Susceptibility to Moral Arguments Among Liberals and Conservatives.

An empirical result in Moral Foundations Theory is that liberals and progressives endorse the individualizing factors of care and fairness, while conservatives claim that the binding factors of authority, loyalty, and purity are equally relevant when determining what is moral. Does this translate into persuasiveness of arguments and opinion change? We here test the hypothesis that conservatives can be swayed by binding moral arguments, while everyone is susceptible to individualizing moral arguments. Using a classic experimental design (N = 375) where respondents are given moral arguments for a position in nine moral issues, we find support for this hypothesis. In line with motivational matching, the moral foundation support of respondents predicts the type of arguments to which they are susceptible. Along with previous studies on which type of moral argument supports which moral position in the public debate, these findings provide a mechanistic explanation for public opinion change, and in particular for the observation that moral values are becoming more liberal and progressive across the board. Although people tend to be resistant to belief revision, their opinions on politically polarized issues can change when arguments match their beliefs, reflected in their ideology.