When people perceive a moral basis for an attitude, that attitude tends to remain durable when directly challenged. But are moral concerns only influential in the moment or does moralization also signal an attitude that endures over time? Five longitudinal studies considering attitudes toward 19 different topics tested whether attitudes are more stable over time when people report that they are more morally based. Across studies, we find support for the hypothesis that degree of attitude moralization moderates the consistency of attitude reports over time with more moralized attitudes being more stable. These effects of moralization also hold when controlling for other metacognitive predictors of attitude strength, including certainty, ambivalence, importance, knowledge, ease of retrieval, and self-definition. An analysis of all studies together supports the reliability of the hypothesized effect but also suggests that it varies by topic. Implications for models of attitude moralization and attitude strength are discussed.
AlwinD. F.CohenR. L.NewcombT. M. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. University of Wisconsin Press.
2.
AramovichN. P.LytleB. L.SkitkaL. J. (2012). Opposing torture: Moral conviction and resistance to majority influence. Social Influence, 7(1), 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2011.640199
3.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(11), 1421–1432. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263009
4.
ArmonC.DawsonT. L. (1997). Developmental trajectories in moral reasoning across the life span. Journal of Moral Education, 26(4), 433–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305724970260404
5.
BassiliJ. N. (1996). Meta-judgmental versus operative indexes of psychological attributes: The case of measures of attitude strength. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(4), 637–653. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.4.637
6.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
7.
BrandtM. J.WisneskiD. C.SkitkaL. J. (2015). Moralization and the 2012 U.S. Presidential election campaign. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3(2), 211–237–237. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i2.434
8.
BrannonS. M.GawronskiB. (2019February). Arguments as antidotes: Moral conviction does not buffer against persuasive arguments [Poster presentation]. Annual Meeting for the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Portland, OR, USA.
9.
CraigS. C.MartinezM. D.KaneJ. G. (2005). Ambivalence and response instability: A panel study. In CraigS. C.MartinezM. D. (Eds.), Ambivalence and the structure of political opinion (pp. 55–71). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403979094_4
10.
DavidsonA. R.YantisS.NorwoodM.MontanoD. E. (1985). Amount of information about the attitude object and attitude–behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1184–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.5.1184
11.
DehghaniM.JohnsonK.HooverJ.SagiE.GartenJ.ParmarN. J.VaiseyS.IlievR.GrahamJ. (2016). Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(3), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000139
12.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
13.
EatonA. A.VisserP. S. (2008). Attitude importance: Understanding the causes and consequences of passionately held views. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(4), 1719–1736. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00125.x
14.
EdwardsL. J.MullerK. E.WolfingerR. D.QaqishB. F.SchabenbergerO. (2008). An R2 statistic for fixed effects in the linear mixed model. Statistics in Medicine, 27(29), 6137–6157. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3429
15.
FeinbergM.KovacheffC.TeperR.InbarY. (2019). Understanding the process of moralization: How eating meat becomes a moral issue. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(1), 50–72. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000149
GarrettK. N.BankertA. (2018). The moral roots of partisan division: How moral conviction heightens affective polarization. British Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712341700059X
HamakerE. L.MuthénB. (2019). The fixed versus random effects debate and how it relates to centering in multilevel modeling. Psychological Methods, 25(3), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000239
21.
HansonB. E.SkitkaL. J.WisneskiD. C. (2017 January). Is moralization authority independent? A same-sex marriage case study [Poster presentation]. Attitudes and Social Influence Preconference of the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, TX, USA.
22.
HeiphetzL.YoungL. L. (2017). Can only one person be right? The development of objectivism and social preferences regarding widely shared and controversial moral beliefs. Cognition, 167, 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2016.05.014
23.
HornseyM. J.MajkutL.TerryD. J.McKimmieB. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(3), 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322438189
24.
HornseyM. J.SmithJ. R.BeggD. (2007). Effects of norms among those with moral conviction: Counter-conformity emerges on intentions but not behaviors. Social Influence, 2(4), 244–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510701476500
25.
