Deep Alignment with Country Shrinks the Moral Gap Between Conservatives and Liberals
Abstract
Moral foundations theory suggests that relative to liberals, conservatives care more about values that are believed to bind group members together: loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation. In contrast, we propose that individuals who are deeply aligned (“fused”) with their group should display elevated commitment to group‐oriented moral values, regardless of their political orientation. The results of three studies supported this hypothesis. The tendency for conservatives to endorse the binding foundations more than liberals only emerged among weakly and moderately fused Americans. In fact, liberals strongly fused with the United States endorsed “binding” foundations more than average conservatives and to the same extent as strongly fused conservatives. These results indicate that to fully understand moral prerogatives, one must consider the nature of the connections people form to the group, as well as their political orientation.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Experimental studies suggest that increasing system justification motivation may, in some cases, raise the national attachment levels of people who hold liberal views so that they more closely resemble those of people who hold conservative views, thereby temporarily reducing polarization on issues of patriotism - but not nationalism.
“Experimental studies suggest that increasing system justification motivation may, in some cases, raise the national attachment levels of people who hold liberal views so that they more closely resemble those of people who hold conservative views, thereby temporarily reducing polarization on issues of patriotism — but not nationalism, defined as an attitude of superiority towards other countries282”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [282]
Emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization.
“emphasizing a superordinate national identity can reduce out-group animus as well as affective and ideological polarization281–283, consistent with social identity theory90,92,139.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [282]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 23
- Authors
- Talaifar, S., & Swann, W. B.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Talaifar, Sanaz
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-10-25
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 657-675
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2898280119
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Spiral (Imperial College London) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (26-1007-7250, BCS1528851)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Cultural Differences and Values
- Keywords
- moral foundations, group fusion, group identity, political orientation, conservatives, liberals, moral values, loyalty, authority, purity, national identity
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
