Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory

The Role of Moral Concerns and Institutional Trust in Conspiratorial Thinking

Conspiracy theories often feature moral concerns and thrive when societal institutions are perceived as untrustworthy. However, limited research exists exploring whether moral concerns are associated with conspiracy thinking and if this link is strengthened when institutional trust is low. Two studies employing correlational (N = 423) and experimental (N = 381) designs found that liberty moral concerns, and to a lesser extent binding concerns, are associated with increased conspiratorial thinking, particularly when institutional trust is low. Moral concerns about liberty may contribute to increased conspiratorial thinking and low institutional trust may play a key role in exacerbating this link.

Understanding the Political Frames of the Opioid Crisis: A Content Analysis of U.S. Senators' Tweets

The opioid epidemic in the United States is a public health emergency that has triggered calls to action for policy reforms. However, variations exist between political parties and policymakers on how this issue is communicated to the public. With the substantial growth in the use of social media by policymakers as a tool for disseminating policy-related information affecting their constituents, examining their communication strategies on public health emergency issues is imperative. To better understand how U.S. Senate members use Twitter (now known as X) to communicate opioid-related issues, we conducted a quantitative content analysis of their opioid-related tweets (N = 697) from January 1 to August 25 2022. Findings reveal a significant political divide regarding how senators characterize the opioid crisis, influencing user engagement on Twitter. Guided by the moral foundation theory, the results suggest that Democratic senators were more likely to employ care/harm or fairness/cheating moral foundations, relative to Republican senators, who used more loyalty/betrayal or authority/subversion. Additionally, Democratic senators framed the opioid crisis as a health or policy issue, relative to Republican senators' immigration/border frame. For inclusion of information sources, Democratic senators included significantly more health sources compared to Republican senators' use of media or law enforcement sources. Issue frame and source type significantly influenced user engagement in the form of likes and retweets. These findings provide both practical and theoretical implications.

Nostalgia increases punitiveness by intensifying moral concern

We addressed the relation between nostalgia and moral judgment or behavior. We hypothesized that nostalgia, a social emotion, increases moral concern (H1), nostalgia intensifies punitiveness against moral transgressors (H2), and that the nostalgia-punitiveness link is mediated by moral concern (H3). We conducted three cross-sectional (Studies 1, 2, 4) and one experimental (Study 3) investigations (N = 1145). The investigations, involving distinct operationalizations of the relevant constructs (nostalgia, moral concern, punitiveness) and diverse samples (U.S., Canadian, and European Prolific workers, French business school students, Dutch community members), yielded results consistent with the hypotheses. Nostalgia keeps one's moral compass in check. The findings enrich the emotions and morality literatures.

Advocating for Mask-Wearing Across the Aisle: Applying Moral Reframing in Health Communication

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States public polarized along political lines in their willingness to adopt various health-protective measures. To bridge these political divides, we tested moral reframing as a tool for advocating for wearing face masks when audiences vary in their moral priorities. We additionally address a gap in prior moral reframing research by comparing responses to a topic-relevant non-moral appeal. Across two studies, we examined effects on perceived message effectiveness, intentions to wear masks, support for a nationwide mask mandate, and willingness to share messages on social media. We find support for the efficacy of ideology-matched moral arguments and generally find support for the boomerang effect of ideology-mismatched moral arguments. However, these effects were restricted to relatively liberal audiences; politically conservative message recipients did not differentiate between message conditions. We discuss these asymmetric effects and their implications for theory in moral rhetoric.

Belief-consistent information is most shared despite being the least surprising

In the classical information theoretic framework, information "value" is proportional to how novel/surprising the information is. Recent work building on such notions claimed that false news spreads faster than truth online because false news is more novel and therefore surprising. However, another determinant of surprise, semantic meaning (e.g., information's consistency or inconsistency with prior beliefs), should also influence value and sharing. Examining sharing behavior on Twitter, we observed separate relations of novelty and belief consistency with sharing. Though surprise could not be assessed in those studies, belief consistency should relate to less surprise, suggesting the relevance of semantic meaning beyond novelty. In two controlled experiments, belief-consistent (vs. belief-inconsistent) information was shared more despite consistent information being the least surprising. Manipulated novelty did not predict sharing or surprise. Thus, classical information theoretic predictions regarding perceived value and sharing would benefit from considering semantic meaning in contexts where people hold pre-existing beliefs.

Language-based game theory in the age of artificial intelligence

Understanding human behaviour in decision problems and strategic interactions has wide-ranging applications in economics, psychology and artificial intelligence. Game theory offers a robust foundation for this understanding, based on the idea that individuals aim to maximize a utility function. However, the exact factors influencing strategy choices remain elusive. While traditional models try to explain human behaviour as a function of the outcomes of available actions, recent experimental research reveals that linguistic content significantly impacts decision-making, thus prompting a paradigm shift from outcome-based to language-based utility functions. This shift is more urgent than ever, given the advancement of generative AI, which has the potential to support humans in making critical decisions through language-based interactions. We propose sentiment analysis as a fundamental tool for this shift and take an initial step by analysing 61 experimental instructions from the dictator game, an economic game capturing the balance between self-interest and the interest of others, which is at the core of many social interactions. Our meta-analysis shows that sentiment analysis can explain human behaviour beyond economic outcomes. We discuss future research directions. We hope this work sets the stage for a novel game-theoretical approach that emphasizes the importance of language in human decisions.

