Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2015 Dec;41(12):1665-81. doi: 10.1177/0146167215607842. Epub 2015 Oct 7.

From gulf to bridge: when do moral arguments facilitate political influence?

Author information

1
University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada Matthew.Feinberg@rotman.utoronto.ca.
2
Stanford University, CA, USA.

Abstract

Much of contemporary American political rhetoric is characterized by liberals and conservatives advancing arguments for the morality of their respective political positions. However, research suggests such moral rhetoric is largely ineffective for persuading those who do not already hold one's position because advocates advancing these arguments fail to account for the divergent moral commitments that undergird America's political divisions. Building on this, we hypothesize that (a) political advocates spontaneously make arguments grounded in their own moral values, not the values of those targeted for persuasion, and (b) political arguments reframed to appeal to the moral values of those holding the opposing political position are typically more effective. We find support for these claims across six studies involving diverse political issues, including same-sex marriage, universal health care, military spending, and adopting English as the nation's official langauge. Mediation and moderation analyses further indicated that reframed moral appeals were persuasive because they increased the apparent agreement between the political position and the targeted individuals' moral values.

KEYWORDS:

empathy; influence; moral psychology; political polarization; political psychology

PMID:
26445854
DOI:
10.1177/0146167215607842
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center