to make either utilitarian (outcome-based) or deontological (principle-based) decisions in classic trolley-type moral dilemmas. The first study uncovered that both high RWA and high SDO individuals made more utilitarian versus deontological judgments in trolley dilemmas. A sec- ond study, using a process dissociation approach, revealed that this increased relative proportion of utilitarian judgments among high RWA and SDO scorers was guided by a decreased preference for the deontological option, rather than an increased preference for the utilitarian option. Finally, a third study using the RWA3D scale showed that especially the ‘Authoritarian Aggression’ facet scale is related to the decreased preference for the de- ontological option in high RWA individuals. Overall, these studies provide convergent evidence for substantial differences in moral reasoning tendencies based on ideological attitudes. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Right-Wing Authoritarianism Social Dominance Orientation Moral psychology Trolley dilemmas Utilitarian reasoning Deontological reasoning The chasm dividing the political left and right is not merely motivat- ed by a quarrel about specific policy options or economic doctrines, but it also reflects different ethical concerns and divergent value systems (Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto, & Haidt, 2012; Koleva, Graham, Ditto, Iyer, & Haidt, 2012). On a wide variety of morally relevant topics liberal and conservative ideologies clash. In the US, for instance, conservatives tend to oppose equal rights for homosexuals, stem-cell research, and abortion, whereas liberals are generally supportive of these issues. Interestingly, both groups use a value-based rhetoric to justify their stance (Clifford & Jerit, 2013). Indeed, psychological research suggests that many of these ideological differences between conservatives and liberals can be explained in terms of underlying differences in moral cognition. In particular, Graham, Haidt, and Nosek (2009) asserted that the moral domain is divided in a number of well-defined subdomains that determine what specific types of content are moral- ized. Graham et al. further argued that an individual's position on the general left–right dimension is associated with different domains that are considered most relevant for moral judgment. According to this ‘Moral Foundation theory’ liberals almost exclusively try to minimize ‘Harm’ and maximize ‘Fairness’, whereas conservatives also consider (the often competing) domains of ‘Loyalty’ to the ingroup, submission to ‘Authority’ and metaphorical ‘Purity’, as highly relevant in morality. 1. Deontological versus utilitarian moral reasoning Although the moral foundations research program has uncovered interesting differences between conservatives and liberals with respect to the domains they consider relevant for morality, potential differences between conservatives and liberals in other aspects of moral reasoning remain largely unexplored. For instance, a longstanding debate in philosophy pertains to whether normative ethics should be based in deontological or utilitarian moral theory. Whereas the former tries to determine an action's moral worth by looking at its inherent moral quality through a general system of duties and rights, and uses moral principles to guide reasoning, the latter determines the moral worth of an action solely through its outcome; that is, actions that lead to a net profit in wellbeing are deemed moral whereas those that decrease overall wellness are considered to be immoral. Hence, deontologists argue that some actions are morally right while others are wrong, and that this distinction is based on all-encompassing moral rules (such as ‘thou shalt not kill’). Utilitarians on the other hand, argue that whether a specific course of action is right or wrong depends on its conse- quences. Therefore, to the utilitarian, some actions that might typically be considered wrong can nevertheless be morally appropriate if in that specific context the positive consequences outweigh the negatives. Utilitarian and deontological thinking have traditionally been con- sidered as two mutually exclusive and opposing perspectives on ethical philosophy. However, a recent psychological model claims that these two perspectives are not incompatible but are simultaneously activated in ordinary moral cognition. According to Greene, Nystrom, Engell, Darley, and Cohen (2004), moral cognition is the result of two Personality and Individual Differences 96 (2016) 164–171 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: Dries.Bostyn@Ugent.be (D.H. Bostyn), Arne.Roets@Ugent.be (A. Roets). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.006 0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid