Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign

M. Brandt, D.C. Wisneski, L.J. Skitka

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

181 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Keywords: moral conviction; affect; hostility; enthusiasm; political psychology
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)211-237
JournalJournal of Social and Political Psychology
Volume3
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Fingerprint

election campaign
presidential election
candidacy
political psychology
Hostility
election

Cite this

Brandt, M. ; Wisneski, D.C. ; Skitka, L.J. / Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign. In: Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2015 ; Vol. 3, No. 2. pp. 211-237.
@article{0d4c32cfabc142dbbbcb051bb7861424,
title = "Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign",
abstract = "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.Keywords: moral conviction; affect; hostility; enthusiasm; political psychology",
author = "M. Brandt and D.C. Wisneski and L.J. Skitka",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.5964/jspp.v3i2.434",
language = "English",
volume = "3",
pages = "211--237",
journal = "Journal of Social and Political Psychology",
issn = "2195-3325",
publisher = "PsychOpen",
number = "2",

}

Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign. / Brandt, M.; Wisneski, D.C.; Skitka, L.J.

In: Journal of Social and Political Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 2, 2015, p. 211-237.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign

AU - Brandt, M.

AU - Wisneski, D.C.

AU - Skitka, L.J.

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - 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.Keywords: moral conviction; affect; hostility; enthusiasm; political psychology

AB - 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.Keywords: moral conviction; affect; hostility; enthusiasm; political psychology

UR - http://hdl.handle.net/10411/20643

U2 - 10.5964/jspp.v3i2.434

DO - 10.5964/jspp.v3i2.434

M3 - Article

VL - 3

SP - 211

EP - 237

JO - Journal of Social and Political Psychology

JF - Journal of Social and Political Psychology

SN - 2195-3325

IS - 2

ER -