Moral Foundations Theory and Constructive Dialogue (with Caroline Mehl)
Spencer Greenberg speaks with Caroline Mell, co-founder and executive director of OpenMind, about Moral Foundations Theory, how it explains human moral reasoning and political divides, and common communication mistakes. They discuss strategies for fostering constructive dialogue and bridging differences in sensitive conversations.
Deep Dive Analysis
13 Topic Outline
Introduction to Moral Foundations Theory
Exploring the Care and Fairness Moral Foundations
Moral Foundations and Political Divides
Understanding the Sanctity and Liberty Moral Foundations
The Loyalty and Authority Moral Foundations
Tension and Interpretation Among Moral Foundations
Leveraging Moral Foundations for Better Dialogue
Challenges of Online Communication and Moral Outrage
The Evolutionary Purpose of Morality and Group Cohesion
Common Mistakes in In-Person Conversations
Strategies for More Constructive Dialogue
Overcoming Political Divides and Dehumanization
Overview of the OpenMind Organization
13 Key Concepts
Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)
A psychological theory proposing that human morality is built upon a set of universal, innate 'foundations' or 'taste receptors.' These foundations are interpreted and applied differently based on culture, socialization, and life experiences, leading to diverse moral worldviews.
Care Foundation
An underlying moral principle focused on protecting others from harm and suffering, and promoting their well-being. It stems from the evolutionary need to protect offspring and vulnerable group members.
Fairness Foundation
A moral principle concerned with justice, which can be interpreted as either proportionality (reward based on effort/input) or equality (everyone receiving the same outcome). Different interpretations often underlie political disagreements.
Sanctity Foundation
A moral principle rooted in the evolutionary need to avoid disease and contamination, which has expanded to include ideas of purity, reverence for traditions, and treating certain things as sacred. It often involves a sense of disgust towards perceived moral transgressions.
Liberty Foundation
A moral principle centered on individual freedom and the desire to avoid oppression. It can manifest as freedom from government intervention (often on the political right) or freedom from systemic oppression (often on the political left).
Loyalty Foundation
A moral principle emphasizing allegiance to one's in-group, such as family, friends, or nation. It drives self-sacrificial behavior to support and defend members of one's tribe or community.
Authority Foundation
A moral principle involving respect for legitimate hierarchical structures, elders, and established traditions. It promotes social order and coordination within a group, but can be challenged by the Liberty foundation if perceived as unjust.
Naive Realism
The psychological tendency to believe that one's own perception of reality is objectively correct and that anyone who disagrees must be either evil or stupid. This bias makes it difficult to understand and empathize with differing viewpoints.
Moral Reframing
A communication technique that involves presenting one's own viewpoint using examples or language that appeal to the moral foundations most valued by the person with whom one is disagreeing. This helps connect with others in terms they understand better, fostering more constructive dialogue.
Moral Outrage (Online)
An ancient emotion (anger + contempt) that evolved to reinforce social norms and group cohesion, but is exploited by social media. Online platforms provide a constant outlet for expressing outrage, which is then reinforced by likes and shares, potentially leading to an addiction to this behavior.
Narcissism of Small Differences
A concept describing the tendency for groups or individuals who are fundamentally very similar to each other to emphasize and exaggerate their minor differences, often leading to intense conflict and dehumanization.
Intellectual Humility
The willingness to acknowledge the limits of one's own knowledge and the possibility of being wrong. Fostering this mindset can improve decision-making, increase happiness, and strengthen relationships by promoting openness to diverse perspectives.
Integrative Thinking
A problem-solving approach that views the tension between two opposing ideas not as a binary choice, but as an opportunity to create a third, more creative solution that can achieve both underlying goals simultaneously.
9 Questions Answered
MFT is a psychological theory that explains human morality as being built upon six universal, innate foundations: care, fairness, liberty, loyalty, authority, and sanctity. These foundations are like 'taste receptors' that all humans share, but which are emphasized and applied differently across individuals and cultures.
Research shows that political liberals tend to rely primarily on care, fairness, and liberty, while conservatives tend to rely more heavily on loyalty, authority, and sanctity, in addition to care and fairness. Both groups use all six foundations, but with different emphasis and interpretations.
People are not always 100% consistent because moral decisions often involve a tension between competing foundations, and different issues (like abortion vs. gun control) can trigger different foundations to rise to the top of one's moral calculus. This doesn't necessarily mean hypocrisy, but rather a dynamic application of underlying moral principles.
By recognizing that people who disagree are often driven by different, but equally sincere, moral values rather than ill intent, one can humanize them and approach conversations with curiosity. It also allows for 'moral reframing,' where arguments are tailored to resonate with the other person's specific moral foundations.
Online platforms exploit human psychological vulnerabilities by stripping away nonverbal cues, leading to an 'empathy deficit.' They also foster an 'age of moral outrage' by providing easy outlets for expressing anger and contempt, which is then reinforced by social rewards like likes and shares, leading to performative behavior.
Morality evolved to enable groups of human beings to live together cohesively, cooperate internally, and survive as a unit. It helps form moral communities with shared codes, which can then outcompete other groups.
A key mistake is treating disagreement as catharsis, focusing on expressing anger rather than achieving a specific goal. Another is failing to separate underlying goals from specific strategies, leading to arguments over approaches rather than shared objectives.
