We used a distributed-language model to examine the moral language employed by U.S. political elites. In Study 1, we analyzed 687,360 Twitter messages (tweets) posted by accounts belonging to Democratic and Republican members of Congress from 2016 to 2018. In Study 2, we analyzed 2,630,688 speeches given on the floor of the House and Senate from 1981 to 2017. We found that partisan differences in moral-language use shifted over time as the parties gained or lost political power. Overall, lower political power was associated with greater use of moral language for both Democrats and Republicans. On Twitter, Democrats used more moral language in the period after Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election. In Congressional transcripts, both Democrats and Republicans used more of most kinds of moral language when they were in the minority.
BaronJ.SprancaM. (1997). Protected values. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70, 1–16.
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BleiD. M.NgA. Y.JordanM. I. (2003). Latent Dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.
4.
BradyD.StewartJ. (1982). Congressional party realignment and transformations of public policy in three realignment eras. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 333–360.
5.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.BurkartD.JostJ. T.Van BavelJ. J. (2019). An ideological asymmetry in the diffusion of moralized content on social media among political leaders. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 1802–1813.
6.
BradyW. J.WillsJ. A.JostJ. T.TuckerJ. A.Van BavelJ. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114, 7313–7318.
7.
BranscombeN. R.WannD. L. (1992). Physiological arousal and reactions to outgroup members during competitions that implicate an important social identity. Aggressive Behavior, 18, 85–93.
8.
CliffordS.JeritJ. (2013). How words do the work of politics: Moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. The Journal of Politics, 75, 659–671.
FiskeA. P.RaiT. S. (2015). Virtuous violence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
11.
FrimerJ. A. (2020). Do liberals and conservatives use different moral language? Two replications and six extensions of Graham, Haidt, and Nosek’s (2009) moral text analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 84, Article 103906. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103906
12.
GartenJ.HooverJ.JohnsonK. M.BoghratiR.IskiwitchC.DehghaniM. (2018). Dictionaries and distributions: Combining expert knowledge and large scale textual data content analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 344–361.
13.
GentzkowM.ShapiroJ. M.TaddyM. (2019). Measuring group differences in high-dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica, 87, 1307–1340.
14.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ. (2012). Sacred values and evil adversaries: A moral foundations approach. In MikulincerM.ShaverP. R. (Eds.), The social psychology of morality: Exploring the causes of good and evil (p. 11–31). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
15.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
16.
HaidtJ.GrahamJ. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98–116.
17.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13). doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13
18.
LakoffG. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Hartford, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.
19.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.
20.
LorahJ. (2018). Effect size measures for multilevel models: Definition, interpretation, and TIMSS example. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 6, Article 8. doi:10.1186/s40536-018-0061-2
21.
MikolovT.SutskeverI.ChenK.CorradoG. S.DeanJ. (2013). Distributed representations of words and phrases and their compositionality. In BurgesC. J. C.BottouL.WellingM.GhahramaniZ.WeinbergerK. Q. (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems (Vol. 26). Retrieved from https://papers.nips.cc/paper/2013/file/9aa42b31882ec039965f3c4923ce901b-Paper.pdf
22.
OsgoodC. E.SuciG. J.TannenbaumP. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
23.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
25.
RobertsM. E.StewartB. M.TingleyD. (2019). stm: An R package for structural topic models. Journal of Statistical Software, 91(2). doi:10.18637/jss.v091.i02
26.
RobertsM.StewartB.TingleyD.LucasC.Leder-LuisJ.GadarianS. K.. . . RandD. G. (2014). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1064–1082.
27.
RogersT. T.McClellandJ. L. (2004). Semantic cognition: A parallel distributed processing approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
RyanT. J. (2014). Reconsidering moral issues in politics. The Journal of Politics, 76, 380–397.
29.
SagiE.DehghaniM. (2014). Measuring moral rhetoric in text. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 132–144.
30.
SaltonG.WongA.YangC.-S. (1975). A vector space model for automatic indexing. Communications of the ACM, 18, 613–620.
31.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 267–281.
32.
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W. (2008). Moral conviction and political engagement. Political Psychology, 29, 29–54.
33.
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, 1419–1429.
34.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.
35.
SterlingJ.JostJ. T. (2017). Moral discourse in the Twitterverse: Effects of ideology and political sophistication on language use among U.S. citizens and members of Congress. Journal of Language and Politics, 17, 195–221.
36.
SuedfeldP. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78, 1669–1702.
37.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
38.
TetlockP. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 819–827.
39.
TetlockP. E.KristelO. V.ElsonS. B.GreenM. C.LernerJ. S. (2000). The psychology of the unthinkable: Taboo trade-offs, forbidden base rates, and heretical counterfactuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 853–870.
40.
ThomasM.PangB.LeeL. (2006). Get out the vote: Determining support or opposition from congressional floor-debate transcripts. In JurafskyD.GaussierE. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 327–335). Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics
41.
VerbylaA. P.CullisB. R.KenwardM. G.WelhamS. J. (1999). The analysis of designed experiments and longitudinal data by using smoothing splines. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 48, 269–311.
42.
WagnerA. K.SoumeraiS. B.ZhangF.Ross-DegnanD. (2002). Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 27, 299–309.
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.
