What do liberals endorse

What she meant to say was that the Green Party cannot support it, and that we must work collaboratively to confront climate change and that the Green Party platform remains the only platform with clear climate action," the statement reads. You do one press conference too many without having had your lunch, and there you go — saying things that are definitely, definitely good for a meme. One for the blooper reels! A variety of newsletters you'll love, delivered straight to you.

Pseudonyms will no longer be permitted. By submitting a comment, you accept that CBC has the right to reproduce and publish that comment in whole or in part, in any manner CBC chooses. Please note that CBC does not endorse the opinions expressed in comments. Comments on this story are moderated according to our Submission Guidelines.

Comments are welcome while open. We reserve the right to close comments at any time. 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. 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.

To understand how people make sense of right and wrong in their social environment, Moral Foundations Theory proposed that five core moral values evolved to help direct social decisions and judgments Haidt, ; Koleva et al.

These moral foundations are Harm e. Evidence has supported the idea that political liberals care about the moral foundations of Harm and Fairness most strongly, while conservatives care about the moral foundations of Loyalty, Authority, and Purity in addition to Harm and Fairness Graham et al. However, the question arises of whether this differentiation is fully accurate and under what conditions it may be accurate or inaccurate.

Other important questions regarding this distinction involve how moral foundations relate to interpersonal and intergroup processes. A deeper understanding of these relationships can help improve the dialog and communication between people with different political orientations when they discuss issues related to intergroup processes e. In considering differences in moral values between liberals and conservatives, researchers have suggested that the foundations of Harm and Fairness concern thinking about the effect on individuals and individual welfare.

As liberals tend to endorse Harm and Fairness more strongly, it has been said that liberals tend to use Individualizing moral foundations that are concerned with the rights of individuals Graham et al. In contrast, conservatives may react more strongly to hearing about somebody who went against group principles, leaders, or beliefs Loyalty, Authority, and Purity foundations , which are considered Binding foundations because they serve to bind groups together and the group is the focus of moral values and judgments Graham et al.

However, the findings by Graham et al. This is due to the MFQ being ambiguous and referencing ingroups on only a small percentage of items. Questions also remain about whether liberals would demonstrate group-based moral concerns.

If so, what types of groups may lead people to be more or less influenced? Finally, questions remain as to how distinctions in moral endorsement impact upon the broader intergroup context. There are existing questions regarding group level and individualizing harm and fairness foundations and binding loyalty, authority, and purity foundations and whether there is an ingroup—outgroup distinction that may be obscured by the current framing of the moral foundations questions Graham et al.

Understanding these group effects can also help explain the relationship between political ideology and intergroup judgments. While there is ambiguity regarding moral foundations and the target group, work in other areas has highlighted the importance of processing distinctions in political ideology that should impact upon moral foundations, ideology, and intergroup processes. Hibbing et al. Thus, in an intergroup context, conservatives compared to liberals may show ingroup over outgroup emphasis because of a wish to minimize risk to their ingroup.

Other researchers have also noted the need for more appreciation of the impact of the group-level influence in moral foundations theory Graham, ; Janoff-Bulman and Carnes, ; Talaifar and Swann, While researchers have expressed a need for investigating group-level influence, there has been little empirical evidence in moral foundations research and just one foundation within the Moral Foundations Questionnaire MFQ focuses on ingroup loyalty Graham et al. Some evidence, however, has begun to show that manipulating a single foundation within the MFQ can influence endorsement.

This research has shown that changing the authority figure to be either a liberal- or conservative-authority changes endorsement in relation to ideology so that liberals endorse the authority foundation more after liberal authorities and conservatives more after conservative authorities Frimer et al. Importantly, the conservative authorities within this research represented groups that were all high in status within society CEOs, Police Officers, Office Managers, Judges, Presidents, Traditions, and the Law , so they do not experience the same type of disadvantages as low status groups.

Similar work has shown that manipulating the target of the purity judgment can lead liberals and conservatives to change their endorsement of purity Frimer et al. Finally, very recent work has shown that liberals and conservatives endorse moral foundations more when the target groups are liberal or conservative; this research, however, did not investigate either a more general ingroup, or abstract-ingroups and abstract-outgroups Voelkel and Brandt, Overall, these findings were important advancements, but they were limited to single moral foundations, or did not include abstract categorizations or low status groups.

Our approach focuses more broadly on groups and it focuses on ingroups and outgroups across all five moral foundations and uses both abstract and specific groups as targets.