Incivility in COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Discourse and Moral Foundations: Natural Language Processing Approach

BACKGROUND

Vaccine hesitancy poses a substantial threat to efforts to mitigate the harmful effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. To combat vaccine hesitancy, officials in the United States issued vaccine mandates, which were met with strong antivaccine discourse on social media platforms such as Reddit. The politicized and polarized nature of COVID-19 on social media has fueled uncivil discourse related to vaccine mandates, which is known to decrease confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the moral foundations underlying uncivil COVID-19 vaccine discourse. Moral foundations theory poses that individuals make decisions to express approval or disapproval (ie, uncivil discourse) based on innate moral values. We examine whether moral foundations are associated with dimensions of incivility. Further, we explore whether there are any differences in the presence of incivility between the r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism subreddits.

METHODS

Natural language processing methodologies were leveraged to analyze the moral foundations underlying uncivil discourse in 2 prominent antivaccine subreddits, r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism. All posts and comments from both of the subreddits were collected since their inception in March 2022. This was followed by filtering the data set for key terms associated with the COVID-19 vaccine (eg, "vaccinate" and "Pfizer") and mandates (eg, "forced" and "mandating"). These key terms were selected based on a review of existing literature and because of their salience in both of the subreddits. A 10% sample of the filtered key terms was used for the final analysis.

RESULTS

Findings suggested that moral foundations play a role in the psychological processes underlying uncivil vaccine mandate discourse. Specifically, we found substantial associations between all moral foundations (ie, care and harm, fairness and cheating, loyalty and betrayal, authority and subversion, and sanctity and degradation) and dimensions of incivility (ie, toxicity, insults, profanity, threat, and identity attack) except for the authority foundation. We also found statistically significant differences between r/coronaviruscirclejerk and r/lockdownskepticism for the presence of the dimensions of incivility. Specifically, the mean of identity attack, insult, toxicity, profanity, and threat in the r/lockdownskepticism subreddit was significantly lower than that in the r/coronaviruscirclejerk subreddit (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that moral foundations may play a substantial role in the presence of incivility in vaccine discourse. On the basis of the findings of the study, public health practitioners should tailor messaging by addressing the moral values underlying the concerns people may have about vaccines, which could manifest as uncivil discourse. Another way to tailor public health messaging could be to direct it to parts of social media platforms with increased uncivil discourse. By integrating moral foundations, public health messaging may increase compliance and promote civil discourse surrounding COVID-19.

The moral foundations of cryptocurrency: evidence from Twitter and survey research

Despite its relatively brief history, cryptocurrency has already had a profound impact on the economy, with some predicting that it will eventually replace traditional fiat currencies. Historically, it had dark associations with illegal activities in the early days, although perceptions and associations likely have, in recent years, changed for the better. Thus, understanding how people perceive the morality of cryptocurrency currently forms the motivation of the current research. We, in particular, examine associations dependent on political ideology. Across both a large-scale analysis of Twitter posts (N = 959,393) and controlled survey research (N = 487), we find that cryptocurrency is currently best understood as being more strongly linked to conservative vs. liberal moral foundations. Cryptocurrency-related posts were more likely to express conservative moral foundations (Authority, Purity, and Loyalty) rather than liberal moral foundations (Fairness and Care), and individual endorsement of these conservative moral foundations was associated with increased interest in crypto investment.

The Problem of Purity in Moral Psychology

Academic AbstractThe idea of "purity" transformed moral psychology. Here, we provide the first systematic review of this concept. Although often discussed as one construct, we reveal ~9 understandings of purity, ranging from respecting God to not eating gross things. This striking heterogeneity arises because purity-unlike other moral constructs-is not understood by what it is but what it isn't: obvious interpersonal harm. This poses many problems for moral psychology and explains why purity lacks convergent and divergent validity and why purity is confounded with politics, religion, weirdness, and perceived harm. Because purity is not a coherent construct, it cannot be a distinct basis of moral judgment or specially tied to disgust. Rather than a specific moral domain, purity is best understood as a loose set of themes in moral rhetoric. These themes are scaffolded on cultural understandings of harm-the broad, pluralistic harm outlined by the Theory of Dyadic Morality.

