Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-xtvcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T08:31:17.509Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

22 - Moral Dimensions of Political Attitudes and Behavior

from Part V - Applications and Extensions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2025

Bertram Malle
Affiliation:
Brown University, Rhode Island
Philip Robbins
Affiliation:
University of Missouri
Get access

Summary

This chapter of the handbook discusses the moral dimensions of political attitudes and behavior. The authors argue that a person’s political views – both at the level of political ideology as a whole and views on specific matters of economic and social policy – are profoundly shaped by their beliefs about right and wrong. These political views in turn drive people’s political behavior, not just at the ballot box or on the campaign trail, but in the community more generally. One downside of the way in which moral convictions fuel political attitudes and behavior is that they tend to interfere with productive communication across partisan divides, fueling a kind of animosity that stifles cooperation and compromise. Divergence in people’s moral convictions, then, leads inexorably to political polarization and gridlock. To address this problem, the authors discuss a number of potentially promising interventions, some of which target individuals’ attitudes (e.g., promoting empathy, reducing negative stereotypes), and others that aim at improving the quality of interpersonal relationships (e.g., increasing contact, fostering dialogue across political divides).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. Journal of Politics, 80(3), 964981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 14231440.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bakker, B. N., Lelkes, Y., & Malka, A. (2021). Reconsidering the link between self-reported personality traits and political preferences. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 14821498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barber, M., McCarty, N., Mansbridge, J., & Martin, C. J. (2015). Causes and consequences of polarization. In Mansbridge, J. & Martin, C. J. (Eds.), Political negotiation: A handbook (pp. 3790). Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., Thompson, E. R., Seuferling, G., Whitney, H., & Strongman, J. A. (1999). Moral hypocrisy: Appearing moral to oneself without being so. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 525537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendersky, C. (2014). Resolving ideological conflicts by affirming opponents’ status: The Tea Party, Obamacare and the 2013 government shutdown. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 53, 163168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, R., Laurin, K., & Chiang, M. (2022). Who would mourn democracy? Liberals might, but it depends on who’s in charge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 779805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boxell, L., Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2024). Cross-country trends in affective polarization. Review of Economics and Statistics, 106(2), 557–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, W. J., & Crockett, M. J. (2019). How effective is online outrage? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(2), 7980.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(28), 73137318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, M. J., Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., Karapirinler, B., Van Leeuwen, F., Bender, M., van Osch, Y., & Adams, B. (2021). The association between threat and politics depends on the type of threat, the political domain, and the country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(2), 324343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clifford, S. (2020). Compassionate democrats and tough republicans: How ideology shapes partisan stereotypes. Political Behavior, 42(4), 12691293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clifford, S., Iyengar, V., Cabeza, R., & Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2015). Moral foundations vignettes: A standardized stimulus database of scenarios based on moral foundations theory. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 11781198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cole Wright, J., Cullum, J., & Schwab, N. (2008). The cognitive and affective dimensions of moral conviction: Implications for attitudinal and behavioral measures of interpersonal tolerance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(11), 14611476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crawford, J. T. (2017). Are conservatives more sensitive to threat than liberals? It depends on how we define threat and conservatism. Social Cognition, 35(4), 354373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, J. T., & Pilanski, J. M. (2014). Political intolerance, right and left. Political Psychology, 35(6), 841851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Critcher, C. R., Inbar, Y., & Pizarro, D. A. (2012). How quick decisions illuminate moral character. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 308315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crockett, M. J. (2017). Moral outrage in the digital age. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, 769771.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dehghani, M., Johnson, K., Hoover, J., Sagi, E., Garten, J., Parmar, N. J., Vaisey, S., Iliev, R., & Graham, J. (2016). Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(3), 366375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorison, C. A., Minson, J. A., & Rogers, T. (2019). Selective exposure partly relies on faulty affective forecasts. Cognition, 188, 98107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H., & Hewstone, M. (2017). Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: Twenty years of progress and future directions. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20(5), 606620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2022). (Mis) estimating affective polarization. Journal of Politics, 84(2), 11061117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dungan, J. A., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2019). The power of moral concerns in predicting whistleblowing decisions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, Article 103848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epley, N., Caruso, E., & Bazerman, M. H. (2006). When perspective taking increases taking: Reactive egoism in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 872889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Everett, J. A. C. (2013). The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLoS ONE, 8(12), Article e82131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, M., Wehling, E., Chung, J. M., Saslow, L. R., & Paulin, I. M. (2020). Measuring moral politics: How strict and nurturant family values explain individual differences in conservatism, liberalism, and the political middle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(4), 777804.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 5662.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), Article e12501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinberg, M., Willer, R., & Kovacheff, C. (2020). The activist’s dilemma: Extreme protest actions reduce popular support for social movements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(5), 10861111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, S. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 446466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernbach, P. M., & Van Boven, L. (2021). False polarization: Cognitive mechanisms and potential solutions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., Mason, L., McGrath, M.C., Nyhan, B., Rand, D. G., Skitka, L. J., Tucker, J., Van Bavel, J. J., Wang, C. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533536.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. (2017a). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganzach, Y., & Schul, Y. (2021). Partisan ideological attitudes: Liberals are tolerant; the intelligent are intolerant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 15511566.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gidron, N., Adams, J., & Horne, W. (2020). American affective polarization in comparative perspective. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, A., Abruzzo, J. M., Huang, Z., Schöne, J., Bailey, D., Willer, R., Halperin, E., & Gross, J. J. (2022). Homophily and acrophily as drivers of political segregation. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(2), 219230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S. P., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 10291046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., MacCormack, J. K., Henry, T., Banks, E., Schein, C., Armstrong-Carter, E., Abrams, S., & Muscatell, K. A. (2022). The affective harm account (AHA) of moral judgment: Reconciling cognition and affect, dyadic morality and disgust, harm and purity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 123(6), 11991222.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gray, K., & Schein, C. (2016). No absolutism here: Harm predicts moral judgment 30× better than disgust – Commentary on Scott, Inbar, & Rozin (2016). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 325329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J., Rosenberg, E., & Hom, H. (2003). Differentiating diversities: Moral diversity is not like other kinds. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Crabtree, C., & Smith, K. B. (2019). Ideology justifies morality: Political beliefs predict moral foundations. American Journal of Political Science, 63(4), 788806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C., Verhulst, B., Mcdermott, R., Nørgaard, A. S., Klofstad, C., Christensen, K., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., Eaves, L. J., & Martin, N. G. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavioral Genetics, 44(3), 282294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, R., Blakey, W., Womick, J., Bail, C., Finkel, E. J., Han, H., Sarrouf, J., Schroeder, J., Sheeran, P., Van Bavel, J. V., Willer, R., & Gray, K. (2022). Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(9), 11941205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, S., Yudkin, D., Juan-Torres, M., & Dixon, T. (2019). Hidden Tribes: A study of America’s polarized landscape [Report]. More in Common. https://hiddentribes.us/media/qfpekz4g/hidden_tribes_report.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heltzel, G., & Laurin, K. (2020). Polarization in America: Two possible futures. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 179184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Heltzel, G., & Laurin, K. (2021). Seek and ye shall be fine: Attitudes toward political-perspective seekers. Psychological Science, 32(11), 17821800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hibbing, J. R., Smith, K. B., & Alford, J. R. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hillman, J. G., Fowlie, D. I., & MacDonald, T. K. (2022). Social verification theory: A new way to conceptualize validation, dissonance, and belonging. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 27(3), 309331.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogg, M. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussein, M. A., & Tormala, Z. L. (2021). Undermining your case to enhance your impact: A framework for understanding the effects of acts of receptiveness in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25(3), 229250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., & Haidt, J. (2012). Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(5), 537544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingraham, C. (2014, May 28). Congressional gridlock has doubled since the 1950s. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/05/28/congressional-gridlock-has-doubled-since-the-1950s/Google Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Hahn, K. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59(1), 1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 129146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, S., & Westwood, S. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PLoS ONE, 7(8), Article e42366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2013). Surveying the moral landscape. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17(3), 219236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janoff-Bulman, R., & Carnes, N. C. (2016). Social justice and social order: Binding moralities across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 11(3), Article e0152479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jones, D. R. (2015). Declining trust in Congress: Effects of polarization and consequences for democracy. Forum (Germany), 13(3), 375394.