In addition, our work aims to have a strong applied focus in understanding immigration perceptions and perceptions toward a more neutral or general ingroup i. We use a novel method of manipulating ingroup and outgroup targets of moral judgments by framing all of the items across the Moral Foundations Questionnaire for ingroups and outgroups at both the abstract- and specific-group level.

We then use ideology to predict differences in endorsement of the group-focused foundations and to predict influences on attitudes, threat perceptions, and implicit bias toward immigrants. Detecting differences across the foundations by group framing provides important information regarding group-focused moral values by ideology, which has implications for Moral Foundations Theory. In addition, these differences may also inform attitudes and perceptions of immigrant groups and lead to potential avenues for dialogs.

We therefore argue that making the target groups explicit within the Moral Foundations Questionnaire MFQ items in terms of outgroups and more general ingroups will reduce this ambiguity in the MFQ and provide a clearer picture of the relationship of political ideology to group-level processing in moral reasoning and to attitudes toward immigrants. The current Moral Foundations Questionnaire is ambiguous and does not specify target groups beyond a few items.

If all of the items in the MFQ were framed to identify abstract-ingroup and abstract-outgroup targets, then new differences may be detected between liberals and conservatives. Existing evidence suggests that liberals may show less endorsement and conservatives more endorsement if foundations are framed with an ingroup-target, with either abstract- or specific-ingroup, because of conservatives wanting to avoid threats and wanting to protect group boundaries, and liberals being more accepting of risk, more open to experience, and more promotion oriented Jost et al.

Research indicates that conservatives have demonstrated a tendency to be more vigilant to threats to their group, show more prevention motivation, more physiological reactivity in response to threatening stimuli, and have stronger motives too maintain social order Federico et al. Evidence of this promotion difference is observed in research showing that conservatives use more caution-based, avoidance techniques when investigating novel stimuli Shook and Fazio, ; Cornwell and Higgins, ; in doing so, they were less susceptible to risks.

Additional research has shown that conservatives endorse social order motives e. This will be observed in a Higher Ingroup Preference Score in which higher scores indicate more endorsement of a moral foundation when framed about the ingroup e. We would predict this to be the case for all five moral foundations and for the Individualizing and Binding composites Itemized later in the Predictions section as Hypotheses 1a and 1b.

Our research will be the first to test the relationship of political ideology to the moral foundations questionnaire framed about abstract-groups and specific-groups relating to immigrants. We believe the research associating liberalism with more approach orientation, more acceptance of change, and more focus on social equality suggests that liberals would be more likely to endorse harm reduction and fairness in relation to low-status outgroups such as immigrants i.

We further predicted that liberals and conservatives would equally endorse harm reduction and fairness when framed about the abstract-ingroup because humans evolved in groups, so ingroups are important for all people and researchers advocate harm as a universal factor when making moral judgments i.

We would also predict that more conservatism will be related to more endorsement of binding concerns loyalty, authority, and purity when framed about an ingroup target because conservatives are more invested in avoiding risk and threats to the ingroup and more invested in social order, which are closely linked to loyalty, authority, and purity judgments i.

We did not expect either liberals or conservatives to care if people showed loyalty and respect for authority for the other group i. If liberalism and conservatism relate differently to the ingroup—outgroup manipulation of targets of the moral foundations, we would predict that these differences could help explain differences in political ideology within an intergroup context Van Leeuwen and Park, Threat-related motivation and goals of maintaining group and societal order have been demonstrated among those with more politically conservative ideologies Duckitt, ; Jost et al.

In Studies 2 and 3 of the current research, we will examine the relationship of political ideology to threat and to the ingroup—outgroup moral foundations manipulation. We will investigate whether the conservatism to threat relationship is mediated by their higher endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations and lower endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations, and more endorsement of Ingroup Preference Itemized later as Hypotheses 5c, 6c, and 6d.

Research has also indicated that liberals tend to show more positive attitudes toward low-status groups and to outgroups in general and that perceived threat and attitudes are intertwined tightly Riek et al. While there are several exceptions Brandt et al.

Again, differential endorsement of Ingroup-Binding and Outgroup-Individualizing foundations, and overall ingroup preference, may explain some of these differences. In Studies 2 and 3, we examine this relationship between political ideology and attitudes toward immigrants, and seek to test whether moral foundations mediate these effects Hypotheses 5a and 5c, and 6a and 6b.