Integrating the person-centered approach with the study of vaccine hesitancy: Applying latent profile analysis to identify vaccine hesitancy subpopulations and assess their relations with correlates and vaccination outcomes

In scholarly and popular discussions of vaccine hesitancy, authors have repeatedly referred to different "types" of vaccine hesitant individuals; however, almost all modern research on vaccine hesitancy utilizes variable-centered approaches to identify the relation of variables rather than a person-centered approach to identify subpopulations, which suggests that a discrepancy exists between conceptual discussions and empirical research on vaccine hesitancy. For this reason, the current article conducts a latent profile analysis (LPA) on the dimensions of a well-supported vaccine hesitancy measure, which assess hesitancy towards vaccines in general. We also assess the relations of the resultant profiles (e.g., subpopulations) with relevant self-reported outcomes and correlates, wherein most of our outcomes are associated with COVID-19 and flu vaccines. Our LPA results support the existence of eight vaccine hesitancy profiles. The profile with the most unfavorable vaccination outcomes (e.g., willingness, receipt, and word-of-mouth) was associated with greater perceptions that vaccines cause health risks and unneeded when healthy; the profile with the most favorable vaccination outcomes was associated with low levels of all vaccine hesitancy dimensions. The other profiles produced a clear gradient between these two extremes. The profiles also differed regarding their standing on correlates, but the clearest difference was their relation with political orientation. Profiles with more unfavorable vaccination outcomes were associated with conservatism, whereas profiles with more favorable vaccinations outcomes were associated with liberalism. These results provide a new perspective for current understandings of vaccine hesitancy and open several avenues for future research.

Cognitive ability and ideology join forces in the culture war: A model of opinion formation

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.

The Moral Foundations of Vaccine Passports

The debate around vaccine passports has been polarising and controversial. Although the measure allows businesses to resume in-person operations and enables transitioning out of lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, some have expressed concerns about liberty violations and discrimination. Understanding the splintered viewpoints can aid businesses in communicating such measures to employees and consumers. We conceptualise the business implementation of vaccine passports as a moral decision rooted in individual values that influence reasoning and emotional reaction. We surveyed support for vaccine passports on a nationally representative sample in the United Kingdom in 2021: April (n = 349), May (n = 328), and July (n = 311). Drawing on the Moral Foundations Theory-binding (loyalty, authority, and sanctity), individualising (fairness and harm), and liberty values-we find that individualising values are a positive predictor and liberty values a negative predictor of support for passports, suggesting adoption hinges on addressing liberty concerns. Longitudinal analysis examining the trajectory of change in support over time finds that individualising foundations positively predict changes in utilitarian and deontological reasoning over time. In contrast, a fall in anger over time predicts increased support towards vaccine passports. Our study can inform business and policy communication strategies of existing vaccine passports, general vaccine mandates, and similar measures in future pandemics.

Moral Foundations Predict COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Evidence from a National Survey of Black Americans

In this study we examine the role of moral values in predicting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy among Black Americans. Guided by moral foundations theory, we assess the associations between six moral foundations (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity, liberty) and attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination. Results of a national survey of Black Americans (N = 1,497) indicate that the care and loyalty moral foundations consistently predicted less vaccine hesitancy with overall more favorable attitudes and intentions toward COVID-19 vaccination, whereas the purity and liberty moral foundations were consistently associated with greater vaccine hesitancy. Relationships between the foundations and vaccine hesitancy were mediated by perceived vaccine effectiveness and safety. Implications of the findings for COVID-19 vaccine communication are discussed.

Democrats and independents stigmatize people with COVID-19 greater compared to Republicans

Messaging about COVID-19 was different across the political spectrum, which influenced differences in attitudes surrounding COVID-19. This study examined the political affiliation/ideology on COVID-19 stigma (blame, deservingness of help, negative emotionality) and two mediators of this relationship: conspiracy beliefs and anxiety about COVID-19. Participants answered questions about their political affiliation and ideology, attitudes toward people who have contracted COVID-19; and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and anxiety. Democrats and Independents indirectly stigmatized people with COVID-19 via increased COVID-19 anxiety and fewer COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs relative to Republicans. Politicization can strongly impact stigma, and messaging could be harnessed as a stigma reduction tool.

Purity, politics, and polarization: Political ideology moderates threat‐induced shifts in moral purity beliefs

There is considerable research showing that economic threat influences people's social and political views. There are two prevailing perspectives on threat and political attitudes, broadly defined as the Conservative Shift Hypothesis and the Entrenching Hypothesis. The former predicts that threat induces change in the conservative direction (for both conservatives and liberals), whereas the latter predicts that threat causes people to adhere more strongly to their prexisting political perspective. In two experimental studies (one pre-registered replication), we find evidence in support of the Entrenching Hypothesis. Conservatives responded to Economic Threat with increased endorsement of the conservative moral foundation Purity, whereas liberals responded to Economic Threat with decreased endorsement of the Purity foundation. Economic Threat appears to increase commitment to one's pre-existing political ideology and not conservatism specifically. Implications for psychological theory and future directions are discussed.

Moral values, social ideologies and threat-based cognition: Implications for intergroup relations

Moral foundations theory (MFT) has provided an account of the moral values that underscore different cultural and political ideologies, and these moral values of harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and purity can help to explain differences in political and cultural ideologies; however, the extent to which moral foundations relate to strong social ideologies, intergroup processes and threat perceptions is still underdeveloped. To explore this relationship, we conducted two studies. In Study 1 (N = 157), we considered how the moral foundations predicted strong social ideologies such as authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) as well as attitudes toward immigrants. Here, we demonstrated that more endorsement of individualizing moral foundations (average of harm and fairness) was related to less negative intergroup attitudes, which was mediated by SDO, and that more endorsement of binding moral foundations (the average of loyalty, authority, and purity) was related to more negative attitudes, which was mediated by RWA. Crucially, further analyses also suggested the importance of threat perceptions as an underlying explanatory variable. Study 2 (N = 388) replicated these findings and extended them by measuring attitudes toward a different group reflecting an ethnic minority in the United States, and by testing the ordering of variables while also replicating and confirming the threat effects. These studies have important implications for using MFT to understand strong ideologies, intergroup relations, and threat perceptions.

