Search

When someone violates a social norm, others may think that some sanction would be appropriate. We examine how the experience of emotions like anger and disgust relate to the judged appropriateness of sanctions, in a pre-registered analysis of data from a large-scale study in 56 societies. Across the world, we find that individuals who experience anger and disgust over a norm violation are more likely to endorse confrontation, ostracism and, to a smaller extent, gossip. Moreover, we find that the experience of anger is consistently the strongest predictor of judgments of confrontation, compared to other emotions. Although the link between state-based emotions and judgments may seem universal, its strength varies across countries. Aligned with theoretical predictions, this link is stronger in societies, and among individuals, that place higher value on individual autonomy. Thus, autonomy values may increase the role that emotions play in guiding judgments of social sanctions.

Introduction: Despite the commitment of the Swedish government to ensuring equal access to Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights services for all citizens, shortcomings persist among the migrant population. In cases where healthcare providers lack sufficient knowledge or hold misconceptions and biases about these contentious issues, it can lead to the delivery of suboptimal care. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the level of knowledge of Swedish healthcare providers on global and Swedish migrant Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights. Methods: A national cross-sectional study was conducted using a questionnaire consisting of seven questions related to global and Swedish migrant Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights. The questionnaire was distributed among midwives, nurses, gynecologists and obstetricians, and hospital social workers (N = 731). The analysis was guided by the Factfulness framework developed by Hans Rosling to identify disparities between healthcare providers’ viewpoints and evidence-based knowledge. Results: There was an overall lack of knowledge among the health care providers on these issues. The highest correct responses were on the question on abandonment of female genital cutting/mutilation after migration (74%). The findings indicated that healthcare providers originating from Sweden, physicians, those with fewer years of clinical experience, and exhibiting more migrant-friendly attitudes, demonstrated a higher level of knowledge regarding global and Swedish migrant Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that healthcare providers lacked knowledge of global and Swedish migrant Sexual Reproductive Health and Rights, which was almost uniformly distributed, except among those with more comprehensive and recent education. Contrary to expectations, healthcare professionals did not primarily rely on their education and experiences but were influenced by their personal values and opinions. The s, MigraMed

IntroductionA crucial aspect of social norms pertains to determining which behaviors are considered appropriate. Here we consider everyday behaviors. Some everyday behaviors are rated as more appropriate than others, and ratings of the appropriateness of a given behavior may vary over time. The objective of this study is to elucidate the reasons behind variation in appropriateness ratings of everyday behaviors in the United States. Our theory focuses on how the evaluation of the appropriateness of a behavior is influenced by its potential for externalities and internalities, and how this influence may cause a change in norms over time.MethodEmploying a preregistered design, we asked American participants to rate 37 different everyday behaviors based on their appropriateness in a range of common situations, as well as their potential negative externalities (e.g., being loud, being aggressive, taking up space) and positive internalities (e.g., pleasurability). Changes over time were calculated as the difference between mean ratings obtained in this study and ratings of the same behavior in a similar study conducted 50 years ago.ResultsAs expected, overall appropriateness ratings of everyday behaviors are associated both with their externalities and their internalities, so that the least appropriate behaviors tend to have considerable potential for negative externalities and little potential for positive internalities. Moreover, behaviors that have considerable potential for negative externalities are perceived as less appropriate now than 50 years ago.DiscussionBy describing how social norms for everyday behaviors depend on the externalities and internalities of behaviors, this study contributes to theories about the emergence and change of social norms.

We propose a model of moral policy opinion formation that integrates both ideology and cognitive ability. The link from people's ideology to their opinions is assumed to go via a semantic processing of moral arguments that relies on the individual's cognitive ability. An implication of this model is that the relative quality of arguments that justify supporting vs. opposing a moral policy—the policy's “argument advantage”—is key to how opinions will be distributed in the population and develop over time. To test this implication, we combine polling data with measures of the argument advantage for 35 moral policies. Consistent with the opinion formation model, the argument advantage of a moral policy accounts for how public opinion moves over time, and how support for the policy ideologies varies across different ideological groups and levels of cognitive ability, including a strong interaction between ideology and cognitive ability.

