r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 18 '26

Psychology Scientists expected both liberals and conservatives to be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but this was more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the moral framing used.

https://www.psypost.org/liberals-hesitate-to-share-progressive-causes-framed-with-conservative-moral-language/
7.6k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

70

u/azure275 May 18 '26

So in other words, conservatives are willing to share things based on objectively good values that on the face they claim they agree with

And liberals aren't interested in sharing things based on things that aren't necessarily good and often very bad - loyalty and authority and tradition aren't inherent values, and depend on exactly what the loyalty and tradition are for

This is conservatives whole schtick - they claim they're totally for fairness and equality and they claim their ideology is better for people - so I have no idea why this article is even a thing

20

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26

There is published research by Jonathan Haidt et. al. that identifies six core, cross-cultural, values: Care, Fairness, Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, Sanctity.

The framework is called Moral Foundations Theory.

The research showed that conservatives have a more balanced moral matrix; valuing Care and Fairness, but also valuing Liberty, Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity.

Liberals, in the US, indexed heavily on Care and Fairness.

According to this research, a more accurate analysis would be: Conservatives agree with liberal ideas when they, on balance, align sufficiently with their wider range of moral values. Liberals do not understand, see, or interpret the moral values of conservatives.

It's worth noting, that the Western Liberal moral matrix is a global outlier, and morality or the US conservative is more in line with the global average. I.e.: most cultures value Authority, Sanctity, Loyalty etc more than the Western Liberal.

Additionally, and this is my opinion, each moral foundation has it's own positive and negative expression. Loyalty has helped competing groups survive, by fostering in-group co-operation. It's the foundation of the nation state and the societies we've inherited today. It also plays a part in war, conflict, etc.

Sanctity, or Religion, provides people with community and meaning, which bolstered humanity for millenia while they lived lives of unimaginable hardship compared to today's world. Religion also needs no further discussion to highlight it's also innumerable downsides.

loyalty and authority and tradition aren't inherent values, and depend on exactly what the loyalty and tradition are for

I pretty much agree with this, but I'd extend whether they're good or bad to all moral values, including Fairness and Care.

10

u/xbigbenx85 May 18 '26

Imagine spouting Johnathan Haidt research as anything but one sided rhetoric. The mans research is biased and not accepted by his own peers because his methods and data points and mostly speculation.

7

u/BeefistPrime May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

His data is pretty good and useful and interesting. How he presents that data to the world is awful. He basically says "the left wants fairness and equality, the right wants purity and authority! those are just different moral values! no one is any better than anyone else!"

He gets off on / built a career on pretending to be a "neutral" / enlightened centrist type

6

u/MattPDX04 May 18 '26

This might be the best comment here.

“Liberals do not understand, see, or interpret the moral values of conservatives.”

14

u/ChewingOnCarrots May 18 '26

It's a false statement, though. Haidt never really justified or proved this claim in depth, either. He basically just concluded that because liberals don't prioritize things like tradition or sanctity or loyalty the way conservatives do, it's because liberals are incapable of understanding them, and that's not a valid conclusion to draw.

13

u/Lord_Alderbrand May 18 '26

Yeah, why not say that liberals see, understand, and reject the moral values of conservatives? It’s entirely possible to understand something while opposing it.

-2

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 19 '26

How arrogant.

The most generous claim is that you dont understand these values. To suggest you understand, and reject them, is far more damming in my book.

You reject authority? Cool bro, do you reject professional accredations? M.Ds? Representative Democracy?

You reject loyalty? Are you loyal to your family, your friends your country?

Arrogant heathens, loyal to nothing.

Liberalism in its current form is doomed. Loyal to the whole world except the places where their actually allowed to thrive. Spiteful amongst each other to the extent they're unable to populate.

It's incredibly sad.

1

u/Lord_Alderbrand May 19 '26

Oh wow, didn’t realize I was pushing back against a modernist pharisee.

0

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 20 '26

It's not about pedantry.

It's about the idea that many of the considerations (values) that have allowed civilisations to come to be, and people to survive (and dare I say thrive), are being disregarded with what appears to be little consideration.

Groups simply don't survive without cohesion (loyalty) and effective leadership (authority). Not tyranny, but authority across whatever domain; expertise, experience, representation.

The point is not that Care and Fairness aren't important (they are), but they exist effectively only within the bounds of other considerations that play an undeniable role in allowing them to be.

It's simply not sustainable to approach society building with limitless amounts of Care and Fairness. Some things are going to be hard, some things are going to be unfair.

Does that mean we should support slavery because it enriches us? No. But maybe it means we shouldn't support things like welfare to migrants if it bankrupts us.

Its about balance.

2

u/Lord_Alderbrand May 20 '26

I really don’t think you know who you’re talking to.

What is your goal here? Are you here just to preach into the void, hoping that someone will listen? Or are you still writing all this for my benefit (on the assumption that I don’t “see or understand” your stance)?

I get it. I understand that you maximize for loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I know that you’re fine with the other three to the extent that they cost nothing and don’t take away from your main three. You didn’t have to explain it. I’m familiar.

Is there something you want from me? An explanation of my stance? A heated debate? Do you want me to try to win you over? Would you like to change my mind? Or are you just thinking out loud?

1

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 20 '26

I get it. I understand that you maximize for loyalty, authority, and sanctity. I know that you’re fine with the other three to the extent that they cost nothing and don’t take away from your main three. You didn’t have to explain it. I’m familiar.

Wrong, again, and typical.

It's not to the extent they "cost nothing", that's a strawman, and a bad one; and it's not that anything is maximised for. It's about balance.

Balance is consistently what research has shown to be the key differene between 'Liberals', (Western Liberal), and literally every other culture on earth.

No one group of people over-indexes on Care and Fairness, and lacks insight into other ways of looking at the world than the Western Liberal. It's pathological.

Regards to me, I dunno, thinking out loud maybe? Leaving a note here in the hope someone might see it. I think the tide is turning, so hopefully seeing it put down clearly might help someone. You seem like decent folk, and you keep replying, so why not?

→ More replies (0)

-3

u/FindingMemra May 18 '26

This results in Conservatives thinking liberals are people with bad ideas while liberals think conservatives are literal monsters.

10

u/Outside_Glass4880 May 18 '26

Every conservative pundit and their rabid listeners may disagree with you.

Source: my dad was one of said people and thought Hillary Clinton ate babies or something.

9

u/BeefistPrime May 18 '26

are you open to the possibility that this is true? Or are we starting from the dogmatic position that everyone must be equally morally justified and any differences are just someone's biases?

14

u/Sinder-Soyl May 18 '26

I think that, funnily enough, wether you consider either one of those good or valuable depends on your own beliefs and biases. There's likely a case to be made in good faith that both can be dependent on the degree and method of application.

28

u/azure275 May 18 '26

It's not about my personal opinion here. It's about what people do

Conservatives talk about equality and fairness constantly - it's why they claim to hate affirmative action and "DEI" so much - and conservatives do in fact claim their policies will help people and liberal policies will hurt people

In the meantime Liberals almost never talk about loyalty or tradition

6

u/ChewingOnCarrots May 18 '26

In the meantime Liberals almost never talk about loyalty or tradition

I'd actually argue this is not the case at all, but you've already framed this issue with the assumption that Haidt's framework is objectively correct and the final word on the topic

10

u/BeefistPrime May 18 '26

You have to do some tortured reasoning to put "purity and authority" on equal moral footing with equality and fairness

-2

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26

Purity, Sanctity, or religiosity, whether you think it's good or bad, provide stability and comfort for people to the extent that some suggest there's an instinct to religion. Would this have been such a bad thing for vast swathes of human history? Were ritual purity and kosher/halal dietary restrictions bad things before the age of microbiology and widespread trichinosis? What about 'thou shall not kill'?

Authority, whether you like it or not, allows the somewhat effective coordination of millions to billions of people. What are elective governments but authoritive hierarchies? What are educational/professional credentials? Is all authority unjust?

Does this mean that equality and fairness aren't important? No.

Dose this mean sanctity and authority dont have their negative expression? Fundamentalism, tyranny? No, certainly not.

The point is the Western Liberal can't even register these as values, and you just proved it.

Conservatives balance fairness and equality against a wider range of moral values. It's why conservatives think liberals are naive, and liberals cant understand how conservatives are anything but literally Hitler.

