Abstract:Moral foundations research suggests that liberals care about moral values related to individual rights such as harm and fairness, while conservatives care about those foundations in addition to caring more about group rights such as loyalty, authority, and purity. However, the question remains about how conservatives and liberals differ in relation to group-level moral principles. We used two versions of the moral foundations questionnaire with the target group being either abstract or specific ingroups or outgroups. Across three studies, we observed that liberals showed more endorsement of Individualizing foundations (Harm and Fairness foundations) with an outgroup target, while conservatives showed more endorsement of Binding foundations (Loyalty, Authority, and Purity foundations) with an ingroup target. This general pattern was found when the framed, target-group was abstract (i.e., 'ingroups' and 'outgroups' in Study 1) and when target groups were specified about a general British-ingroup and an immigrant-outgroup (Studies 2 and 3). In Studies 2 and 3, both Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference scores predicted more Attitude Bias and more Negative Attitude Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), more Implicit Bias (Study 3), and more Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). We also demonstrated that increasing liberalism was associated with less Attitude Bias and less Negative Bias toward immigrants (Studies 2 and 3), less Implicit Bias (Study 3), and less Perceived Threat from immigrants (Studies 2 and 3). Outgroup-individualizing foundations and Ingroup-Binding foundations showed different patterns of mediation of these effects.

Empathic Conservatives and Moralizing Liberals: Political Intergroup Empathy Varies by Political Ideology and Is Explained by Moral Judgment

Moving Morality Beyond the In-Group: Liberals and Conservatives Show Differences on Group-Framed Moral Foundations and These Differences Mediate the Relationships to Perceived Bias and Threat

New Vistas for the Relationship between Empathy and Political Ideology

Parochial Empathy Predicts Reduced Altruism and the Endorsement of Passive Harm

Empathy and humanitarianism predict preferential moral responsiveness to in-groups and out-groups

Political rule (vs. opposition) predicts whether ideological prejudice is stronger in U.S. conservatives or progressives

Testing the social pressure hypothesis: Does in-party social pressure reduce out-party empathy?

The moral foundations of illusory correlation

Another Look at Moral Foundations Theory: Do Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation Explain Liberal-Conservative Differences in “Moral” Intuitions?

Do Bad People Deserve Empathy? Selective Empathy Based on Targets’ Moral Characteristics

Politics makes bastards of us all: Why moral judgment is politically situational

Liberals Think More Analytically (More 'Weird') than Conservatives

Positive beliefs about cross-partisan empathy can strengthen Americans' support for democracy

People believe political opponents accept blatant moral wrongs, fueling partisan divides

Dispositional compassion shifts social preferences in systematic ways

Empathizing With Others’ Pain Versus Empathizing With Others’ Joy: Examining the Separability of Positive and Negative Empathy and Their Relation to Different Types of Social Behaviors and Social Emotions

Registered report: Cognitive ability, but not cognitive reflection, predicts expressing greater political animosity and favouritism

Political Ideology and Moral Dilemma Judgments: An Analysis Using the CNI Model

Moral barrier to compassion: How perceived badness of sufferers dampens observers' compassionate responses

Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others

Liberals Think More Analytically (more “WEIRD”) Than Conservatives