In Studies 2 and 3, we will examine the relationship of political ideology to threat and to attitude bias Hypotheses 5a to 5c , and whether different emphases on using specific-ingroups and specific-outgroups in moral judgments mediate the relationships between political ideology and threat, and political ideology and attitudes toward immigrants Hypotheses 6a to 6d.

Investigating the use of outgroups and general ingroups when making moral judgments can be helpful in understanding differences in reactions to immigrants and other outgroups, and how to frame discussions that will likely continue given the need for immigration to offset low birth rates in the United Kingdom, the United States, and the world.

These debates currently show a deep partisan divide in many countries and are important to a variety of topics related to intergroup contexts. Study 1 framed the moral foundations questionnaire in terms of the abstract-group level. Hypotheses 1a and 1b: We hypothesized that liberals would have lower Ingroup Preference in comparison to conservatives.

Hypotheses 2a, 2b, 2c, and 2d: Examining the ingroup- and outgroup-foundations separately would clarify where the differences exist. Any participant demonstrating inattention on the moral foundations questionnaires MFQ was excluded from analyses as recommended by Graham et al. The study used a within-participants manipulation of group focus participants completed both the ingroup- and the outgroup-versions of the MFQ , and political orientation was a continuous predictor.

To statistically control for order effects, we counterbalanced the presentation of the ingroup MFQ and outgroup MFQ measures. Participants provided informed consent and then were randomly assigned to receive either the ingroup-MFQ first or the outgroup-MFQ first order i. Our focus was on systematically varying the target group, and we did not deviate from this procedure on any single item.

This focus on systematic changes, unfortunately, did allow some ambiguity to remain and we discuss this issue in the general discussion. Table 1. Moral Foundations Questionnaire framed about either an Ingroup or an Outgroup. After completing the first MFQ, participants completed a short, filler-task of cognitive processing that separated the two MFQs.

The filler lasted for 40 trials with each trial asking participants to select a target number as fast as possible among 9 competing distractor numbers 10 items per set.

After completing the filler task, participants completed the version of the MFQ that they had not yet completed. Once both versions of the MFQ had been completed, a series of measures, unrelated to the current study, were completed 3 and were followed by questions about demographics.

Self-rated political ideology Jost, was included among the demographic questions on age, gender, race, national identity, intergroup ideology, left-right political ideology, English as a second language, and years lived in the United Kingdom. The political ideology item was adapted from Jost and colleauges Jost, ; Jost et al. All participants were fully debriefed upon study completion. We first tested Hypotheses 1a and 1b. For the Individualizing and Binding groupings, a linear regression was conducted with Political Ideology as the predictor and Ingroup Preference Score as the outcome.

As an example, Individualizing-Ingroup Preference equals ingroup-Individualizing minus outgroup-Individualizing scores. For Political Ideology, higher scores indicated higher liberalism and lower scores indicated more conservatism e. Higher Ingroup Preference Scores would indicate more endorsement of the moral foundation when it was framed about the ingroup.

A negative regression coefficient between Ingroup Preference Score and Political Ideology indicated that conservatives showed more endorsement and liberals less endorsement of the moral foundation when it was framed about the ingroup as opposed to an outgroup and demonstrated the effect of the framing manipulation on endorsement by liberals and conservatives Judd, As predicted, we observed that more liberalism was related to less Individualizing- and less Binding-Ingroup Preference i.

Detecting these differences showed the effectiveness of the ingroup versus outgroup framing of moral foundations.

Table 2. In order to parse the data by group-framing, we conducted a series of individual linear regressions for Political Ideology and its relationship to the Ingroup- and Outgroup-Individualizing and the Ingroup- and Outgroup-Binding Composites see Table 3. This allowed for a more nuanced analysis in which we could check if the differences were in the Ingroup-version or the Outgroup-version of the MFQ.

As expected, we found that political ideology did not relate significantly to Ingroup-Individualizing Foundations Average of Ingroup-Harm and Ingroup-Fairness; Hypothesis 2a , but it did significantly relate to Ingroup-Binding Foundations Average of Ingroup-Loyalty, Ingroup-Authority, and Ingroup-Purity; Hypothesis 2c ; this effect showed that liberals were significantly less invested in the Ingroup-Binding foundations than were conservatives.

Also, as expected, we observed that more liberalism was related to significantly more endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations Hypothesis 2b. Unexpectedly, more conservatism was significantly related to more endorsement of Outgroup-Binding, which had not been predicted Hypothesis 2d.