Questionable behaviours that are perceived as more common also tend to be judged as more morally justified. Here we explore this phenomenon in survey data from 31 countries in the European Values Study, allowing us to examine the universality of the common-is-moral association. More than 35,000 participants rated eight questionable behaviours (e.g., cheating on taxes, having casual sex) on how frequent they are and how justified they are. We estimated common-is-moral associations both across individuals for each behaviour and across behaviours within each individual; in both cases, the association tended to be positive. We further examined the hypothesis that the common-is-moral association would be stronger among less religious people, who are less likely to adopt their moral judgements from religious authorities and therefore should be more susceptible to the heuristic of using the perceived commonness of a behaviour as a guide to how it should be morally judged. Indeed, we found the common-is-moral association to be somewhat stronger among less religious people, whether the association was estimated across individuals or within individuals. We discuss alternative explanations, implications and directions for future research.

Objectives: Women’s healthcare is a potential source of cross-cultural conflicts.Diverging values between healthcare providers and patients challenges the provision ofculturally sensitive care and meeting migrant women’s needs. The aim is to investigatehealthcare providers’ values in relation to sexual and reproductive rights, gender equality,migration and religion in Swedish sexual and reproductive healthcare. Methods: A national cross-sectional study was carried out. The questionnaire wasdistributed through a non-probability sample to midwives or other nurses,gynaecologists and obstetricians, and hospital social workers (n = 1,041). Throughdescriptive statistics, we mapped their values, comparing healthcare provider data toexternal representative population survey data. Results: Healthcare providers in sexual and reproductive healthcare displayedhomogeneous liberal social values, being permissive towards sexual and reproductiverights and restrictive against gender-based violence. They were for gender equality,expressed low anti-immigrant sentiments, and had even more liberal values than theSwedish population and a demographically comparative sub-population. Conclusion: Individuals with very liberal values are selected to work in Swedish sexual andreproductive healthcare. Healthcare providers need self-reflexivity to avoid conflicts inclinical encounters in a diversified society., Migration and equity in sexual and reproductive health: The importance of dynamics in cultural and social values for improving practice through co-production (MigraMed)

Cooperation in collective action problems and resource dilemmas is often assumed to depend on the values of the individuals involved, such as their degree of unselfishness and tolerance. Societal differences in cooperation and cooperative norms may therefore result from cultural variation in emphasis on these personal values. Here we draw on several cross-national datasets to examine whether society-level emphasis on unselfishness and tolerance and respect for other people predict how societies vary in cooperation [in a continuous prisoner’s dilemma (PD)] and in norms governing cooperation [in a common pool resource dilemma (CPR)]. The results suggest that high levels of cooperation and cooperative norms are promoted specifically by a cultural emphasis on tolerance.

According to a recent theory, public opinion on moral issues will trend toward opinions that are justified by generally acceptable kinds of arguments. Both in the United States and the United Kingdom, generally acceptable kinds of arguments include concerns about harm, violence, fairness, and liberty. The theory therefore predicts that these countries will exhibit similar opinion trends on moral issues. We test this prediction using polling data on 98 issues in the United States and 108 issues in the United Kingdom, with an overlap of 27 issues on which opinions have been polled in both countries. We find that moral opinion trends are well predicted by the applicability of generally acceptable kinds of arguments and that there is a remarkable similarity between opinion trends in the two countries. These findings lend support to the theory that generally acceptable kinds of arguments play a key role in driving opinion dynamics.

Vaccine hesitancy is a threat to global health, but it is not ubiquitous; depending on the country, the proportion that have confidence in vaccines ranges from a small minority to a huge majority. Little is known about what explains this dramatic variation in vaccine confidence. We hypothesize that variation in religiosity may play a role because traditional religious teachings are likely to be incompatible with the specific magical/spiritual health beliefs that often undergird anti-vaccination sentiments. In analyses of publicly available data in 147 countries, we find that a country measure of religiosity is strongly positively correlated with country measures of confidence in the safety, importance, and effectiveness of vaccines, and these associations are robust to controlling for measures of human development (education, economic development, and health). The underlying mechanism needs to be examined in future research.

Concerns have been raised that immigrants coming to Europe bring fundamentally different social values, affecting the more liberal receiving societies negatively. However, the topic of immigrants’ social values is understudied, and much research studies only one issue at a time, lacking a systematic approach to compare immigrants and native-born across issues. We study the social values of immigrants in Sweden using a large sample of newly arrived immigrants and their opinions on 35 different moral issues. Our results indicate a large heterogeneity across different issues, with, on average, a general tendency towards liberal social values among immigrants. We find that individual characteristics are more important than characteristics of the country of origin in explaining variation of social values between immigrants. Religiosity has the largest effect, with more religious individuals having more conservative stances. Using external data sources, we compare immigrants with native-born regarding both average positions on different issues, and the correlation between issue positions. Compared with the native-born, immigrants have, on average, somewhat more conservative values, but the underlying values structure is the same.

