Susceptibility to Moral Arguments Among Liberals and Conservatives

Area of Science:

• Social Psychology
• Political Psychology
• Moral Psychology

Background:

• Moral Foundations Theory posits liberals/progressives prioritize individualizing moral foundations (care, fairness).
• Conservatives equally value individualizing and binding moral foundations (authority, loyalty, purity).
• The differential endorsement of moral foundations raises questions about argument persuasiveness and opinion change across the political spectrum.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate whether conservatives are more persuaded by binding moral arguments.
• To determine if individualizing moral arguments are persuasive to all individuals.
• To explore the relationship between moral foundation endorsement and susceptibility to moral arguments.

Main Methods:

• Employed a classic experimental design with 375 respondents.
• Participants were presented with moral arguments on nine distinct moral issues.
• Measured opinion change in response to tailored moral arguments based on individual ideology.

Main Results:

• Found support for the hypothesis that conservatives are swayed by binding moral arguments.
• Confirmed that all individuals are susceptible to individualizing moral arguments.
• Demonstrated that moral foundation support predicts argument susceptibility (motivational matching).

Conclusions:

• Argument persuasiveness is enhanced when moral arguments align with an individual's ideological beliefs.
• This provides a mechanistic explanation for public opinion shifts, including the trend towards more liberal/progressive values.
• Opinion change on polarized issues is possible when arguments resonate with pre-existing moral foundations and ideology.