Table 3. Four linear regressions with political ideology as the predictor and each ingroup and outgroup moral foundation entered as a separate outcome measure. This study demonstrated that framing moral foundations to be about either an abstract-ingroup or abstract-outgroup altered the foundation endorsement of liberals and conservatives Graham et al. The findings for the Ingroup-Preference Scores are the first to show that changes in MFQ-endorsement were due to the manipulation of an abstract-ingroup or abstract-outgroup in the Moral Foundations questionnaire.

Ingroup preference was significantly less for liberals than conservatives for both Individualizing and Binding foundations. Overall, these results indicated that liberals and conservatives differed in their endorsement based upon groups. The results were significant across Individualizing and Binding foundations as opposed to just one foundation or only to specific, high status groups. In order to establish where the differences in preference scores lay, we examined the ingroup- and outgroup-framed foundations.

As predicted, when we considered the relationship between each of the ingroup and then the outgroup foundations and ideology, there was no difference between liberals and conservatives for Ingroup-Individualizing foundations, but conservatives endorsed the Ingroup-Binding foundations more Ingroup-Loyalty, Ingroup-Authority, and Ingroup-Purity as a composite.

As predicted, liberals endorsed the Outgroup-Individualizing foundations more than did conservatives, but unexpectedly, conservatives were more invested in Outgroup-Binding foundations.

In Study 2, we sought to replicate these effects using a more representative, online sample. We also sought to rule-out whether liberals and conservatives thought about more positive or less positive groups when they considered abstract-ingroups and -outgroups because participants could think of any group they wanted. To accomplish this goal, we identified specific groups within the MFQ versions, which would be relevant to understanding broader intergroup relations and attitudes toward immigrants.

We also sought to test whether endorsement of foundations when framed about ingroups and outgroups mediated the often-observed political ideology to negative immigrant attitudes relationship that has been observed in the literature. Because we manipulated ingroup and outgroup-MFQ focus and because moral foundations are proposed to be very fundamental motivations, we sought to use them as mediators here.

Study 1 demonstrated the advantages of considering the group level to gain a better understanding of the relationship between political ideology and morality and to add to the existing literature showing that the type of groups imagined do matter for all five foundations and not just individual foundations Frimer et al. The observed differences of liberals and conservatives in the endorsement of judgments based upon abstract-ingroups and abstract-outgroups can also influence social cognition within an intergroup context.

For example, these differences can be used to help explain political differences in attitudes and perceived threat from immigrants that have been routinely observed within the literature. It is also important to test whether the Study 1 findings were due to liberals and conservatives thinking of very different groups when answering the moral questions, which is a possibility when no limits are imposed on the MFQ or when the groups are abstract. In Study 2, we will use a version of the framed-MFQ that specifies British people as the ingroup and Pakistani immigrants as the outgroup.

This framing will bolster the confidence that the results of Study 1 using abstract-ingroups and abstract-outgroups also relate to specific and real ingroups and outgroups within the context of immigration.

We predict a replication of effects in which liberals would show less endorsement than conservatives for the foundations about the British ingroup in comparison to foundations framed about a Pakistani immigrant outgroup Itemized later in the Predictions section as Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

We used this outgroup because it is a large and rapidly growing minority group and we chose people from Britain as the ingroup because it should not be considered as either a conservative or a liberal authority because all participants belonged to the group Voelkel and Brandt, Testing our effects with specific groups, as opposed to abstract groups, will also help to demonstrate the generality and robustness of the findings in relation to a specific ingroup and specific low-status outgroup Koleva et al.

We predict that the ingroup and outgroup effects seen with abstract-groups in Study 1 would be replicated with the specific-groups in Study 2. Thus, we hypothesize that more liberalism would be associated with more endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations Hypothesis 4b and less endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations Hypothesis 4c. In Study 2, we will also use a sample of participants from the general community to broaden the representativeness of the results. While there are a number of exceptions Brandt et al.

Research has shown that liberals focus more on social equality, have more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians, Muslim Americans, or Arabs, demonstrate less outgroup hostility, and show more positive feelings toward low-status groups and immigrants Whitley and Lee, ; Duckitt, ; Jost et al. Thus, a major aim of Study 2 was to test the relationship between more liberalism and less negative attitudes toward immigrants Hypotheses 5a and 5b and between more liberalism and less perceived threat Hypothesis 5c.