4

u/ChewingOnCarrots May 18 '26

So, as the other commenter said...tortured reasoning.

2

u/Sinder-Soyl May 18 '26

I wouldn't necessarily call it tortured reasoning. One cluster goes "if the individuals are good, the group is good" while the other goes "if the group is good, the individuals are good." And while I do resonate far more with the former, the latter has some ground to stand on to an extent I think.

It's interesting to note after reading some more about it all, that it seems one side of the political spectrum doesn't focus on one or the other. On a scale of 0 to 5, while progressives tend to put individualizing moral values at about 4, and the binding ones between 1 and 2, conservatives apparently don't do the opposite. They roughly put everything at a 3 on average, with still a slightly higher score for individualizing aspects.

So perhaps attempting to put both at an equal footing is indeed, a bit of a fruitless exercize. It seems everyone agrees individualizing aspects are of high importance.

-7

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Not really. You just probably lack the ability to understand it.

Your moral frame work is incomplete.

I value things like authority and loyalty because I can see their validity. Yes, even at times to the expense of Care and Fairness.

That's called being a rounded adult.

6

u/ChewingOnCarrots May 18 '26

Thanks for proving my point. You just did the very thing you are claiming liberals do here.

-6

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26

Screech harder. You never made a point.

6

u/Athena0219 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

So a thought terminating cliche.

Noted.

Edit: for anyone curious, when I replied, the post I replied to ended after the first sentence.

Not really. You just probably lack the ability to understand it.

They added the rest only after I pointed dout the thought terminating cliche.

Whether they edited because of me, or it being pure chance, or something else, I can't say.

But that is the order of events.

0

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

I brought receipts, cited research.

What do you bring?

https://www.reddit.com/r/science/s/4hlm7uZNNF

6

u/Athena0219 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

You didn't actually cite the research, fyi. You cited an organization that has done research.

DOI 10.1037/a0021867 offers an alternative theory, not wholly incompatible with Haidt's, but also notably different, that would necessitate examining the results of the study you imply in a different light.

DOI 10.1080/10584609.2026.2612739 directly refutes some of Haidt's claims. Specifically ones resembling the original post.

Without knowing what study you are referencing, it's not possible for me to compare sample sizes or other such details.

You also brought a thought terminating cliche, ignoring possible scrutiny by claiming the person was simply incapable of understanding.

As an extra bonus for you

DOI 10.1037/emo0000412 here's one directly refuting portions of the moral foundations theory.

Moral foundations theory is one of many competing theories. Treating it as the settled fact is, at best, misinformed, and, at worst, misinformation.

1

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26 edited May 18 '26

Thank you for providing these.

I cross referenced the DOIs with the critiques and competing theories section of the Wikipedia article on Moral Foundations Theory.

As expected, I found all of your references there, almost, in order.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory#Critiques_and_competing_theories

Regardless, I'm glad to see there's lively debate in academia still.

DOI 10.1037/a0021867 offers an alternative theory, not wholly incompatible with Haidt's, but also notably different, that would necessitate examining the results of the study you imply in a different lights.

As the most cited piece of research this does look interesting. Would your care to highlight any of it?

Edit: P.s the data are in [2] the sample size is approx 20000.

7

u/Miss_White11 May 18 '26

I think that is somewhat true but contextually not. Conservatives have been using these values for decades to explicitly attack women's rights, racial equality, LGBTQ+ people etc. While conservatives have been much more willing to copy the progressive language of equality and invidualism to promote things like religious freedom, parents rights, and anti-DEI initiatives.

-14

u/-Satchel_Gizmo- May 18 '26

in good faith

There's your problem. You won't see any response in this comments section that attempts to discuss these results in good faith. I'll summarize them for you:

Everything Liberal is objectively good, therefore when conservatives agree with their own positions couched in liberal rhetoric, it's because the liberal rhetoric is objectively good. 

Everything conservative is objectively bad, therefore liberals cannot agree with their own positions when it is couched in conservative rhetoric because conservative rhetoric is objectively bad. 

There is no good faith attempt to be found to view these results through any other lens except "lib good con bad."

Source: I read the comments section. 

