How perceived polarization predicts attitude moralization (and vice versa): A four-wave longitudinal study during the 2020 U.S. election.

Within structurally polarized and dynamic contexts, such as the U.S. 2020 presidential elections, the moralization of individuals' attitudes on a specific topic (e.g., climate policy) can dangerously escalate disagreements between groups into zero-sum conflict. However, limited knowledge exists regarding the factors that influence individuals' tendency to moralize their attitudes over time, and what the role of structural polarization is in this psychological process. Our objective is to test a theoretically integrative model of when and how perceived polarization is related to attitude moralization over time within the polarized context of the U.S. 2020 presidential elections and explore reciprocal feedback loops to understand the dynamic relationship between polarization and moralization over time. Our model predicts that, when repeatedly faced with outgroup expressions in the news, individuals' perceptions of polarization will predict within-person attitude moralization over time via strengthening their value-protective responses to these expressions (i.e., perceiving dyadic harm and experiencing negative moral emotions toward the outgroup). To test our model, we conducted a four-wave, 4-month longitudinal study among Biden supporters (N = 1,236) and Trump supporters (N = 617). The results of the within-person analyses generally supported the model's hypotheses across both samples and various attitude topics. Furthermore, cross-lagged structural equation models explored reciprocal influences, revealing positive feedback loops between structural polarization and attitude moralization over time. Our findings thus indicate that perceived polarization strengthens attitude moralization (and vice versa) over time-a dynamic process that helps to explain how nonmoralized conflict between groups can evolve into zero-sum conflict during periods of intense polarization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The Intergroup Value Protection Model: A Theoretically Integrative and Dynamic Approach to Intergroup Conflict Escalation in Democratic Societies.

SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT: We review social-psychological evidence for a theoretically integrative and dynamic model of intergroup conflict escalation within democratic societies. Viewing individuals as social regulators who protect their social embeddedness (e.g., in their group or in society), the intergroup value protection model (IVPM) integrates key insights and concepts from moral and group psychology (e.g., group identification, outrage, moralization, protest) into a functional intergroup value protection process. The model assumes that social regulators are continuously looking for information diagnostic of the outgroup's intentions to terminate the relationship with the ingroup, and that their specific cognitive interpretations of an outgroup's action (i.e., as a violation of ingroup or shared values) trigger this process. The visible value-protective responses of one group can trigger the other group's value-protective responses, thus dynamically increasing chances of conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications of integrating moral and group psychology and practical challenges for managing intergroup conflict within democratic societies. PUBLIC ABSTRACT: The 2021 Capitol Hill attack exemplifies a major "trigger event" for different groups to protect their values within a democratic society. Which specific perceptions generate such a triggering event, which value-protective responses does it trigger, and do such responses escalate intergroup conflict? We offer the intergroup value protection model to analyze the moral and group psychology of intergroup conflict escalation in democratic societies. It predicts that when group members cognitively interpret another group's actions as violating ingroup or shared values, this triggers the intergroup value protection process (e.g., increased ingroup identification, outrage, moralization, social protest). When such value-protective responses are visible to the outgroup, this can in turn constitute a trigger event for them to protect their values, thus increasing chances of intergroup conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications and practical challenges for managing intergroup value conflict in democratic societies, including fears of societal breakdown and scope for social change.

Attitude Moralization Within Polarized Contexts: An Emotional Value-Protective Response to Dyadic Harm Cues.

Polarization about societal issues involves attitudinal conflict, but we know little about how such conflict transforms into moral conflict. Integrating insights on polarization and psychological value protection, we propose a model that predicts when and how attitude moralization (i.e., when attitudes become grounded in core values) may be triggered and develops within polarized contexts. We tested this model in three experiments (total N = 823) in the context of the polarized Zwarte Piet (blackface) debate in the Netherlands. Specifically, we tested the hypotheses that (a) situational cues to dyadic harm in this context (i.e., an outgroup that is perceived as intentionally inflicting harm onto innocent victims) trigger individuals to moralize their relevant attitude, because of (b) emotional value-protective responses. Findings supported both hypotheses across different regional contexts, suggesting that attitude moralization can emerge within polarized contexts when people are exposed to actions by attitudinal opponents perceived as causing dyadic harm.