Political ideology and pandemic lifestyles: the indirect effects of empathy, authoritarianism, and threat

Background

In this paper, we integrate theory and research from sociology, psychology, and political science to develop and test a mediation model that helps to explain why political conservatism is often associated with pandemic behaviors and lifestyles that are inconsistent with public health recommendations for COVID-19.

Methods

Using national data from the 2021 Crime, Health, and Politics Survey (n = 1743), we formally test the indirect effects of political conservatism (an index of Republican party identification, conservative political orientation, right-wing news media consumption, and 2020 Trump vote) on pandemic lifestyles (an index of social distancing, hand sanitizing, mask usage, and vaccination) through the mechanisms of empathy (concern about the welfare of others), authoritarian beliefs (authoritarian aggressiveness and acquiescence to authority), and pandemic threat perceptions (threats to self and to the broader society).

Result

Our results confirm that political conservatism is associated with riskier pandemic lifestyles. We also find that this association is partially mediated by lower levels of empathy, higher levels of authoritarian beliefs, and lower levels of perceived pandemic threat.

Conclusions

Understanding why political conservatism is associated with riskier pandemic lifestyles may eventually lead us to ways of identifying and overcoming widespread cultural barriers to critical pandemic responses.

Culturally Relevant Frames Increase Individuals’ Motivation to Contribute to Carbon Emissions Offsets

We theorized that culturally-relevant frames—language that invokes valued cultural concepts without changing the communicated information—canincrease people’s willingness to engage in environmental action. Across eight experiments ( N = 10,294) in two national contexts, we adjusted the language of a carbon offset request that people received as part of a simulated flight purchase. We investigated the role of five constructs that are valued across cultures but vary in their importance: choice, economic growth, social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity. We found that the social change, moral responsibility, and sanctity frames did not differ from the control condition in either culture. Invoking the concept of economic development increased Indians’ willingness to contribute to a carbon offset compared to the control frame, whereas invoking the concept of choice increased US Americans’ willingness. If these simulated decisions translate into actual actions, the findings suggest that framing environmental requests using culturally-relevant frames have the potential to promote sustainable behavior. More generally, the findings highlight the importance of paying attention to culture to motivate environmental action.

Persuading republicans and democrats to comply with mask wearing: An intervention tournament

Many people practiced COVID-19-related safety measures in the first year of the pandemic, but Republicans were less likely to engage in behaviors such as wearing masks or face coverings than Democrats, suggesting radical disparities in health practices split along political fault lines. We developed an "intervention tournament" which aimed to identify the framings that would promote mask wearing among a representative sample of Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. from Oct 14, 2020, to Jan 14, 2021 (N = 4931). Seven different conditions reflecting different moral values and factors specific to COVID-19-including protection from harm (self), protection from harm (community), patriotic duty, purity, reviving the economy, threat, and scientific evidence-were implemented to identify which framings would "win" in terms of promoting mask wearing compared to a baseline condition. We found that Republicans had significantly more negative attitudes toward masks, lower intentions to wear them, and were less likely to sign or share pledges on social media than Democrats, which was partially mediated by Republicans, compared to Democrats, perceiving that the threat of COVID-19 was lower. None of our framing conditions significantly affected Republicans' or Democrats' attitudes, intentions, or behaviors compared to the baseline condition, illustrating the difficulty in overcoming the strength of political polarization during COVID-19.

People See Political Opponents as More Stupid Than Evil

Affective polarization is a rising threat to political discourse and democracy. Public figures have expressed that "conservatives think liberals are stupid, and liberals think conservatives are evil." However, four studies (N = 1,660)-including a representative sample-reveal evidence that both sides view political opponents as more unintelligent than immoral. Perceiving the other side as "more stupid than evil" occurs both in general judgments (Studies 1, 3, and 4) and regarding specific issues (Study 2). Study 4 also examines "meta-perceptions" of how Democrats and Republicans disparage one another, revealing that people correctly perceive that both Democrats and Republicans see each other as more unintelligent than immoral, although they exaggerate the extent of this negativity. These studies clarify the way everyday partisans view each other, an important step in designing effective interventions to reduce political animosity.

A Relational Identity-Based Solution to Group Polarization: Can Priming Parental Identity Reduce the Partisan Gap in Attitudes Toward the COVID-19 Pandemic

This study explores the influence of both group identity (e.g., partisan identity) and relational identity (e.g., parental identity) on beliefs and attitudes toward the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Results from a between-subject randomized survey experiment suggest that partisans are motivated to process factual information about COVID-19 through a partisan lens. However, priming parental identity can reduce partisan polarization over risk perceptions, policy support, and precautious behaviors. These findings demonstrate the need to incorporate relational identity into identity-based science communication research and offer a relational identity-based strategic communication solution to partisan gaps in responses to COVID-19.

