Article Version of Record

Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign

Author(s) / Creator(s)

Brandt, Mark J.
Wisneski, Daniel C.
Skitka, Linda J.

Abstract / Description

People vary in the extent to which they imbue an attitude with moral conviction; however, little is known about what makes an issue transform from a relatively non-moral preference to a moral conviction. In the context of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, we test if affect and beliefs (thoughts about harms and benefits) are antecedents or consequences of participants’ moral conviction about their candidate preferences, or are some combination of both. Using a longitudinal design in the run-up to the election, we find that, overall, affect is both an antecedent and consequence, and beliefs about harms and benefits are only consequences, of changes in moral conviction related to candidate preferences. The affect results were consistent across liberals, conservatives, and moderates; however, the role of beliefs showed some differences between ideologues (liberals and conservatives) and moderates.

Keyword(s)

moral conviction affect hostility enthusiasm political psychology

Persistent Identifier

Date of first publication

2015-10-26

Journal title

Journal of Social and Political Psychology

Volume

3

Issue

2

Page numbers

211–237

Publisher

PsychOpen GOLD

Publication status

publishedVersion

Review status

peerReviewed

Is version of

Citation

  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Brandt, Mark J.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Wisneski, Daniel C.
  • Author(s) / Creator(s)
    Skitka, Linda J.
  • PsychArchives acquisition timestamp
    2018-11-26T12:44:41Z
  • Made available on
    2018-11-26T12:44:41Z
  • Date of first publication
    2015-10-26
  • Abstract / Description
    People vary in the extent to which they imbue an attitude with moral conviction; however, little is known about what makes an issue transform from a relatively non-moral preference to a moral conviction. In the context of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, we test if affect and beliefs (thoughts about harms and benefits) are antecedents or consequences of participants’ moral conviction about their candidate preferences, or are some combination of both. Using a longitudinal design in the run-up to the election, we find that, overall, affect is both an antecedent and consequence, and beliefs about harms and benefits are only consequences, of changes in moral conviction related to candidate preferences. The affect results were consistent across liberals, conservatives, and moderates; however, the role of beliefs showed some differences between ideologues (liberals and conservatives) and moderates.
    en_US
  • Publication status
    publishedVersion
  • Review status
    peerReviewed
  • ISSN
    2195-3325
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/1384
  • Persistent Identifier
    https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1694
  • Language of content
    eng
  • Publisher
    PsychOpen GOLD
  • Is version of
    https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v3i2.434
  • Keyword(s)
    moral conviction
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    affect
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    hostility
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    enthusiasm
    en_US
  • Keyword(s)
    political psychology
    en_US
  • Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)
    150
  • Title
    Moralization and the 2012 U.S. presidential election campaign
    en_US
  • DRO type
    article
  • Issue
    2
  • Journal title
    Journal of Social and Political Psychology
  • Page numbers
    211–237
  • Volume
    3
  • Visible tag(s)
    Version of Record