Before entering a disagreement, intentionally identify a specific goal (e.g., resolve a dispute, maintain a relationship) and use it to strategically guide your communication. Also, try to uncover the underlying goals of all parties involved, as they may share common objectives despite disagreeing on strategies.
OpenMind is a nonpartisan, nonprofit EdTech organization that translates behavioral science research into educational tools. Its goal is to foster openness to diverse perspectives and equip people with skills for constructive dialogue, helping to bridge divides and find common humanity.
16 Actionable Insights
1. Cultivate Intellectual Humility
Foster a mindset of intellectual humility by acknowledging the limits of your knowledge and the possibility of being wrong, which can improve decision-making, increase happiness, and strengthen relationships.
2. Define Conversation Goals
Before entering a difficult conversation, be intentional about identifying your specific goal for the discussion to strategically guide your actions towards achieving it.
3. Distinguish Goals and Strategies
In difficult conversations, avoid getting trapped in arguments about strategies; instead, take a step back to uncover the underlying goals each person is pursuing.
4. Employ Integrative Thinking
When goals differ, use integrative thinking to create a new, more creative strategy that can achieve both goals simultaneously, viewing tension as an opportunity for a third solution.
5. Prioritize Relationship Over Persuasion
In many disagreements, shift your goal from persuasion to simply getting along, having a good time, and recognizing differences of opinion without derailing the entire relationship.
6. Frame Arguments for Resonance
Understand others’ moral foundations to intentionally present your own views using examples or language that draw on the foundations they care most about, making your arguments more palatable or understandable.
7. Acknowledge Moral Differences
In disagreements, identify and name the different moral foundations at play, accepting that you may not agree but understanding each other’s underlying values.
8. Respect Opposing Moral Views
Even when strongly disagreeing, use a moral lens to identify the underlying moral justifications and virtues driving another person’s decisions, allowing you to respect their perspective without necessarily agreeing.
9. Assume Good Intent
In disagreements, avoid defaulting to the assumption that the other side is driven by bad intentions; instead, get curious and pay attention to the moral foundations underlying their view.
10. Recognize Others’ Good Intent
Understand that people you disagree with are not necessarily evil or badly motivated; they may be driven by good intent but operate from a different moral worldview.
11. Decode Moral Language
Learn Moral Foundations Theory to identify the underlying moral foundations driving different political views or ideologies, helping you make sense of conversations where people hold different viewpoints.
12. Align Actions with Goals
During a heated conversation, remind yourself of your specific goal and evaluate whether your current actions are bringing you closer to or further away from that objective.
13. Pause When Emotional
If you find yourself getting emotional during a conversation, take a step back by changing the topic, taking a short walk, or getting a glass of water to regain composure.
14. Request Conversation Break
When a conversation becomes heated, name the emotion (e.g., “I’m feeling very heated”) and explicitly request a break from the discussion, as most people will respond positively to de-escalation.
15. Focus on Shared Goals
To make progress and solve common problems, shift focus from differences to shared goals, as excessive focus on differences hinders collaborative problem-solving.
16. Avoid One-Dimensional Characterization
Resist reducing people to single labels or stereotypes; instead, strive to see them as complex individuals to find common ground and work towards shared goals.
9 Key Quotes
The mind is like a tongue with six taste receptors.
Jonathan Haidt (as quoted by Caroline Mehl)
It often feels like it's just a battle between good and evil, where my side is good and your side is obviously evil because how else could you justify what you're doing?
Caroline Mehl
We often have this tendency of speaking to other people almost as though we're talking to a mirror, where we talk to people exactly as we would want someone to talk to us.
Caroline Mehl
Social media is designed in such a way that it is exploiting the vulnerabilities in our human psychology.
Caroline Mehl
We're almost becoming addicted to moral outrage because we have this feedback loop that's reinforcing, where we already have this reward circuitry engaged when we express the moral outrage, and then it's further perpetuated by the social reinforcement of the likes and shares that are really rewarding us for this behavior.
Caroline Mehl
Morality is for the survival of the group.
Spencer Greenberg
The more that we focus on our differences, the less progress we'll be able to make towards our shared goals.
Caroline Mehl
Dehumanization is often a precursor to violence, especially political violence.
Caroline Mehl
People are much more complex than a single point on a spectrum.
Caroline Mehl
2 Protocols
Strategy for Constructive Dialogue
Caroline Mehl- Before entering the disagreement, identify your specific goal for the conversation (e.g., resolve dispute, maintain relationship, change behavior).
- Use this goal to strategically guide your communication, making intentional moves to advance towards it.
- If you feel yourself getting heated or the conversation going off the rails, remind yourself of your goal and ask if your current actions are bringing you closer or further away from it.
- If necessary, press pause on the conversation and take a break to regain composure.
Separating Goals from Strategies in Disagreements
Caroline Mehl- Recognize when you are arguing about specific strategies or approaches rather than underlying objectives.
- Take a step back and try to uncover the underlying goal that each person is trying to achieve.
- Identify if both parties are actually in pursuit of the same goal, even if they disagree on the strategy.
- If goals differ, explore if a new, creative strategy can be developed that helps achieve both goals simultaneously (integrative thinking).