When the going gets tough, the tough are let go? The effects of political ideology on leader tenure in organisations

Purpose

Drawing on moral foundations theory (MFT), this paper aims to examine the relationship between community-level political ideology, organisational performance and leader tenure by proposing and testing an “ideology-authority hypothesis” wherein political ideology moderates the relationship between organisational performance decline and leader tenure in organisations.

Design/methodology/approach

The authors used archival data pertaining to the performance of teams from the National Basketball Association (NBA), the tenure of the head coaches and the voting record of the communities in which the teams are located. The authors used hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) to test the relationships among these variables at multiple levels.

Findings

The results provided empirical support for the “ideology-authority hypothesis”. Specifically, the magnitude of team winning percentage decrease from the previous season is positively associated with the tenure of the head coach in teams located in more conservative communities but not in teams located in more liberal communities.

Originality/value

This study examines leadership stability and change by highlighting the moral foundation of authority/subversion. The findings also illustrate the importance of a community-level variable – the general political climate of the community in which an organisation is embedded – in organisational decision-making.

Moral Expressions in 280 Characters or Less: An Analysis of Politician Tweets Following the 2016 Brexit Referendum Vote

Ideas about morality are deeply entrenched into political opinions. This article examines the online communication of British parliamentarians from May 2017-December 2019, following the 2016 referendum that resulted in Britain's exit (Brexit) from the European Union. It aims to uncover how British parliamentarians use moral foundations to discuss the Brexit withdrawal agreement on Twitter, using Moral Foundations Theory as a classification basis for their tweets. It is found that the majority of Brexit related tweets contain elements of moral reasoning, especially relating to the foundations of Authority and Loyalty. There are common underlying foundations between parties, but parties express opposing viewpoints within a single foundation. The study provides useful insights into Twitter's use as an arena for moral argumentation, as well as uncovers the politician's uses of moral arguments during Brexit agreement negotiations on Twitter. It contributes to the limited body of work focusing on the moral arguments made by politicians through Twitter.

Six minutes to promote change: People, not facts, alter students' perceptions on climate change

Anthropogenic climate change threatens the structure and function of ecosystems throughout the globe, but many people are still skeptical of its existence. Traditional "knowledge deficit model" thinking has suggested that providing the public with more facts about climate change will assuage skepticism. However, presenting evidence contrary to prior beliefs can have the opposite effect and result in a strengthening of previously held beliefs, a phenomenon known as biased assimilation or a backfire effect. Given this, strategies for effectively communicating about socioscientific issues that are politically controversial need to be thoroughly investigated. We randomly assigned 184 undergraduates from an environmental science class to one of three experimental conditions in which we exposed them to short videos that employed different messaging strategies: (a) an engaging science lecture, (b) consensus messaging, and (c) elite cues. We measured changes in student perceptions of climate change across five constructs (content knowledge, acceptance of scientific consensus, perceived risk, support for action, and climate identity) before and after viewing videos. Consensus messaging outperformed the other two conditions in increasing student acceptance of the scientific consensus, perceived risk of climate change, and climate identity, suggesting this may be an effective strategy for communicating the gravity of anthropogenic climate change. Elite cues outperformed the engaging science lecture condition in increasing student support for action on climate, with politically conservative students driving this relationship, suggesting that the messenger is more important than the message if changing opinions about the necessity of action on climate change is the desired outcome. Relative to the other conditions, the engaging science lecture did not support change in students' perceptions on climate, but appealing to student respect for authority produced positive results. Notably, we observed no decline in students' acceptance of climate science, indicating that none of the conditions induced a backfire effect.

Reducing mask resistance among White evangelical Christians with value-consistent messages

Public health experts have advocated for wearing protective face masks to combat the COVID-19 pandemic, yet some populations are resistant. Can certain messages shift attitudes toward masks? We investigate the effect of value-consistent messages within a mask-skeptical population: White evangelicals in the United States. An experiment within a national survey of White evangelicals (n = 1,212) assigned respondents to one of three conditions: One group was given a religious message equating mask use with loving your neighbor, another was given a message by Donald Trump saying mask use is patriotic, and a control group received no message. Those exposed to the religious message were more likely to see mask use as important and were more supportive of mask mandates. Republican evangelicals exposed to the patriotism message had similar responses. These findings show that messages that align with individuals' core values-in this case, religious tenets and patriotism-can shift certain views on mask use and government mask policies to combat COVID-19, even among a comparatively mask-resistant group.

Moral concerns are differentially observable in language

Language is a psychologically rich medium for human expression and communication. While language usage has been shown to be a window into various aspects of people's social worlds, including their personality traits and everyday environment, its correspondence to people's moral concerns has yet to be considered. Here, we examine the relationship between language usage and the moral concerns of Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, and Purity as conceptualized by Moral Foundations Theory. We collected Facebook status updates (N = 107,798) from English-speaking participants (n = 2691) along with their responses on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. Overall, results suggested that self-reported moral concerns may be traced in language usage, though the magnitude of this effect varied considerably among moral concerns. Across a diverse selection of Natural Language Processing methods, Fairness concerns were consistently least correlated with language usage whereas Purity concerns were found to be the most traceable. In exploratory follow-up analyses, each moral concern was found to be differentially related to distinct patterns of relational, emotional, and social language. Our results are the first to relate individual differences in moral concerns to language usage, and to uncover the signatures of moral concerns in language.

