+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Moralization and the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Campaign


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          People vary in the extent to which they imbue an attitude with moral conviction; however, little is known about what makes an issue transform from a relatively non-moral preference to a moral conviction. In the context of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, we test if affect and beliefs (thoughts about harms and benefits) are antecedents or consequences of participants’ moral conviction about their candidate preferences, or are some combination of both. Using a longitudinal design in the run-up to the election, we find that, overall, affect is both an antecedent and consequence, and beliefs about harms and benefits are only consequences, of changes in moral conviction related to candidate preferences. The affect results were consistent across liberals, conservatives, and moderates; however, the role of beliefs showed some differences between ideologues (liberals and conservatives) and moderates.

          Related collections

          Most cited references68

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment.

          Research on moral judgment has been dominated by rationalist models, in which moral judgment is thought to be caused by moral reasoning. The author gives 4 reasons for considering the hypothesis that moral reasoning does not cause moral judgment; rather, moral reasoning is usually a post hoc construction, generated after a judgment has been reached. The social intuitionist model is presented as an alternative to rationalist models. The model is a social model in that it deemphasizes the private reasoning done by individuals and emphasizes instead the importance of social and cultural influences. The model is an intuitionist model in that it states that moral judgment is generally the result of quick, automatic evaluations (intuitions). The model is more consistent that rationalist models with recent findings in social, cultural, evolutionary, and biological psychology, as well as in anthropology and primatology.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations.

              How and why do moral judgments vary across the political spectrum? To test moral foundations theory (J. Haidt & J. Graham, 2007; J. Haidt & C. Joseph, 2004), the authors developed several ways to measure people's use of 5 sets of moral intuitions: Harm/care, Fairness/reciprocity, Ingroup/loyalty, Authority/respect, and Purity/sanctity. Across 4 studies using multiple methods, liberals consistently showed greater endorsement and use of the Harm/care and Fairness/reciprocity foundations compared to the other 3 foundations, whereas conservatives endorsed and used the 5 foundations more equally. This difference was observed in abstract assessments of the moral relevance of foundation-related concerns such as violence or loyalty (Study 1), moral judgments of statements and scenarios (Study 2), "sacredness" reactions to taboo trade-offs (Study 3), and use of foundation-related words in the moral texts of religious sermons (Study 4). These findings help to illuminate the nature and intractability of moral disagreements in the American "culture war." Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                J Soc Polit Psych
                Journal of Social and Political Psychology
                J. Soc. Polit. Psych.
                26 October 2015
                : 3
                : 2
                : 211-237
                [a ]Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands
                [b ]Department of Psychology, Saint Peter’s University, Jersey City, NJ, USA
                [c ]Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
                [4]Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
                Author notes
                [* ]Department of Social Psychology, Tilburg University, P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg, 5000 LE, The Netherlands. m.j.brandt@ 123456tilburguniversity.edu

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                : 13 October 2014
                : 25 July 2015
                Self URI (journal-page): https://journals.psychopen.eu/
                Original Research Reports

                political psychology,moral conviction,affect,hostility,enthusiasm
                political psychology, moral conviction, affect, hostility, enthusiasm


                Comment on this article