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2017). Ideological asymmetries and the essence of political psychology. Political Psychology, 38(2), 167208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judge, M., Fernando, J. W., & Begeny, C. T. (2022). Dietary behaviour as a form of collective action: A social identity model of vegan activism. Appetite, 168, Article 105730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (Eds.). (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalla, J. L., & Broockman, D. E. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmoe, N. P., & Mason, L. (2022). Radical American partisanship: Mapping violent hostility, its causes, and the consequences for democracy. University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kovacheff, C., Schwartz, S., Inbar, Y., & Feinberg, M. (2018). The problem with morality: Impeding progress and increasing divides. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kubin, E., Puryear, C., Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2021). Personal experiences bridge moral and political divides better than facts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(6), Article e2008389118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kugler, M., Jost, J. T., & Noorbaloochi, S. (2014). Another look at moral foundations theory: Do authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain liberal-conservative differences in “moral” intuitions? Social Justice Research, 27(4), 413431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lees, J., & Cikara, M. (2020). Inaccurate group meta-perceptions drive negative out-group attributions in competitive contexts. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(3), 279286.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levendusky, M. S. (2018). Americans, not partisans: Can priming American national identity reduce affective polarization? Journal of Politics, 80(1), 5970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, B., & Ditto, P. H. (2012). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4(3), 316323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malle, B. F., Voiklis, J., & Kim, B. (2018). Understanding contempt against the background of blame. In Mason, M. (Ed.), The moral psychology of contempt (pp. 79105). Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar
Marques, J. M., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(1), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, D. P., Albaugh, M., Farber, E., Daniels, J., Logan, R. L., & Olson, B. (2008). Family metaphors and moral intuitions: How conservatives and liberals narrate their lives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 978990.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCoy, J., Rahman, T., & Somer, M. (2018). Polarization and the global crisis of democracy: Common patterns, dynamics, and pernicious consequences for democratic polities. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(1), 1642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCoy, J., Simonovits, G., & Levente, L. (2020). Democratic hypocrisy: Polarized citizens support democracy-eroding behavior when their own party is in power. APSA Preprints.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), 344357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merritt, A. C., & Monin, B. (2011). The trouble with thinking: People want to have quick reactions to personal taboos. Emotion Review, 3(3), 318319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minson, J. A., & Dorison, C. A. (2022). Why is exposure to opposing views aversive? Reconciling three theoretical perspectives. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, Article 101435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore-Berg, S. L., Ankori-Karlinsky, L. O., Hameiri, B., & Bruneau, E. (2020). Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(26), 1486414872.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, G. S. (2011). Toward a model of morally motivated behavior: Investigating mediators of the moral conviction-action link [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Illinois at Chicago.Google Scholar
Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Oishi, S., Trawalter, S., & Nosek, B. A. (2014). How ideological migration geographically segregates groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 51, 114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Motyl, M., Prims, J. P., & Iyer, R. (2020). How ambient cues facilitate political segregation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(5), 723737.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neubaum, G., Cargnino, M., Winter, S., & Dvir-Gvirsman, S. (2021). “You’re still worth it”: The moral and relational context of politically motivated unfriending decisions in online networks. PLoS ONE, 16(1), Article e0243049.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751783.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pew Research Center. (2014, June 12). Political polarization in the American public [Report]. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/Google Scholar
Rhee, J. J., Schein, C., & Bastian, B. (2019). The what, how, and why of moralization: A review of current definitions, methods, and evidence in moralization research. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), Article e12511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robbins, P., & Shields, K. (2014). Explaining ideology: Two factors are better than one. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 326328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rodriguez, C. G., Moskowitz, J. P., Salem, R. M., & Ditto, P. H. (2017). Partisan selective exposure: The role of party, ideology and ideological extremity over time. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 254271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothschild, Z. K., & Keefer, L. A. (2017). A cleansing fire: Moral outrage alleviates guilt and buffers threats to one’s moral identity. Motivation and Emotion, 41(2), 209229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rozin, P. (1999). The process of moralization. Psychological Science, 10(3), 218221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sabucedo, J. M., Dono, M., Alzate, M., & Seoane, G. (2018). The importance of protesters’ morals: Moral obligation as a key variable to understand collective action. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sassenrath, C., Hodges, S. D., & Pfattheicher, S. (2016). It’s all about the self: When perspective taking backfires. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 405410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saveski, M., Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Vijayaraghavan, P., & Roy, D. (2021). Perspective-taking to reduce affective polarization on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:2110.05596.Google Scholar