Different Populations Agree on Which Moral Arguments Underlie Which Opinions

People often justify their moral opinions by referring to larger moral concerns (e. g., “It is unfair if homosexuals are not allowed to marry!” vs. “Letting homosexuals marry is against our traditions!”). Is there a general agreement about what concerns apply to different moral opinions? We used surveys in the United States and the United Kingdom to measure the perceived applicability of eight concerns (harm, violence, fairness, liberty, authority, ingroup, purity, and governmental overreach) to a wide range of moral opinions. Within countries, argument applicability scores were largely similar whether they were calculated among women or men, among young or old, among liberals or conservatives, or among people with or without higher education. Thus, the applicability of a given moral concern to a specific opinion can be viewed as an objective quality of the opinion, largely independent of the population in which it is measured. Finally, we used similar surveys in Israel and Brazil to establish that this independence of populations also extended to populations in different countries. However, the extent to which this holds across cultures beyond those included in the current study is still an open question.

Moral foundations underlying behavioral compliance during the COVID-19 pandemic

During the COVID-19 pandemic, government and public health officials have advocated three behaviors to help “flatten the curve” of the disease—staying-at-home, wearing face masks, and social distancing. But, some people, especially those younger in age, have flouted restrictions, harming themselves and the community. We explore the moral foundations underlying people's compliance with the three behaviors. Our study with 1033 Americans revealed that caring and fairness concerns predict complying with all behaviors, while sanctity concerns only predict compliance with wearing face masks and social distancing. A deeper investigation revealed age differences in loyalty and sanctity concerns for staying-at-home and social distancing, and in sanctity concerns only for wearing face masks. The findings document the innate intuitions that guide one's decision to comply with such behaviors. They also provide governments and policy officials with implications on possible message frames to use in communicating the importance of the three behaviors in order to protect one's and the public's health from COVID-19 and other flu-like illnesses in the future.

Historical Change in the Moral Foundations of Political Persuasion

How have attempts at political persuasion changed over time? Using nine corpora dating back through 1789, containing over 7 million words of speech (1,666 documents in total), covering three different countries, plus the entire Google nGram corpus, we find that language relating to togetherness permanently crowded out language relating to duties and obligations in the persuasive speeches of politicians during the early 20th century. This shift is temporally predicted by a rise in Western nationalism and the mass movement of people from more rural to more urban areas and is unexplained by changes in language, private political speech, or nonmoral persuasion. We theorize that the emergence of the modern state in the 1920s had psychopolitical consequences for the ways that people understood and communicated their relationships with their government, which was then reflected in the levers of persuasion chosen by political elites.

Framing hate: Moral foundations, party cues, and (in)tolerance of offensive speech

One of the most controversial elements of political tolerance concerns support for hate speech. We argue that there are two factors that can reduce tolerance for hate speech: 1) moral foundations and 2) party cues. U.S. citizens’ tolerance of hate speech will be reduced when it is framed as a violation of a specific moral foundation, opposed by a political party, or when the morality violation is utilized by party elites. Using two survey experiments, we manipulated the target of hate speech (i.e. Muslims or the American flag), whether the speech violated a moral foundation (i.e. harm or loyalty), and which political party supported or opposed the hate speech in question. For flag burning, moral frames and party cues on their own reduced U.S. citizens’ tolerance relative to a non-political control, while moral frames and party cues were successful in reducing tolerance of anti-Muslim speech compared to a free speech appeal. Partisans were generally responsive to cues from the in-party. We also found instances of moral repackaging, where morally incongruent appeals from the in-party reduced tolerance of flag burning among Democrats. Among Republicans, harm morality decreased tolerance of anti-Muslim speech when invoked by the in-party, but increased tolerance when used by the out-party – an indication of the power of party cues to repackage moral arguments and to trigger backlash. These results provide a better understanding of what factors can affect tolerance for hate speech, providing political leaders and social justice advocates with a roadmap to alleviate this problem.

The connection between moral positions and moral arguments drives opinion change

Liberals and conservatives often take opposing positions on moral issues. But what makes a moral position liberal or conservative? Why does public opinion tend to become more liberal over time? And why does public opinion change especially fast on certain issues, such as gay rights? We offer an explanation based on how different positions connect with different kinds of moral arguments. Based on a formal model of opinion dynamics, we predicted that positions better connected to harm and fairness arguments will be more popular among liberals and will become more popular over time among liberals and conservatives. Finally, the speed of this trend will be faster the better the position connects to harm and fairness arguments. These predictions all held with high accuracy in 44 years of polling on moral opinions. The model explains the connection between ideology and moral opinions, and generates precise predictions for future opinion change.

Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages

When crafting a message, communicators may turn to moral rhetoric as a means of influencing an audience’s opinion. In the present research, we tested whether the persuasiveness of explicitly moral counterattitudinal messages depends on how much people have already based their attitudes on moral considerations. A survey of the literature suggests several competing hypotheses that we tested across two studies. The results support a persuasive-matching pattern: A moral appeal was more persuasive than a nonmoral appeal to the extent that initial attitudes were based on moral concerns (i.e., attitudes were moralized), but the opposite was true when initial attitudes had less of a moral basis. Exploratory analyses also showed that these effects were mediated by valenced thoughts about the message and moderated by political orientation. These findings add new insight to literatures on both the effects of moral arguments and moralized attitudes.

Business ethics index: the impact of political affiliation

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to measure differences on the business ethics index (BEI) between respondents of different political affiliations (i.e. democrats, republicans and independents). The BEI was originally developed as an indicator of consumers’ sentiments toward the ethicality of business practices.

Design/methodology/approach

Data collection was conducted by ORC International Telephone CARAVAN®. The study was conducted using two probability samples of 1,008 adults (18 years old and older) living in the continental United States.

Findings

The data demonstrate that republicans feel more positive on all three components (i.e. personal/past, vicarious/past, and future) and on the overall BEI compared to democrats and independents.

Research limitations/implications

The limitations of the study include that the data include political affiliation and not actual voting behavior. One can assume there is a high correlation between the two; however, many US voters do not actually take the time to vote might attenuate this relationship. A future application of the BEI will attempt to capture real voting patterns and not only political affiliation.

Practical implications

The data confirm the political and ideological schism evident in the US at the present time. At a time where almost all the centers of political power (Presidency, Senate and Parliament) are being controlled by the GOP, republican voters are more optimistic about the future ethical behavior of businesses.

Social implications

Beyond political ideology, ethical behavior by business is crucial to the integrity of the economic system both at the national and international level.

Originality/value

This is the first time that consumers’ ethical perceptions, as measured by the BEI, were associated with people’s political affiliations.

Accepters, fence sitters, or rejecters: Moral profiles of vaccination attitudes

RATIONALE

Childhood vaccination is a safe and effective way of reducing infectious diseases. Yet, public confidence in vaccination is waning, driven in part by the 'manufacture of doubt' by anti-vaccination activists and websites. However, there is little research examining the psychological underpinnings of anti-vaccination rhetoric among parents.

OBJECTIVES

Here, we examined the structure and moral roots of anti-vaccination attitudes amongst Australian parents active on social media parenting sites.

METHODS

Participants (N = 296) completed questionnaires assessing their vaccination attitudes, behavioural intentions, and moral preferences.

RESULTS

Using Latent Profile Analysis, we identified three profiles (i.e., groups), interpretable as vaccine "accepters", "fence sitters", and "rejecters", each characterised by a distinct pattern of vaccination attitudes and moral preferences. Accepters exhibited positive vaccination attitudes and strong intentions to vaccinate; rejecters exhibited the opposite pattern of responses; whilst fence sitters exhibited an intermediate pattern of responses. Compared to accepters, rejecters and fence sitters exhibited a heightened moral preference for liberty (belief in the rights of the individual) and harm (concern about the wellbeing of others). Compared to acceptors and fence sitters, rejecters exhibited a heightened moral preference for purity (an abhorrence for impurity of body), and a diminished moral preference for authority (deference to those in positions of power).

CONCLUSION

Given the sensitivity of fence sitters and rejecters to liberty-related moral concerns, our research cautions against the use of adversarial approaches-e.g., No Jab, No Pay legislation-that promote vaccination uptake by restricting parental freedoms, as they may backfire amongst parents ambivalent toward vaccination.

How Americans Respond to Information About Global Warming's Health Impacts: Evidence From a National Survey Experiment

Americans tend to see global warming as a distant threat, but a small body of previous research suggests that information about the health implications of global warming may enhance public engagement with the issue. We sought to extend those findings with a longitudinal study that examined how Americans react to information about eight specific categories of health impacts from global warming. In winter 2017, we conducted a two-wave survey experiment using a quota sample of American adults (n = 2,254). Participants were randomly assigned to a treatment group who read eight brief essays about different categories of health impacts from global warming or to a control group who received no information. Participants answered questions before reading the essays, immediately after reading each essay and at the conclusion of all essays (treatment participants only), and 2-3 weeks later. Reading the information had small- to medium-sized effects on multiple indicators of participants' cognitive and affective engagement with global warming, especially among people who are politically moderate and somewhat conservative; some of these changes persisted 2-3 weeks later. Some impacts were seen as more novel and worrisome, including illnesses from contaminated food, water, and disease-carrying organisms. Our findings provide the most definitive evidence to date about the importance of raising awareness about the health impacts of global warming. While participants believed all of the essays as offered valuable information, educational efforts might most productively focus on impacts that are relatively less familiar and more emotionally engaging, such as food-, water-, and vector-borne illnesses.

