Keyboard Shortcuts?

  • Next step
  • Previous step
  • Skip this slide
  • Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts


Extending the Result

But can it change how people act?

Kidwell et al, 2013

Effects on behaviour, not just talk
‘we developed tailored persuasive messages that appealed to the individualizing foundations for liberals, based on fairness and avoiding harm to others, and the binding foundation for conservatives, based on duty and an obligation to adhere to authority. We found that these congruent appeals significantly affected consumers’ acquisition, usage, and recycling intentions and behaviors’ \citep{kidwell:2013_getting}.
[\citep{wolsko:2016_red} says these results are inconsistent with \citep{feinberg:2013_moral} ! But this is only because Kidwell et al find an effect on liberals too (cf Feinberg 2015 next study)]
These are from Study 4. (Study 2 included extraneous logos &c) ‘However, the “binding” conservative appeal displayed a patriotic image while the “individualizing” liberal appeal displayed a well-known charity (Habitat for Humanity).’

‘You can make a difference by recyling because you know it’s the right thing to do. Your actions can help care for others and allow the greatest good for society. Because of people like you, we can reduce the harm to others and to the environement by recycling. You CAN make a difference

‘You can join the fight by recycling with those like you in your community. Your actions can help us do our civic duty because recycling is the responsible thing to do in our society. Because of people like you, we can follow the advice of important leaders by recycling. You CAN join the fight!’

Extraneous changes too!

Kidwell et al, 2013 figure 4

Kidwell et al, 2013 figure 3


1. ‘Moral convictions and the emotions they evoke shape political attitudes’

2. There are at least two fundamental domains of human morality, including harm and purity.

3. ‘liberals and conservatives possess different moral profiles’

4. ‘liberals express greater levels of environmental concern than do conservatives in part because liberals are more likely to view environmental issues in moral terms.’

5. ‘exposing conservatives to proenvironmental appeals based on moral concerns that uniquely resonate with them will lead them to view the environment in moral terms and be more supportive of proenvironmental efforts.’

Are there other cases where this argument works?

Can liberals’ attitudes also be changed using a similar ethical framing strategy?

\citet{day:2014_shiftinga}: no evidence that liberals become more conservative on typically conservative issues when these are framed in terms of harm or fairness (from STudy 1);
... but they do find shifts in conservative participants’ views on typically liberal issuse when these are framed in terms of purity [not shown]
They also find entrenching effects (libs become more typically liberal when typically liberal issues are framed in terms of harm or fairness (and likewise for conservatives))

‘the spare sentence-long, stimuli used in the studies’ (Feinberg & Willer, p. 1667)

\citet[p.~1667]{feinberg:2015_gulfa} comment on \citet{day:2014_shiftinga}: ‘It is possible that the inconsistency of the moral framing effects in these studies owed to the spare sentence-long, stimuli used in the studies.’

Day et al, 2014 figure 1A-B

Can liberals’ attitudes also be changed using a similar ethical framing strategy?

Feinberg & Willer, 2015 figure 6 (on Study 6)

Observation 1: The novel feature here is that the issue is a one that conservatives are generally more sensitive to, and changing the moral framing is shifting Liberal’s views. (I think this is important because it shows that the strategy for changing attitudes works for liberals as well as conservatives.)
Obs 2: the basic approach also works for issues other than climate change.
[Aside] Now see that they get essentially the same result when they group people not by their political views but directly by their fairness scores.
caption: ‘Figure 6. The interaction between political ideology and message framing (top panel) and between fairness morality and message framing (bottom panel) on support for making English the official language of the United States (Study 6).’
They computed two fairness scores. ‘we calculated each participant’s average score on the fairness scale and subtracted out the average of the four remaining moral domains. Doing so allowed us to capture each participant’s specific endorsement of the fairness foundation, while accounting for the tendency for some participants to report high levels of endorsement across all the foundations, labeling this mea- sure fairness score—continuous. Second, we used participants’ ranking of the fairness foundation, relative to the other foundations, labeling this measure fairness score—rank.’
The lower panel in this figure shows the interaction with fairness score—continuous

Can liberals’ attitudes also be changed using a similar ethical framing strategy?

Day et al, 2014 : no evidence of persuasion for liberals (but for conservatives)

Feinberg & Willer, 2015 : yes