Since the ingroup- and outgroup-MFQ targets were manipulated and because moral foundations are proposed to be fundamental motives, this aim also included testing that the endorsement of outgroup-individualizing foundations of Harm and Fairness would mediate the political effect on bias Hypothesis 6a and on threat Hypothesis 6c for a low status group.

Whether the ingroup-binding Ingroup-Loyalty, Ingroup-Authority, and Ingroup-Purity foundations would also be related to attitude bias and mediate the political effect is much less clear because there is sparse evidence on the relationships of moral foundations and attitude bias Hypothesis 6b.

However, some previous work has shown that more endorsement of binding foundations was related to more negative attitudes toward immigrants and to more outgroup hostility Kugler et al. A third extension of our findings relates to explaining the differences in perceived threat responses to ethnic groups and immigrants.

Previous research has shown that conservatives generally show more vigilance for threatening stimuli, more threat from unfamiliar groups, and that needs for threat management were associated with conservatism Jost et al. Given these findings, we were interested in examining whether ingroup binding foundations would predict perceptions of threat from immigrants, and that endorsement of ingroup binding foundations i.

Hypotheses 3a and 3b: We predicted a replication of the main pattern of associations for Individualizing-Ingroup Preference 3a and Binding-Ingroup Preference 3b. Liberals would show less endorsement of Individualizing and Binding foundations when framed about the British ingroup compared a Pakistani immigrant outgroup.

Hypotheses 4a, 4b, 4c, and 4d: We predicted a replication of the Study 1 results. More liberalism would be related to more endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations 4b , while more conservatism would be related to more endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations 4c.

Hypotheses 5a through 5c: We predicted that more liberalism would be significantly related to less Attitude Bias, less Negative Bias, and less Perceived Threat from outgroups 5a, 5b, and 5c. Related to this prediction is the expectation that each Ingroup-Preference index would positively predict Attitude Bias, Negative Bias, and Threat.

This prediction is supported by the intergroup bias literature, which has demonstrated that strong ingroup favoritism i. Additionally, past research has not found a significant link between political ideology and cognitive perspective taking ability.

Thus, we did not expect a significant relationship here Jost et al. Hypothesis 6a: Regarding attitude bias and negative bias, we predicted that a more liberal ideology would be associated with lower levels of bias toward immigrants, and that this relationship would be significantly mediated by more endorsement of the Outgroup-Individualizing foundations average of Outgroup-Harm and Outgroup-Fairness.

Hypothesis 6b: We tentatively predicted that the more endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations would meditate the political ideology to attitude bias and to negative bias effects Kugler et al. Hypothesis 6c and 6d: We predicted that a liberal orientation would be associated with less perceived threat, and that this would be mediated by lower endorsement of British Ingroup-Binding foundations and by more endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations.

Because political ideology had to be measured, we could manipulate only the mediator to establish its causal influence and demonstrate the effectiveness of the manipulation Spencer et al. Thus, in Studies 2 and 3, we treated Outgroup-Individualizing and Ingroup-Binding similar to measured mediators and we used the manipulated Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and manipulated Binding-Ingroup Preference scores to demonstrate the influence of the manipulation on the Outcomes Attitude Bias, Negative Bias, and Threat.

We recruited participants from the United Kingdom using the Prolific. Based upon Study 1 effect sizes and upon screening criteria for the moral foundations questionnaire and other online studies we have conducted using the questionnaire, we recruited three hundred and fifty participants to obtain a final sample close to participants and to observe 0.

Next, we removed thirty-seven participants who showed inattention on the MFQs using the same criteria as in Study 1 Graham et al. Participants completed informed consent and then were asked to select the letter that appeared at the top of the screen from a randomized list i. The first part of the study used the same within-participants manipulation and procedure as Study 1 in which participants completed both the ingroup and outgroup versions of the moral foundations questionnaire with order counterbalanced.

However, in Study 2, the two versions of the MFQ were now framed so that specific groups in the United Kingdom were referenced.

For the ingroup-version, participants read about moral foundations framed about British people because it was a neutral ingroup. Two versions of the MFQ were again separated with the same filler task from Study 1. Participants next received measures of attitude bias, negative bias, and then perspective taking and perception of threat from immigrants with the latter two measures being counterbalanced.

The measure of attitude bias toward immigrants was adapted from Saguy et al. Participants rated their feelings toward Pakistani immigrants on five evaluative dimensions i. A second measure of negative bias was used to determine negative attitudes toward Pakistani immigrants and was adapted from Stephan et al. Participants were randomly assigned to complete either the Perspective Taking scale first and then the Threat scale, or vice versa.

