How perceived polarization predicts attitude moralization (and vice versa): A four-wave longitudinal study during the 2020 U.S. election

D'Amore, C., van Zomeren, M., & Koudenburg, N.

(2024). Journal of personality and social psychology,

126(4), 624–642.

https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000454

Abstract

Within structurally polarized and dynamic contexts, such as the U.S. 2020 presidential elections, the moralization of individuals' attitudes on a specific topic (e.g., climate policy) can dangerously escalate disagreements between groups into zero-sum conflict. However, limited knowledge exists regarding the factors that influence individuals' tendency to moralize their attitudes over time, and what the role of structural polarization is in this psychological process. Our objective is to test a theoretically integrative model of when and how perceived polarization is related to attitude moralization over time within the polarized context of the U.S. 2020 presidential elections and explore reciprocal feedback loops to understand the dynamic relationship between polarization and moralization over time. Our model predicts that, when repeatedly faced with outgroup expressions in the news, individuals' perceptions of polarization will predict within-person attitude moralization over time via strengthening their value-protective responses to these expressions (i.e., perceiving dyadic harm and experiencing negative moral emotions toward the outgroup). To test our model, we conducted a four-wave, 4-month longitudinal study among Biden supporters (N = 1,236) and Trump supporters (N = 617). The results of the within-person analyses generally supported the model's hypotheses across both samples and various attitude topics. Furthermore, cross-lagged structural equation models explored reciprocal influences, revealing positive feedback loops between structural polarization and attitude moralization over time. Our findings thus indicate that perceived polarization strengthens attitude moralization (and vice versa) over time-a dynamic process that helps to explain how nonmoralized conflict between groups can evolve into zero-sum conflict during periods of intense polarization.

Here is my interpretation of the study:

This research on the U.S. 2020 election campaign explored how people strengthen their moral beliefs over time in a polarized environment. They found that as individuals perceive more polarization and political homogeneity in their networks, they are more likely to develop strong moral convictions, especially when they see harm from the opposing political group and feel negative emotions towards them.

The study showed that increased perceptions of polarization lead to stronger moralization of attitudes across various topics. This process is reinforced over time by a feedback loop where perceived polarization and moralization influence each other. These findings were consistent among both Biden and Trump supporters.

In summary, the study confirms that polarization plays a crucial role in shaping strong moral attitudes, driving political engagement and conflict. This research highlights the need to understand the social factors that turn political disagreements into moral conflicts and suggests areas for future exploration.

Attitude Moralization Within Polarized Contexts: An Emotional Value-Protective Response to Dyadic Harm Cues

D’Amore, C., van Zomeren, M., & Koudenburg, N. 

(2021). Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211047375

Abstract

Polarization about societal issues involves attitudinal conflict, but we know little about how such conflict transforms into moral conflict. Integrating insights on polarization and psychological value protection, we propose a model that predicts when and how attitude moralization (i.e., when attitudes become grounded in core values) may be triggered and develops within polarized contexts. We tested this model in three experiments (total N = 823) in the context of the polarized Zwarte Piet (blackface) debate in the Netherlands. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) situational cues to dyadic harm in this context (i.e., an outgroup that is perceived as intentionally inflicting harm onto innocent victims) trigger individuals to moralize their relevant attitude, because of (b) emotional value-protective responses. Findings supported both hypotheses across different regional contexts, suggesting that attitude moralization can emerge within polarized contexts when people are exposed to actions by attitudinal opponents perceived as causing dyadic harm.

From the Discussion Section

Harm as dyadic

First, our findings suggest that a focus on dyadic harm may be key to understanding triggers for attitude moralization within polarized contexts. Although most researchers have assigned the general concept of harm a central role in theory on moral judgments (e.g., Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1965; Rozin & Singh, 1999; Turiel, 2006), no previous research on moralization has specifically focused on the dyadic element of harm within polarized contexts. The few empirical studies that examined the role of harm as a general (utilitarian) predictor in the process of attitude moralization about a polarized issue (Brandt et al., 2015; Wisneski & Skitka, 2017) did not find clear support for its predictive power. Interestingly, our consistent finding that strong cues to dyadic harm served as a situational trigger for attitude moralization adds to this literature by suggesting that for understanding moralization triggers within polarized contexts, it is important to understand when people perceive harm as more dyadic (in this case, when a concrete outgroup is perceived as intentionally harming innocent [ingroup] victims). Indeed, we suggest that, in polarized contexts at least, harm could trigger attitude moralization when it is perceived to be dyadic—that is, intentionally harmful. This implies that researchers interested in predicting attitude moralization within polarized contexts should consider conceptualizing and measuring harm as dyadic.

The research is here.