The Socio-Moral Image Database (SMID): A novel stimulus set for the study of social, moral and affective processes

A major obstacle for the design of rigorous, reproducible studies in moral psychology is the lack of suitable stimulus sets. Here, we present the Socio-Moral Image Database (SMID), the largest standardized moral stimulus set assembled to date, containing 2,941 freely available photographic images, representing a wide range of morally (and affectively) positive, negative and neutral content. The SMID was validated with over 820,525 individual judgments from 2,716 participants, with normative ratings currently available for all images on affective valence and arousal, moral wrongness, and relevance to each of the five moral values posited by Moral Foundations Theory. We present a thorough analysis of the SMID regarding (1) inter-rater consensus, (2) rating precision, and (3) breadth and variability of moral content. Additionally, we provide recommendations for use aimed at efficient study design and reproducibility, and outline planned extensions to the database. We anticipate that the SMID will serve as a useful resource for psychological, neuroscientific and computational (e.g., natural language processing or computer vision) investigations of social, moral and affective processes. The SMID images, along with associated normative data and additional resources are available at https://osf.io/2rqad/.

Association of moral values with vaccine hesitancy

Clusters of unvaccinated children are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of vaccine-preventable disease ^1,2 . Existing messaging interventions demonstrate short-term success, but some may backfire and worsen vaccine hesitancy ³ . Values-based messages appeal to core morality, which influences the attitudes individuals then have on topics like vaccination ^4-7 . We must understand how underlying morals, not just attitudes, differ by hesitancy type to develop interventions that work with individual values. Here, we show in two correlational studies that harm and fairness foundations are not significantly associated with vaccine hesitancy, but purity and liberty foundations are. We found that medium-hesitancy parents were twice as likely as low-hesitancy parents to highly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.27-3.40). High-hesitancy respondents were twice as likely to strongly emphasize purity (adjusted odds ratio: 2.15; 95% confidence interval: 1.39-3.31) and liberty (adjusted odds ratio: 2.19; 95% confidence interval: 1.50-3.21). Our results demonstrate that endorsement of harm and fairness-ideas often emphasized in traditional vaccine-focused messages-are not predictive of vaccine hesitancy. This, combined with significant associations of purity and liberty with hesitancy, indicates a need for inclusion of broader themes in vaccine discussions. These findings have the potential for application to other health decisions and communications as well.

Moral Foundations and Voting Intention in Italy

Based on the view of morality proposed by the Moral Foundations Theory, this paper investigates whether voting intention is associated with moral foundation endorsement in not perfectly bipolar electoral contexts. Three studies carried out in Italy from 2010 to 2013, showed that controlling for ideological orientation, moral foundation endorsement is associated with voting intention. In Study 1 and 3, in fictitious and real national elections, intention to vote for right-wing political groups rather than for left-wing rivals was associated with Sanctity, confirming previous results obtained in the U.S. Furthermore, as a function of the specific competing political groups in each of the examined contexts other moral foundations predicted voting intention. In Study 1, Care and Authority predicted voting intention for the major political groups rather than for an autonomist party that aimed at decreasing central government’s fiscal power in favor of fiscal regional autonomy. In Study 3, Loyalty predicted the intention to vote for the major parliamentarian parties rather than for a movement that aimed at capturing disaffection towards traditional politics. In Study 2, at real regional elections, Loyalty predicted voting intention for the incumbent right-wing governor rather than for the challengers and Fairness predicted voting intention for left-wing extra-parliamentarian political groups rather than for the major left-wing party. Thus multiple moral concerns can be associated with voting intention. In fragmented and unstable electoral contexts, at each election the context of the competing political groups may elicit specific moral concerns that can contribute to affect voting intention beyond ideological orientation.

Morally Reframed Arguments Can Affect Support for Political Candidates

Moral reframing involves crafting persuasive arguments that appeal to the targets’ moral values but argue in favor of something they would typically oppose. Applying this technique to one of the most politically polarizing events—political campaigns—we hypothesized that messages criticizing one’s preferred political candidate that also appeal to that person’s moral values can decrease support for the candidate. We tested this claim in the context of the 2016 American presidential election. In Study 1, conservatives reading a message opposing Donald Trump grounded in a more conservative value (loyalty) supported him less than conservatives reading a message grounded in more liberal concerns (fairness). In Study 2, liberals reading a message opposing Hillary Clinton appealing to fairness values were less supportive of Clinton than liberals in a loyalty-argument condition. These results highlight how moral reframing can be used to overcome the rigid stances partisans often hold and help develop political acceptance.

Pluralistic morality and collective action: The role of moral foundations

Starting from the pluralistic view of morality proposed by the moral foundations theory, this paper aims at highlighting the plurality of personal moral concerns that may drive people to collective action and at investigating how they are connected with other personal and group-based motivations to act (i.e., moral obligation, moral convictions, politicized group identity, group efficacy, and group-based anger). Moral foundations can be distinguished into individualizing foundations, aimed at protecting individual rights and well-being; and binding foundations, aimed at tightening people into ordered communities. We expected that collective action intention would be most strongly associated with an individualizing foundation in equality-focused movements, and with a binding foundation in conformity-focused ones. Four studies that examined activists of both liberal and conservative movements confirmed these expectations. The relevant foundations predicted collective action mainly through the mediation of moral obligation and politicized identity, but they also had some effects above and beyond them.