Participants completed a measure of threat perceptions toward Pakistani immigrants in the United Kingdom, which was adapted from Stephan et al. This scale contained 15 items measuring attitudes toward both realistic threats i. Finally, participants completed demographic measures that included two simple, mathematics filler problems, political ideology, their age and gender, questions about the purpose of the study and tasks being related, being born in the United Kingdom, race, country in which they lived, years living in the country, English as a second language, and whether they had been in the exact study previously.

Separate, linear regressions were performed with Political Ideology as the predictor and Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference as separate Outcome measures e. The Ingroup Preference score demonstrated the effectiveness of the ingroup—outgroup framing manipulation on foundation endorsement as a function of political ideology Hypotheses 3a and 3b.

Table 4. As expected, we observed that Political Ideology was not significantly related to the Ingroup-Individualizing composite see Table 5 ; Hypothesis 4a.

For Ingroup-Binding foundations, more liberalism was related to significantly less Ingroup-Binding endorsement as predicted Hypothesis 4c. This result shows that conservatives showed more endorsement and liberals less endorsement of binding foundations when framed about the ingroup. Also, as predicted, more liberalism was related to significantly more Outgroup-Individualizing endorsement such that liberals were more invested than conservatives in Harm and Fairness when framed about the Pakistani-immigrant outgroup Hypothesis 4b.

Future research will need to disentangle these effects. Table 5. Four linear regressions with political ideology as the predictor and each Ingroup and Outgroup moral foundation entered as a separate outcome measure.

We next conducted three linear regressions to test the hypotheses that increased liberalism would be related to less Attitude Bias, less Negative Bias, less Perceived Threat from immigrants, and that Political Ideology would not be related to differences in Cognitive Perspective Taking; we use bias to mean response tendency instead of error. Once again, higher scores on Political Ideology indicated a more liberal ideology.

Next, we predicted that ingroup preference would be related to more bias because the literature has demonstrated that more ingroup favoritism is related to more intergroup bias. Finally, we have included a correlation table of the main measures to provide an overall picture of their relationships see Table 6.

To demonstrate the implications of this research, we examined mediators of the significant relationships we had observed between more liberalism and less Attitude Bias and between more liberalism and less Threat. Figure 1. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to Bias relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas.

Figure 2. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to the Negative Bias relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas. Figure 3. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to Perceived Threat relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas.

The current study supports the main findings of Study 1 and showed that the ingroup- and outgroup-framing manipulation changed endorsement of the moral foundations; more liberalism was related to less Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and less Binding-Ingroup Preference.

Moreover, for the separate ingroup and outgroup foundations, more liberalism predicted less endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations, but not more endorsement of Ingroup-Individualizing foundations. Overall, we observed the same general pattern on the Ingroup Preference Scores for Studies 1 and 2, even though Study 1 used abstract-ingroups and abstract-outgroups and Study 2 used a specific-outgroup and a specific-ingroup, though one that was an ingroup for all participants.

This finding rules out the explanation that liberals and conservatives were thinking of very different groups and the variety of comparisons increases our confidence in the importance of the group-level in moral foundations. The observed effects had important implications for understanding the relationship between Political Ideology and Attitudes toward and Threat from Pakistani-immigrants.

For both Attitude Bias and Negative Attitude Bias, Outgroup-Individualizing foundations mediated the relationship between a more liberal ideology and less Bias toward immigrants; this supports the sparse past research that had shown that more endorsement of Individualizing foundations was related to less hostility to extreme outgroups Baldner and Pierro, Ingroup-Binding foundations also significantly mediated the relationships between Ideology and Bias, and Ideology and Negative Bias toward immigrants, suggesting that the Ingroup-Binding foundations may also be important to consider in future research involving intergroup perceptions of immigrants.

For Perceived Threat from immigrants, endorsement of Outgroup-Individualizing foundations was related to less Threat and it mediated the relationship of more liberalism predicting less Threat. Endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations also mediated this relationship and was related to more Threat; these effects were larger than the individualizing effects, and thus, may be particularly important for improving dialog between liberals and conservatives in relation to the topic of immigration, and may be more important than focusing on fairness judgments and harm reduction.

