People’s social and political opinions are grounded in their moral concerns about right and wrong. We examine whether five moral foundations—harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity—can influence political attitudes of liberals and conservatives across a variety of issues. Framing issues using moral foundations may change political attitudes in at least two possible ways: (a) Entrenching: Relevant moral foundations will strengthen existing political attitudes when framing pro-attitudinal issues (e.g., conservatives exposed to a free-market economic stance) and (b) Persuasion: Mere presence of relevant moral foundations may also alter political attitudes in counter-attitudinal directions (e.g., conservatives exposed to an economic regulation stance). Studies 1 and 2 support the entrenching hypothesis. Relevant moral foundation-based frames bolstered political attitudes for conservatives (Study 1) and liberals (Study 2). Only Study 2 partially supports the persuasion hypothesis. Conservative-relevant moral frames of liberal issues increased conservatives’ liberal attitudes.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117-150.
2.
BobocelD. R.Son HingL. S.DaveyL. M.StanleyD. J.ZannaM. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 653-669.
3.
BryanC. J.DweckC. S.RossL.KayA. C.MislavskyN. O. (2009). Political mindset: Effects of scheme priming on liberal-conservative political positions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 890-895.
4.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5.
5.
CesarioJ.GrantH.HigginsE. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 388-404.
6.
CialdiniR. B. (2008). Influence: Science and practice. New York, NY: Pearson.
7.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.FabrigarL. R. (2008a). Attitudinal accessibility and message processing: The moderating role of message position. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 354-361.
8.
ClarkJ. K.WegenerD. T.FabrigarL. R. (2008b). Attitudinal ambivalence and message-based persuasion: Motivated processing of proattitudinal information and avoidance of counterattitudinal information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 565-577.
9.
CohenG. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808-822.
10.
CrawfordJ. T.PilanskiJ. M. (2013). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00926.x
11.
DittoP. H.LopezD. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 568-584.
12.
EmlerN. (2002). Morality and political orientations: An analysis of their relationship. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 259-291.
13.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24, 56-62.
14.
FiskeA. P. (1991). Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations: Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. New York, NY: Free Press.
15.
FrankT. (2004). What’s the matter with Kansas? How conservatives won the heart of America. New York, NY: Henry Holt.
16.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55-130.
17.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046.
18.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385.
19.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 814-834.
20.
HaidtJ. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316, 998-1002.
21.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Random House.
22.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberalsmaynot recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116.
23.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues [Special issue on human nature]. Daedalus, 133, 55-66.
24.
HaidtJ.JosephC. (2007). The moral mind: How five sets of innate intuitions guide the development of many culture-specific virtues, and perhaps even modules. In CarruthersP.LaurenceS.StichS. (Eds.), The innate mind (Vol. 3, pp. 367-391). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25.
IyerR.KolevaS.GrahamJ.DittoP.HaidtJ. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE, 7(8), 1-23.
26.
JacobyW. G. (1991). Ideological identification and issue attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 178-205.
27.
JostJ. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651-670.
28.
JostJ. T.AmodioD. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55-64.
29.
KesebirP.PhillipsE.AnsonJ.PyszczynskiT.MotylM. (2013). Ideological consistency across the political spectrum: Liberals are more consistent but conservatives become more consistent when coping with existential threat. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2215306
30.
KohlbergL. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive–developmental approach to socialization. In GoslinD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
31.
KolevaS. P.GrahamJ.IyerR.DittoP. H.HaidtJ. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 184-194.
32.
KundaZ. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
33.
LakoffG. (2002). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
34.
LakoffG.WehlingE. (2012). The little blue book: The essential guide to thinking and talking democratic. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
35.
LandauM. J.SolomanS.GreenbergJ.CohenF.PyszcynskiT.ArndtJ. . . . CookA. (2004). Deliver us from evil: The effects of mortality salience and reminders of 9/11 on support for president George W. Bush. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1136-1150.
36.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.
37.
LordC. G.RossL.LepperM. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
38.
MarkowitzE. M.ShariffA. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgment. Nature Climate Change, 2, 243-247.
39.
MercierH.SperberD. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34, 57-111.
40.
MunroG. D.ZirpoliJ.SchumanA.TaulbeeJ. (2013). Third-party labels bias evaluations of political platforms and candidates. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 151-163.
41.
NoarS. M.BenacC. N.HarrisM. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 673-693.
42.
OppenheimerD. M.TrailT. E. (2010). Why leaning to the left makes you lean to the left: Effect of spatial orientation on political attitudes. Social Cognition, 28, 651-661.
43.
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184-188.
44.
PennebakerJ. W.BoothR. J.FrancisM. E. (2007). Linguistic inquiry and word count: LIWC2007. Austin, TX: LIWC.net.
45.
PeruginiM.GallucciM.CostantiniG. (2014). Safeguard power as a protection against imprecise power estimates. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 319-332.
46.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.TormalaZ. L. (2002). Thought confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 722-741.
47.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
48.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123-204). New York, NY: Academic Press.
49.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 41-72). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
50.
PizarroD. A.Detweiler-BedellB.BloomP. (2006). The creativity of everyday moral reasoning: Empathy, disgust, and moral persuasion. In KaufmanJ. C.BaerJ. (Eds.), Creativity and reason in cognitive development (pp. 81-98). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
51.
PomerantzE. M.ChaikenS.TordesillasR. S. (1995). Attitude strength and resistance processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 408-419.
52.
RedlawskD. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1021-1044.
53.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
54.
ShwederR. A.MahapatraM.MillerJ. (1987). Culture and moral development. In KaganJ.LambS. (Eds.), The emergence of morality in young children (pp. 1-83). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
SkitkaL. J. (2002). Do the means always justify the ends, or do the ends sometimes justify the means? A value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 588-597.
56.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29, 29-54.
57.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
58.
TesserA.ConleeM. C. (1975). Some effects of time and thought on attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 262-270.
59.
TurielE. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
