Why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization: The role of self-persuasion

Abstract

This research is the first to examine the effects of moral versus practical pro-attitudinal advocacy in the context of self-persuasion. We validate a novel advocacy paradigm aimed at uncovering why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization. We investigate four distinct possibilities: (1) expression of moral foundational values (harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity), (2) reliance on moral systems (deontology and consequentialism), (3) expression of moral outrage, (4) increased confidence in one’s advocacy attempt. In Study 1 (N = 255) we find differences between moral and practical advocacy on the five moral foundations, deontology, and moral outrage. In Study 2 (N = 218) we replicate these differences, but find that only the expression of moral foundations is consequential in predicting attitude polarization. In Study 3 (N = 115) we replicate the effect of moral foundations on proselytization. Our findings suggest that practical compared to moral advocacy may attenuate polarization and proselytization. This carries implications for how advocacy can be re-framed in ways which minimize social conflict.

Interventions to reduce partisan animosity

“…Unfortunately, not many interventions focus on preparing participants for dialogue, and some of the ones that do fail to measure direct effects on partisan animosity. Dialogue trainings teach participants to intentionally inquire about their opponents' viewpoints [122][123][124], avoid moralizing language [125], focus on their personal experiences [18,84], use balanced pragmatism [115] and signal receptiveness to opposing views [114]. In at least some of these studies, preparing participants for constructive engagement not only made it more productive and enjoyable, but also increased positive perceptions of political opponents [18,84,123].…”

“…In at least some of these studies, preparing participants for constructive engagement not only made it more productive and enjoyable, but also increased positive perceptions of political opponents [18,84,123]. One useful strategy is to shift intentions away from persuasion toward understanding [125]. The Listen First Project iii , for example, promotes dialogue skills by helping their affiliates proactively seek to understand the other side rather than preach or proselytize to them.…”

Interventions to Reduce Partisan Animosity

“…Unfortunately, not many interventions focus on preparing participants for dialogue, and some of the ones that do fail to measure direct effects on partisan animosity. Dialogue trainings teach participants to intentionally inquire about their opponents' viewpoints [122][123][124], avoid moralizing language [125], focus on their personal experiences [18,84], use balanced pragmatism [115] and signal receptiveness to opposing views [114]. In at least some of these studies, preparing participants for constructive engagement not only made it more productive and enjoyable, but also increased positive perceptions of political opponents [18,84,123].…”