The connection between moral positions and moral arguments drives opinion change

Abstract

Liberals and conservatives often take opposing positions on moral issues. But what makes a moral position liberal or conservative? Why does public opinion tend to become more liberal over time? And why does public opinion change especially fast on certain issues, such as gay rights? We offer an explanation based on how different positions connect with different kinds of moral arguments. Based on a formal model of opinion dynamics, we predicted that positions better connected to harm and fairness arguments will be more popular among liberals and will become more popular over time among liberals and conservatives. Finally, the speed of this trend will be faster the better the position connects to harm and fairness arguments. These predictions all held with high accuracy in 44 years of polling on moral opinions. The model explains the connection between ideology and moral opinions, and generates precise predictions for future opinion change.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Position is the main factor in the applicability of arguments.
Fig. 2: How liberal and conservative opinions move in the model.
Fig. 3: How opinion has changed towards positions that are more connected to harm and fairness arguments.
Fig. 4: The correlation between the harm–fairness connection advantage and change in public opinion.
Fig. 5: Example of a question used to measure the connection between a position and moral foundation arguments.

Data availability

The MTurk data are available at https://github.com/irinavrt/moralopinion. The GSS data are available at http://gss.norc.org.

Code availability

All codes used to reproduce the results of this paper are available at https://github.com/irinavrt/moralopinion.

References

  1. 1.

    Hunter, J. D. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Control the Family, Art, Education, Law, and Politics in America (Basic Books, 1992).

  2. 2.

    Ansolabehere, S., Rodden, J. & Snyder, J. M. The strength of issues: using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102, 215–232 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Treier, S. & Hillygus, D. S. The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opin. Q. 73, 679–703 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Inglehart, R. Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton Univ. Press, 1990).

  5. 5.

    Mulligan, K., Grant, T. & Bennett, D. The dynamics of public opinion on cultural policy issues in the US, 1972–2010. Polit. Behav. 35, 807–829 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Costain, A. N. & Majstorovic, S. Congress, social movements and public opinion: multiple origins of women’s rights legislation. Polit. Res. Q. 47, 111–135 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Pollock, P. H. Issues, values, and critical moments—did ‘Magic’ Johnson transform public-opinion on AIDS? Am. J. Polit. Sci. 38, 426 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Schram, W. E. The process and Effects of Mass Communication (University of Illinois Press, 1954).

  9. 9.

    Inglehart, R. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural, Economic, and Political Change in 43 Societies (Princeton University Press, 1997).

  10. 10.

    Kilburn, H. W. Personal values and public opinion. Soc. Sci. Q. 90, 868–885 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Hayes, B. C. Religious identification and moral attitudes: the British case. Br. J. Sociol. 46, 457–474 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Graham, J., Haidt, J. & Nosek, B. A. Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 96, 1029 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Haidt, J. & Graham, J. When morality opposes justice: conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Soc. Justice Res. 20, 98–116 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Culhane, J. G. Uprooting the arguments against same-sex marriage. Cardozo Rev. 20, 1119 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Smith, T. W., Marsden, P. V., Hout, M. & Kim, J. General Social Surveys, 1972–2016 [Machine-readable data file] (National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, 2017).

  16. 16.

    Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H. & Haidt, J. Tracing the threads: how five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. J. Res. Personal. 46, 184–194 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Day, M. V., Fiske, S. T., Downing, E. L. & Trail, T. E. Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 1559–1573 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychol. Sci. 24, 56–62 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Feinberg, M. & Willer, R. From gulf to bridge: when do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 41, 1665–1681 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Clifford, S. & Jerit, J. How words do the work of politics: moral foundations theory and the debate over stem cell research. J. Polit. 75, 659–671 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Clifford, S., Jerit, J., Rainey, C. & Motyl, M. Moral concerns and policy attitudes: investigating the influence of elite rhetoric. Polit. Commun. 32, 229–248 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Eriksson, K. & Strimling, P. Group differences in broadness of values may drive dynamics of public opinion on moral issues. Math. Soc. Sci. 77, 1–8 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Strimling, P., de Barra, M. & Eriksson, K. Asymmetries in punishment propensity may drive the civilizing process. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 148 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Boyd, R., Gintis, H., Bowles, S. & Richerson, P. J. The evolution of altruistic punishment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 100, 3531–3535 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Azar, O. H. Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 65, 420–435 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Baldassarri, D. & Gelman, A. Partisans without constraint: political polarization and trends in American public opinion. Am. J. Sociol. 114, 408–446 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J. & Pope, J. C. Culture war? Myth of the Polarized America (Longman Pearson, 2005).

  28. 28.

    Graham, J. et al. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47, 55–130 (Elsevier, 2013).

  29. 29.

    Shweder, R. A. Thinking Through Cultures: Expeditions in Cultural Psychology. (Harvard University Press, 1991).

  30. 30.

    Graham, J. et al. Mapping the moral domain. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 101, 366 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Van Leeuwen, F., Koenig, B. L., Graham, J. & Park, J. H. Moral concerns across the United States: associations with life-history variables, pathogen prevalence, urbanization, cognitive ability, and social class. Evol. Hum. Behav. 35, 464–471 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Van Leeuwen, F., Park, J. H., Koenig, B. L. & Graham, J. Regional variation in pathogen prevalence predicts endorsement of group-focused moral concerns. Evol. Hum. Behav. 33, 429–437 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Inglehart, R. & Baker, W. E. Modernization, cultural change, and the persistence of traditional values. Am. Sociol. Rev. 65, 19–51 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Inglehart, R. & Norris, P. Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide. Cambridge Studies in Social Theory, Religion, and Politics (Cambridge University Press Cambridge, 2011).

  35. 35.

    Andersen, R. & Fetner, T. Economic inequality and intolerance: attitudes toward homosexuality in 35 democracies. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 52, 942–958 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P. & Haidt, J. Understanding libertarian morality: the psychological dispositions of self-identified libertarians. PloS One 7, e42366 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T. & Gosling, S. D. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 6, 3–5 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Casler, K., Bickel, L. & Hackett, E. Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Comput. Hum. Behav. 29, 2156–2160 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Paolacci, G., Chandler, J. & Ipeirotis, P. G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 5, 411–419 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Dance, A. News Feature: How online studies are transforming psychology research. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 112, 14399–14401 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Stoffel, M. A., Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. rptR: repeatability estimation and variance decomposition by generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 8, 1639–1644 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. Repeatability for Gaussian and non-Gaussian data: a practical guide for biologists. Biol. Rev. 85, 935–956 (2010).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Nakagawa, S. & Schielzeth, H. A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods Ecol. Evol. 4, 133–142 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation grants 2015.0005 and 2017.0167. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

F.J. and P.S. designed the MTurk study and collected the data, which I.V. analysed. K.E. and P.S. designed and analysed the formal model. I.V. managed and analysed the GSS data with input from K.E. and P.S. I.V. produced the figures. P.S., K.E. and I.V. wrote the paper. F.J. edited the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pontus Strimling.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Primary Handling Editor: Mary Elizabeth Sutherland.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods 1, Supplementary Results 1 and 2, Supplementary Figs. 1–5 and Supplementary Table 1

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strimling, P., Vartanova, I., Jansson, F. et al. The connection between moral positions and moral arguments drives opinion change. Nat Hum Behav 3, 922–930 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0647-x

Download citation

Further reading