KennyD. A.JuddC. M. (2019). The unappreciated heterogeneity of effect sizes: Implications for power, precision, planning of research, and replication. Psychological Methods, 24(5), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000209
26.
Knobloch-WesterwickS.MengJ. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650209333030
KrosnickJ. A.PettyR. E. (1995). Attitude strength: An overview. In PettyR. E.KrosnickJ. A. (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 1–24). Lawrence Erlbaum.
29.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
30.
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2016). Ambivalence and certainty can interact to predict attitude stability over time. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.11.008
31.
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP.WagnerB. C. (2016). Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.003
32.
LuttrellA.Philipp-MullerA. Z.PettyR. E. (2019). Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychological Science, 30(8), 1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854706
33.
LuttrellA.SawickiV. (in press). Attitude strength: Distinguishing predictors versus defining features. Social and Personality Psychology Compass.
PetrocelliJ. V.TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2007). Unpacking attitude certainty: Attitude clarity and attitude correctness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.30
36.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.DeMarreeK. G. (2007). The Meta-Cognitive Model (MCM)of attitudes: Implications for attitude measurement, change, and strength. Social Cognition, 25(5), 657–686. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.657
37.
PriesterJ. R.PettyR. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(3), 431–449. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.3.431
RocklageM. D.FazioR. H. (2018). Attitude accessibility as a function of emotionality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44(4), 508–520. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217743762
41.
RocklageM. D.LuttrellA. (2019October). Attitudes based on feelings: Fixed or fleeting?Association for Consumer Research.
RyanT. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12248
44.
SalomonE.PrestonJ. L.TannenbaumM. B. (2017). Climate change helplessness and the (de)moralization of individual energy behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 23(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000105
45.
SchwartzS. H. (1978). Temporal instability as a moderator of the attitude–behavior relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(7), 715–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.7.715
46.
SiaT. L.LordC. G.BlessumK. A.RatcliffC. D.LepperM. R. (1997). Is a rose always a rose? The role of social category exemplar change in attitude stability and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 501–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.501
47.
SkitkaL. J. (2014). The psychological foundations of moral conviction. In WrightJ. C.SarkissianH. (Eds.), Advances in moral psychology (pp. 148–166). Bloomsbury Academic Press.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
50.
SkitkaL. J.MorganG. S. (2014). The social and political implications of moral conviction. Political Psychology, 35(Suppl. 1), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12166
51.
SkitkaL. J.MullenE. (2002). Understanding judgments of fairness in a real-world political context: A test of the value protection model of justice reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(10), 1419–1429. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702236873
52.
SkitkaL. J.WisneskiD. C.BrandtM. J. (2018). Attitude moralization: Probably not intuitive or rooted in perceptions of harm. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 27(1), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417727861
TormalaZ. L.RuckerD. D. (2018). Attitude certainty: Antecedents, consequences, and new directions. Consumer Psychology Review, 1(1), 72–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/arcp.1004
55.
Turner-ZwinkelsF. M.van ZomerenM.PostmesT. (2017). The moral dimension of politicized identity: Exploring identity content during the 2012 Presidential elections in the USA. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56(2), 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12171
56.
Van BavelJ. J.PackerD. J.HaasI. J.CunninghamW. A. (2012). The importance of moral construal: Moral versus non-moral construal elicits faster, more extreme, universal evaluations of the same actions. PLOS ONE, 7(11), Article e48693. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048693
57.
VisserP. S.BizerG. Y.KrosnickJ. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength-related attitude attributes. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38, pp. 1–67). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38001-X
58.
WallaceL. E.PattonK. M.LuttrellA.SawickiV.FabrigarL. R.TeenyJ. T.MacDonaldT. K.PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (2019). Perceived knowledge moderates the relation between subjective ambivalence and the “impact” of attitudes: An attitude strength perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219873492
59.
WrightJ. C.CullumJ.SchwabN. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208322557
60.
ZunickP. V.TeenyJ. D.FazioR. H. (2017). Are some attitudes more self-defining than others? Assessing self-related attitude functions and their consequences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(8), 1136–1149. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217705121
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.