Sawaoka, T., & Monin, B. (2018). The paradox of viral outrage. Psychological Science, 29(10), 16651678.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2015). The unifying moral dyad: Liberals and conservatives share the same harm-based moral template. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(8), 11471163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schein, C., & Gray, K. (2017). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 3270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J., Hanson, B. E., Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. C. (2021). The psychology of moral conviction. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 347366.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, L. J., Morgan, G. S., & Wisneski, D. C. (2015). Political orientation and moral conviction: A conservative advantage or an equal opportunity motivator of political engagement? In Forgas, J. P., Fiedler, K., & Crano, W. D. (Eds.), Social psychology and politics (pp. 5774). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Skitka, L. J., & Tetlock, P. E. (1993). Providing public assistance: Cognitive and motivational processes underlying liberal and conservative policy preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(6), 12051223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, B. G., Krishna, A., & Al-Sinan, R. (2019). Beyond slacktivism: Examining the entanglement between social media engagement, empowerment, and participation in activism. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 13(3), 182196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spring, V. L., Cameron, C. D., & Cikara, M. (2018). The upside of outrage. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(12), 10671069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ståhl, T., Zaal, M. P., & Skitka, L. J. (2016). Moralized rationality: Relying on logic and evidence in the formation and evaluation of belief can be seen as a moral issue. PLoS ONE, 11(11), Article e0166332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stanley, M. L., Whitehead, P. S., Sinnott-Armstrong, W., & Seli, P. (2020). Exposure to opposing reasons reduces negative impressions of ideological opponents. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 91, Article 104030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the unthinkable: Sacred values and taboo cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320324.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective‐taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8(7), 374387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tracy, J. L., Steckler, C. M., & Heltzel, G. (2019). The physiological basis of psychological disgust and moral judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 116(1), 1532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ugarriza, J. E., & Nussio, E. (2017). The effect of perspective-giving on postconflict reconciliation. An experimental approach. Political Psychology, 38(1), 319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 479491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., Spears, R., & Bettache, K. (2011). Can moral convictions motivate the advantaged to challenge social inequality? Extending the social identity model of collective action. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14(5), 735753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viciana, H., Hannikainen, I. R., & Gaitán Torres, A. (2019). The dual nature of partisan prejudice: Morality and identity in a multiparty system. PLoS ONE, 14(7), Article e0219509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelkel, J. G., Ren, D., & Brandt, M. J. (2021). Inclusion reduces political prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 95, Article 104149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voelkel, J. G., Chu, J., Stagnaro, M. N., Mernyk, J. S., Redekopp, C., Pink, S. L., Druckman, J. N., Rand, D. G., & Willer, R. (2023). Interventions reducing affective polarization do not necessarily improve anti-democratic attitudes. Nature Human Behaviour, 7(1), 5564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vorauer, J. (2013). The case for and against perspective-taking. In Olson, J. M. & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 59115). Elsevier Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wang, Y. A., & Todd, A. R. (2020). Evaluations of empathizers depend on the target of empathy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(5), 10051028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
White, S., Schroeder, J., & Risen, J. L. (2021). When “enemies” become close: Relationship formation among Palestinians and Jewish Israelis at a youth camp. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(1), 7694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, M., & Petty, R. E. (2021). Two-sided messages promote openness for morally based attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(8), 11511166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, J. H., Rojas, H., Wojcieszak, M., Aalberg, T., Coen, S., Curran, J., Hayashi, K., Iyengar, S., Jones, P. K., Mazzoleni, G., Papathanassopoulos, S., Rhee, J. W., Rowe, D., Soroka, S., & Tiffen, R. (2016). Why are “others” so polarized? Perceived political polarization and media use in 10 countries. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21(5), 349367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeomans, M. (2021). The straw man effect: Partisan misrepresentation in natural language. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 25(2), 19041927.Google Scholar
Yeomans, M., Minson, J., Collins, H., Chen, F., & Gino, F. (2020). Conversational receptiveness: Improving engagement with opposing views. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 131148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaal, M. P., Van Laar, C., Ståhl, T., Ellemers, N., & Derks, B. (2011). By any means necessary: The effects of regulatory focus and moral conviction on hostile and benevolent forms of collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(4), 670689.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×