In an increasingly polarized political landscape, a fascinating new study suggests there might be an unexpected force quietly nudging societies toward more progressive values. According to research published by scientists from Stockholm University, moral arguments based on “care” and “fairness” have a unique power—they can sway both liberals and conservatives, while arguments based on tradition and authority primarily appeal only to those already leaning right. This asymmetry in moral persuasion might explain why societies across the world, including the United States, gradually shift toward more socially progressive viewpoints over time, even in the face of intense political division.
The Hidden Power of Care and Fairness
The groundbreaking study, published in the Public Opinion Quarterly by researchers from Stockholm University, Mälardalen University, and the Institute for Futures Studies, reveals that not all moral arguments are created equal when it comes to changing minds. After surveying 375 participants on their political views and moral foundations, researchers presented them with arguments about nine controversial issues, including same-sex marriage, universal healthcare, and hate speech.
The arguments were carefully crafted to appeal to different “moral foundations”—a psychological framework developed by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt. The theory identifies five key foundations that guide human moral reasoning:
- Care/Harm: Concern for others’ wellbeing and protection from harm
- Fairness/Cheating: Justice, rights, and fair treatment
- Loyalty/Betrayal: Group solidarity and patriotism
- Authority/Subversion: Respect for leadership and tradition
- Sanctity/Degradation: Purity and sacredness
What the researchers discovered was striking. Arguments based on loyalty, authority, and sanctity—what they term “binding foundations”—only persuaded conservatives to shift their views. These arguments had no effect on liberals. However, arguments based on care and fairness—dubbed “individualizing foundations”—were effective at shifting opinions in both liberal and conservative participants.
Why This Matters
This asymmetry has significant implications for how societies evolve. As lead author Fredrik Jansson explained, “Arguments that connect to a receiver’s core moral values are far more likely to produce genuine opinion change.” Liberals and conservatives both value fairness and care, though they might express these values differently. Conservatives, however, also respond strongly to appeals based on loyalty, tradition, and sanctity—foundations that generally don’t move liberals at all.
Consider the issue of same-sex marriage. Someone who prioritizes care and fairness might find it difficult to dismiss arguments about equal rights. Meanwhile, someone who values tradition might be swayed by arguments that marriage strengthens societal institutions. But a fairness-based argument, while potentially moving both groups, is unlikely to convince someone focused on tradition to support a position they previously opposed.
Moral Foundations: The Key to Understanding Political Divisions
Moral Foundations Theory, first developed by Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues, has become one of the most influential frameworks for understanding political psychology. According to the theory, liberals tend to build their moral systems primarily on care and fairness, while conservatives draw more equally from all five foundations.
This explains why political debates can feel so frustrating for people on both sides of the aisle. As research has shown, liberals often stereotype conservatives as “uncaring,” failing to recognize that conservatives’ concerns about harm and fairness are balanced by other moral values like loyalty and respect for authority, according to Personality and Social Psychology research.
The Swedish research takes this understanding a step further by demonstrating that when moral arguments align with our core values, they become significantly harder to ignore. “Arguments that clash with our core values can often be rejected immediately,” notes Jansson. “But when an argument for a position we initially dislike is framed in terms of our own moral foundations, it becomes harder to ignore.”
The Progressive Drift Effect
These findings offer a powerful explanation for an observable trend: despite increasing political polarization, many societies continue to drift toward more socially progressive positions over time. “There’s a built-in moral asymmetry in public debate,” explains co-author Pontus Strimling. “Arguments about care and fairness can sway both liberals and conservatives, whereas more conservative, binding arguments mostly persuade those who are already conservative. Over time, that imbalance produces a net shift towards more progressive positions.”
This dynamic can be seen throughout recent history. Consider how arguments for civil rights, environmental protection, and healthcare access have often succeeded when framed around care for the vulnerable or fairness in treatment, rather than appeals to tradition or authority. While arguments rooted in these binding foundations certainly have their place in political discourse, they’re less likely to win converts from across the aisle.
This isn’t to say that binding foundation arguments are ineffective—they’re powerful within their target audience. A veteran might be deeply moved by appeals to loyalty and service, while a religious person might respond strongly to sanctity-based arguments. But these appeals typically reinforce existing beliefs rather than changing minds.
Practical Implications for Political Communication
For anyone engaged in political advocacy or public policy, these findings could be transformative. Campaigns and movements that frame their arguments around care and fairness might find broader appeal than those relying solely on tradition or authority. This doesn’t mean abandoning all appeals to conservative values, but rather understanding which arguments are most likely to bridge the political divide.
In practical terms, this might mean that effective persuasion often requires what researchers call “moral reframing”—presenting positions in ways that connect with the values of the intended audience. For example, arguments for environmental protection might emphasize stewardship and care for creation when speaking to religious communities, while highlighting fairness concerns like environmental justice when addressing liberal audiences.
Looking Forward: Beyond the Culture Wars
This research offers both hope and caution for democratic discourse. On one hand, it suggests that Americans (and citizens of other nations) aren’t as immovably entrenched as they might seem. There are shared moral foundations—particularly care and fairness—that provide common ground for meaningful dialogue.
On the other hand, the very asymmetry the study identifies might be contributing to rising frustrations on both sides of the political spectrum. Conservatives may feel that traditional moral foundations are being dismissed, while liberals might grow impatient with arguments that don’t seem to acknowledge shared values of fairness and concern for wellbeing.
Despite these challenges, the research provides a framework for better understanding political attitudes and societal change. As more studies build upon these findings, we might develop more effective approaches to political communication that recognize both our differences and our shared moral intuitions.
Understanding this moral asymmetry doesn’t require abandoning our deepest values—it invites us to communicate them more effectively. In a time when political dialogue often resembles two ships passing in the night, recognizing that care and fairness can serve as bridges between worldviews may be one of our most powerful tools for building a more unified society.
Sources:
Leave a Reply