Moral arguments about care and fairness persuade both liberals and conservatives
Stockholm University
A new study in Public Opinion Quarterly shows that moral arguments appealing to care and fairness can persuade both liberals and conservatives in the United States. By contrast, arguments grounded in the “binding” moral foundations – loyalty, authority and sanctity – primarily influence conservatives.
In the study, conducted by researchers at Stockholm University, Mälardalen University, and the Institute for Futures Studies, the authors find an asymmetry: arguments that tend to move liberals in a more liberal direction also persuade conservatives, whereas arguments that tend to move conservatives in a more conservative direction do not persuade liberals.
At the same time, surveys show that moral values in many countries have, over time, shifted in a more socially progressive and liberal direction, including in the United States, where this study was conducted. The findings help explain why such change can occur even in an increasingly polarised public debate.
– We see that people are not immune to arguments, but they do listen selectively. Arguments that connect to a receiver’s core moral values are far more likely to produce genuine opinion change, says Fredrik Jansson, Associate Professor of Mathematics at Mälardalen University, affiliated researcher at the Centre for Cultural Evolution at Stockholm University and the Institute for Futures Studies, and lead author of the study.
Care and fairness are shared moral foundations
The study builds on a particular result from Moral Foundations Theory, which distinguishes between individualising foundations (care/harm and fairness/cheating) and, so called, binding foundations (loyalty, authority and sanctity). Previous research suggests that liberals place particular emphasis on care and fairness, while conservatives also place relatively greater emphasis on loyalty, authority, and sanctity—yet still endorse care and fairness as morally important.
The new study tests whether this pattern also holds in practice when people take positions on concrete political and moral issues, potentially offering a key to understanding what persuades different political groups.
The findings of the study
In an experiment, 375 US participants reported their moral values and political attitudes. They then stated their positions on nine contested issues, for example, hate speech, military spending, universal healthcare, suicide, and same-sex marriage. Participants next read short arguments supporting particular positions, framed either in individualising terms or binding terms, and then stated their positions again.
As expected, binding arguments led conservative participants to change their minds, but had no effect on liberal participants. Individualising arguments, however, persuaded participants on both sides – and were not less persuasive for conservatives than binding arguments. The results suggest that care and fairness function as shared moral foundations across political divides, meaning that different groups can, to some extent, be swayed by the same kinds of moral appeals.
The researchers also found that these effects are better explained by participants’ moral value profiles than by their political labels. The more important someone considers for instance impartial treatment, the more receptive they are to fairness-based arguments; and the more important someone considers, for instance, obedience and respect for legitimate authority, the more receptive they are to authority-based arguments.
– Our values act as filters. Arguments that don’t fit are filtered out, while those that connect to what already exists in our belief system get through and can force a reassessment, says Fredrik Jansson.
One example is same-sex marriage. Someone who prioritises care and fairness may find it difficult to dismiss arguments about equal rights. Someone who prioritises tradition, social order, and stability may instead be influenced by arguments that inclusion of more groups of people strengthens marriage as a societal institution.
Arguments that clash with our core values can often be rejected immediately. But when an argument for a position we initially dislike is framed in terms of our own moral foundations – such as care and fairness, or tradition and social stability – it becomes harder to ignore. That creates dissonance, which is often resolved more easily by adjusting one’s opinion than by questioning one’s underlying values.
Why values drift in a more progressive direction
The findings offer one piece of the puzzle for why moral values in many countries – despite political polarisation – often shift over time in a more liberal and socially progressive direction.
– There’s a built-in moral asymmetry in public debate: arguments about care and fairness can sway both liberals and conservatives, whereas more conservative, binding arguments mostly persuade those who are already conservative. Over time, that imbalance produces a net shift towards more progressive positions, says Pontus Strimling, researcher at the Institute for Futures Studies and co-author of the article.
Read the research article
The article “Susceptibility to Moral Arguments Among Liberals and Conservatives” is published in Public Opinion Quarterly (Oxford University Press).
DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfaf045
Method of Research
Experimental study
Subject of Research
People
No comments:
Post a Comment