Cross-posted at Montclair SocioBlog.
You’re not going to persuade a conservative by appealing to liberal moral principles. Tell a Tea Party type that industrial waste harms the environment and should be regulated, you won’t get very far. But if you appeal to conservative moral principles, the story goes, you might have more luck.
I’ve been skeptical about Jonathan Haidt’s conservative moral principles — group loyalty, purity, and authority — mostly because they are used to justify practices I find wrong or immoral. Things like anti-gay legislation, torture, assassination, terrorism, etc.
But a recent experimental study by UC Berkeley’s Robb Willer shows that the right kind of persuasion can make conservatives a bit more leftist on the environment. In his study, participants read a pro-environmental message that was based either on “Harm/Care” (liberal logic) or on “Purity/Sanctity”(conservative logic) along with photos that matched the appeal.
- Harm/Care: A destroyed forest of tree stumps, a barren coral reef, and cracked land suffering from drought.
- Purity/Sanctity: A cloud of pollution looming over a city, a person drinking contaminated water, and a forest covered in garbage.
There was also a Neutral condition: “an apolitical message on the history of neckties.” (Willer has a fine sense of humor.)
Participants were then asked questions to determine their support for pro-environmental legislation.
For people who identified themselves as liberal, the type of material they saw — Harm, Purity, or Necktie — made no difference in their environmental position. Conservatives, as expected, were generally cooler to environmental legislation, but only in the Neutral and Harm conditions. Once they were shown the Purity materials, conservatives were as pro-environment as the liberals.
Other aspects of the conservative mind-set seem to go along with this emphasis on purity: simplicity rather than complexity and a lower tolerance of ambiguity. It’s a view that sees the need for clearly marked and rigidly enforced boundaries — the boundaries of the nation, the boundaries of the individual, the boundaries of cognitive categories.
Ultimately, the findings suggest that common ground between liberals and conservatives may not be as impossible to find as it may seem.
Jay Livingston is the chair of the Sociology Department at Montclair State University. You can follow him at Montclair SocioBlog or on Twitter.
Comments 15
ravencomeslaughing — February 18, 2013
I think you can also see it as the difference between altruistic global realization versus individualistic narcissism. Seeing a forest destroyed, a coral reef in danger, these imply that one should care about the environment for its own sake, for the future preservation of the whole planet. The contamination scenes are all about "oh my god, it's ruining everything for ME".
Shira Coffee — February 18, 2013
Not to be picky, but the scholar's name is Jonathan Haidt
Rishi — February 18, 2013
"Ultimately, the findings suggest that common ground between liberals and conservatives may not be as impossible to find as it may seem."
There is really a lot of common ground between liberals and conservatives already. They both basically agree that the state is powerful enough to do whatever it wants. They only disagree over what that power should be used for. Libertarians though, are a different breed entirely, believing that state power is limited.
Susan — February 19, 2013
This isn't new. George Lakoff has been writing about this for years. His book Moral Politics does an excellent job of explaining conservative and liberal moral principals.
Galen Brown — February 20, 2013
Another interesting finding here is the fact that both Liberals and Conservatives in this study can be seen to slightly _reduce_ their Proenvironmental Attitude relative to the control group when they receive the messaging that works for their counterparts.
That's assuming the result I'm seeing is statistically significant and real, of course. And it may not be. But it makes sense, especially in such a divisive debate. Recognizing the kind of argument likely to be made by your opponent is likely to make you assume that the argument is incorrect.
Oblivion_Necroninja — February 20, 2013
Wait...
So we have evidence that conservatives are, in fact, worse at using their brains?
...So can't we just cull 'em?
Jjok2R — February 21, 2013
It just confirms again that liberal thought is inherently inferior, it's all based on their feelings and morals instead of logic and competition.
The Sacred and The Profane: Sacred Values and Political Behavior | Money and Politics: A Love Story — March 3, 2013
[...] Recent research at Berkeley, covered by Lisa Wade over at Sociological Images, does show that if your messages resonate with the values Conservatives hold dear, rather than urging them to abandon those values to arrive at your own logical argument, we open up and can accept new information. And the good news, again according to Haidt, is that since Conservatives resonate with the entire spectrum of Moral Foundations, which means there is plenty of room for traction. [...]
Yuk! A Problem with Using Disgust to Engage Environmental Consciousness. | Eco-Critical Connections — August 10, 2013
[...] and purifying the environment” (Anwar). On the face of it, this sounds pretty good because, as Jay Livingston notes, “the findings suggest that common ground between liberals and conservatives may not be as [...]