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

Chantal D’Amore,Martijn Van Zomeren,Namkje Koudenburg

doi:10.1177/01461672211047375

Chantal D’Amore, Martijn Van Zomeren + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672211047375

Copy DOI

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.

Highlights

Polarization in society implies that different people or groups have conflicting attitudes about political issues
Many have suggested that attitude moralization does not emerge in a social vacuum (Brady et al, 2017; Ellemers et al, 2019; Mooijman et al, 2018; Schein, 2020; van Zomeren, 2016), relatively little is known about the situational cues that may trigger it within polarized contexts, and the psychological process that may explain its emergence (e.g., Skitka et al, 2018)
We propose a theoretical model that predicts that individual-level moralization may be triggered within polarized contexts when situational cues from a concrete outgroup signal their intention to inflict harm on relevant others, thereby evoking valueprotective emotions (Tetlock et al, 2000) that push relevant attitudes into the moral domain

Summary

Introduction

Polarization in society implies that different people or groups have conflicting attitudes about political issues. Competition between different ideas in society is important to democratic progress and decision-making (Finkel et al, 2020), attitudinal conflicts in society sometimes intensify and escalate, in particular when they transform into moral conflict (Kovacheff et al, 2018; Mooijman et al, 2018; Skitka & Morgan, 2014; Zaal et al, 2011) When both groups in conflict define their position on a political issue in terms of absolute moral “right” versus “wrong” (i.e., as a moral conviction), they tend to proactively stand up, or reactively fight, for what (they believe) is of fundamental moral value (Skitka, 2010), with little room for compromises on both sides (e.g., Skitka, 2002; Tetlock et al, 2000; Zaal et al, 2011). We assume that the psychological process of attitude moralization on both sides of the debate reflects such a shift from attitudinal to moral conflict

Objectives

Results

Discussion

Conclusion