The tightness of a society is defined as the strength of social norms and the degree of sanctioning within thesociety. However, a society’s tightness may vary across behavioral domains. A recent global survey found thatSweden is generally perceived as relatively tight, even though it is known to be very permissive with respectto sexual relations and gender roles. Here we examine perceptions of the tightness of Sweden and the UnitedStates in six other domains. We find that Sweden is perceived as tighter than the US specifically with respect tonorms about how people may talk about other groups and norms about considerate behavior in public. These domain-specific differences partially mediate the country difference in perceived overall tightness. In sum, this study demonstrates how domain-specific tightness may be measured and highlights the value of such measures to obtain a more nuanced picture of how tightness varies across countries

The General Social Survey, conducted every 2 years, measures public opinion on a wide range of moral issues. The data from the 2020 survey are expected to be released in mid-October 2021. In advance of this data release, we make predictions for how public opinion will have shifted since 2018. We also predict further public opinion shifts for the coming decade up until the year 2030. These predictions are based on the theory that an opinion will become more popular over time if it holds an argument advantage, that is, if it is better justified by generally accepted kinds of arguments than the opposite opinion is. While this theory has successfully accounted for historical opinion trends, this is the first time it is used to predict future shifts. To assess the accuracy of our forecast we will compare it with the benchmark forecast that predicts the same public opinion in 2020 as in 2018.

Prior work has suggested that existential threats in the form of terror attacks may shift liberals’ reliance on moral foundations to more resemble those of conservatives. We therefore hypothesized that endorsement of these moral foundations would have increased when the COVID-19 epidemic became a salient threat. To examine this hypothesis we conducted a longitudinal study with 237 American participants across the liberal-conservative spectrum, in which their endorsement of various moral foundations were measured before and after the advent of the pandemic. We did not find evidence of any systematic change in the endorsement of any moral foundation, neither in general nor specifically among liberals or specifically among those who perceived the greatest threat from COVID-19. We conclude that the threat from the pandemic does not seem to have had any substantial effect on the moral foundations that people rely on. We discuss how this finding relates to other longitudinal studies of the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on measures related to conservatism.

Cooperation in collective action problems and resource dilemmas is often assumed to depend on the values of the individuals involved, such as their degree of unselfishness and tolerance. Societal differences in cooperation and cooperative norms may therefore result from cultural variation in emphasis on these personal values. Here we draw on several cross-national datasets to examine whether society-level emphasis on unselfishness and tolerance and respect for other people predict how societies vary in cooperation [in a continuous prisoner's dilemma (PD)] and in norms governing cooperation [in a common pool resource dilemma (CPR)]. The results suggest that high levels of cooperation and cooperative norms are promoted specifically by a cultural emphasis on tolerance.

Does selfishness pay in the long term? Previous research has indicated that being otherish rather than selfish has positive consequences for psychological well-being, physical health, and relationships. Here we instead examine the consequences for individuals’ income and number of children, as these are the currencies that matter most in theories that emphasize the power of self-interest, namely economics and evolutionary thinking. Drawing on both cross-sectional (Studies 1 and 2) and panel data (Studies 3 and 4), we find that otherish individuals tend to have more children and higher income than selfish individuals. An additional survey (Study 5) of lay beliefs about how self-interest impacts income and fertility gives an indication of why selfish people persist in their behaviour even though it leads to poorer outcomes: people generally expect selfish individuals to have higher incomes. Our findings have implications for lay decisions about the allocation of scarce resources, as well as for economic and evolutionary theories of human behavior.

Gender differences in achievement exhibit variation between domains and between countries. Much prior research has examined whether this variation could be due to variation in gender equality in opportunities, with mixed results. Here we focus instead on the role of a society's values about gender equality, which may have a more pervasive influence. We pooled all available country measures on adolescent boys' and girls' academic achievement between 2000 and 2015 from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) assessments of math, science, and reading. We then analyzed the relation between gender differences and country levels of gender egalitarian values, controlling for country levels of living standards and indicators of gender equality in opportunities. Gender egalitarian values came out as the most important predictor. Specifically, more gender egalitarian values were associated with improved performance of boys relative to girls in the same countries. This pattern held in reading, where boys globally perform substantially worse than girls, as well as in math and science where gender differences in performance are small and may favor either boys or girls. Our findings suggest a previously underappreciated role of cultural values in moderating gender gaps in academic achievement.