Overall, the first two studies provide strong and consistent evidence that liberals and conservatives are influenced differently by ingroups and outgroups, and that these differences have important implications for intergroup relations. In Study 3, we wanted to replicate the significant relationships between political ideology and group-framed moral foundations, as well as the mediational effects of Ingroup-Binding foundations and Outgroup-Individualizing foundations on the political ideology to negative attitudes and political ideology to perceived threat relationships.

To further extend the current research, we added a measure of implicit bias. We recruited participants from the Prolific. Based upon the previous studies, we recruited participants to obtain a final sample close to participants and to observe 0.

As was done in Study 2, we randomly assigned participants to counterbalanced conditions for the order of ingroup- and outgroup-MFQs and for the main dependent measures using the same procedure as in Study 2. Three hundred and ninety-seven participants remained in the sample after filtering out six participants who were of Pakistani ethnicity, seven people not born in the United Kingdom, and 41 who showed inattention on the ingroup-MFQ and outgroup-MFQ as was done in Study 2 see Graham et al.

Participants then completed four filler questions from the need for cognition scale Cacioppo and Petty, that had been selected because they were not significantly related to political ideology. Participants next completed either the Threat and Bias measures followed by the Implicit Bias measure, or they completed the Implicit Bias measure first followed by Threat and Bias measures counterbalanced ; after the first measure in each condition, participants completed an additional four items from the need for cognition measure as a filler.

Participants completed an online version of the Affective Misattribution Procedure AMP as a measure of indirect or implicit bias toward immigrants Payne et al. Similar to previous research with the AMP online Payne et al. A black-and-white pattern mask then appeared until participants responded with either pleasant or unpleasant as a response. Participants were instructed to ignore the faces labeled as immigrants or non-immigrants and to only judge whether or not they believed the pictograph to be more or less pleasant than average by pressing either the pleasant or unpleasant key.

The 72 pictographs were presented once and the 12 immigrant faces, 12 white faces, and 12 gray squares were presented twice each i. After the outcome measures, participants answered the same demographics items from Study 2, but without the English as a second language items and with the addition of the left-right political ideology question from Study 1.

They were then debriefed. We conducted separate, linear regressions using Political Ideology as the predictor and the Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference Scores as separate outcome measures. We replicated Studies 1 and 2, and found that more liberalism was related to less Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and less Binding-Ingroup Preference, which demonstrated the effectiveness of the manipulation see Table 7. Table 7. We replicated the negative and significant relationship between Political Ideology and Ingroup-Binding in which more liberalism was related to less endorsement of Ingroup-Binding foundations see Table 8.

Table 8. For the AMP implicit bias analyses, we followed the standard procedure and removed an additional 14 participants who, contrary to instructions, responded using the same response key on all critical trials Payne and Lundberg, There were participants remaining for those analyses. We again included a correlation table of the main measures to provide an overall picture of their relationships see Table 9.

Figure 4. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to Attitude Bias relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas. Figure 5. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to Negative Bias relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas. Figure 6. Figure 7. Multiple mediation of the Political Orientation to Implicit Bias relationship by the Outgroup Individualizing index and by the Ingroup Binding index using unstandardized betas.

Finally, in all linear regressions for the moral foundations and for all the outcome variables and mediations, all patterns of data and all significant effects remained significant when using the left-right political ideology item Studies 1 and 3.

Study 3 replicated the pattern of results observed in Study 2 in which more liberalism was related to less Individualizing-Ingroup Preference and Binding-Ingroup Preference.

Together, these results support the notion that liberals and conservatives are influenced differently by groups when making moral judgments. Our findings suggest that there is a difference between liberals and conservatives when they consider ingroups and outgroups, especially outgroups that are low in status; liberals show more endorsement than conservatives in Individualizing-Foundations when the manipulation framed them about immigrant outgroups.

In contrast, conservatives show more endorsement than liberals for Binding-Foundations when the foundations are framed about the Ingroup for either abstract-groups in Study 1 or a British-ingroup in Studies 2 and 3. Study 3 also replicated the finding that these differing influences of ingroups and outgroups for liberals and conservatives have a meaningful influence on intergroup perceptions of immigrants.

We replicated the relationship of more liberalism predicting less Attitude Bias, Negative Bias, and less Perceived Threat from immigrants. Importantly, we replicated the mediational analyses in which both the Outgroup-Individualizing and Ingroup-Binding indexes significantly mediated the effects on Attitude Bias, Negative Bias, Implicit Bias, and Perceived Threat, both together and separately as mediators.