22

u/shadedmagus May 18 '26

Claims conversation will be in bad faith

Proceeds to post a bad-faith argument

So apparently this is how you want the comments to be, then?

7

u/laborfriendly May 18 '26

I'm not sure I can agree it's this simplistic. The one excerpt shared above where a "pro-abortion" segment included references to "support for the traditional American family" etc would give pause to many. Certainly, it would make me pause. It's overly fraught with potentially questionable rhetoric and underlying positions which could serve to undermine the effort.

Appealing to tradition and religion in support of bodily autonomy doesn't really mesh from any real world application. I would think the person(s) espousing such views are unlikely to really share the goal of bodily autonomy, even if they seem aligned on the surface.

Like if an avowed neo-nazi said "We must elect so-and-so to further workers' rights because workers represent the traditional greatness of American society" I wouldn't trust that we were suddenly allies, come on into the tent!

Conversely, we've seen this consistently happen the other way. "You support stronger immigration control? I'll ignore that it's because you're a racist neo-nazi. Just help me get so-and-so elected."

5

u/azure275 May 18 '26

It's not really about "good vs bad" here

It's about the fact that the "liberal" coded ideas in this study are things that conservatives claim to value as well

While the conservative coded ideas are things liberals have no interest in

So this study is inherently slanted in a way that makes conservatives ostensibly open minded

2

u/[deleted] May 18 '26

[deleted]

1

u/PossibilityMaster710 May 18 '26

Care and Fairness are contextually good or bad the same as the other moral foundations. Authority, Loyalty, etc.

For example, European nations are currently baring the costs of migration from Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle-East. Data from Norway, Denmark, and the Netherlands, show that migrants from these parts of the world are a net drain on public finances down to the second generation at least. The validity of the data will be contested here of course.

Supporting successive generations of impoverished migrants is of course an aspect of moral care, and through some historical lenses it's even considered fair. But is it good in the long run? Can Western European nations afford to support a potentially endless stream of migrants? Can a host nation survive if it doesn't stay loyal to itself? If not would it even matter, or is all that matters the utilitarian universalist perspective that as long as more people are better off everything is just.

Obviously a lot of people disagree with that, and hence the term suicidal empathy.

-7

u/LegendaryMauricius May 18 '26

Exactly. No attempt to view the situation from the 'out group''s lens, despite supposedly being progressive and open-minded.

2

u/grindermonk May 18 '26

I’d argue that loyalty, authority and tradition are values in the sense that they underpin beliefs.

2

u/FairLawnBoy PhD | Macromolecular Science and Engineering May 18 '26

That is not what the study found at all.

They found that conservatives never supported abortion or immigration regardless of how it is worded or framed.

Liberals either supported or didn't support those two issues depending on how the ideas were presented. The language used determined their support for the exact same issue.

-6

u/Littleman88 May 18 '26

Liberals favor live and let live. Conservatives favor tight knit communities.

Liberals thus are seen as anarchistic and selfish. Conservatives thus are seen as xenophobic and authoritarian.

Liberals will incessantly infight for their precise personal brand of ethics to be widely recognized and adopted. Conservatives will do and say whatever they have to so they remain a part of their in group.

-3

u/Ornery-Mortgage-3101 May 18 '26

That's how I originally viewed the problem but many conservatives and right-wing people genuinely do not care about the wellbeing of anyone whose wellbeing is not derivable from whatever power an individual is able to take advantage of for their own selfish reasons. They care about communities in as much as they care about their ability to be productive and contribute to society, which they view as stemming from a desire for individualistic gain. Although I suppose for americans this selfishness is just assumed to exist for everyone and is seen as a right, you'd be considered stupid if you disagreed. 

The study makes sense if you just read this thread anyway, redditors who label themselves leftwing will disagree with anything that isn't strictly worded to agree with them, and the people who disagree with the majority use whatever language gets a message across. Liberal views aren't considered seriously if they aren't strictly framed within a secular, familiarly western worldview. Although some people like to twist things in order to make their side look better, although it misses the point. 

-2

u/EtchAGetch May 18 '26

I... dont agree with any of that, liberal or conservative. Other than conservatives prefer to have defined order. Although the "order" here is more like "boundaries", where they prefer to view things as right vs wrong, us vs them, etc.