A study published in PNAS Nexus suggests that economically progressive candidates could enhance their prospects in U.S. elections by framing their message using “binding values,” which encompass notions of patriotism, family, and tradition. The research findings point to the potential effectiveness of using these values to resonate with a broader range of voters and garner increased support during election campaigns.
The central question the researchers aimed to answer was why Americans generally do not elect economically progressive candidates, even though their policy platforms align with the preferences of many Americans and could potentially address issues of economic inequality.
“We were interested in the apparent contrast between Americans’ desire for more economic equality on the one hand and their lack of support for economically progressive candidates on the other hand,” explained study author Jan G. Voelkel, a PhD candidate Stanford University and member of the Polarization and Social Change Lab.
“According to public opinion data, even conservatives indicate that they would desire a more equal distribution of wealth than the status quo. Furthermore, large majorities support many economically progressive policies. Yet, economically progressive candidates are rarely elected.”
“This is a long-standing puzzle in the social sciences with explanations ranging from the challenge of organizing America’s racially diverse working class, strong beliefs in upward mobility to the out-sized influence of wealthy donors in American politics and a lack of trust in the federal government. However, we thought that an important piece of the puzzle was missing: the moral values economically progressive politicians typically highlight in their campaigns.”
The study is based on Moral Foundation Theory, a psychological framework proposed by social psychologists Jonathan Haidt and Jesse Graham to understand the basis of human moral judgment and how people prioritize moral issues. The theory posits that there are several fundamental moral foundations that underlie and shape people’s moral beliefs and judgments. These moral foundations are thought to have evolved over time to help humans navigate complex social interactions and make moral decisions.
The theory outlines five moral foundations: Harm/Care (preventing harm to others and promoting their well-being), Fairness/Reciprocity (a sense of equity, equal treatment, and adherence to rules), Ingroup/Loyalty (group solidarity and the protection of one’s community), Authority/Respect (obedience and maintaining order), and Purity/Sanctity (cleanliness and avoiding behaviors that are considered morally or socially impure).
While many ideologically conservative voters might actually support economically progressive policies due to potential material benefits, they are often put off by the values and framing used in the campaigns of these candidates. Traditionally, economically progressive candidates have framed their platforms around values like social justice and equality, which align with individualizing moral foundations, while neglecting values related to loyalty, authority, and purity (the binding moral foundations), which are more appealing to conservative voters.
The researchers conducted a series of three studies to investigate how framing economically progressive policies in terms of values could impact support for progressive candidates among different groups of voters.
In their first study, the researchers recruited U.S. citizens from Amazon Mechanical Turk, a platform often used for online surveys. The initial sample size was 2,751 participants, aiming for a final sample of 2,500 after exclusions.
The participants were introduced to a hypothetical Democratic presidential candidate Scott Miller. They were presented with information about his economic policy platform and excerpts from a speech about his political principles. Participants were randomly assigned to policy conditions (moderately progressive or highly progressive) and frame conditions (control, individualizing, or binding).
Participants in the control frame condition were provided with basic information about the American election system. This condition served as a baseline comparison to the other frame conditions. Participants in the individualizing frame condition read excerpts from a speech in which the candidate emphasized values associated with individualizing moral foundations, such as economic justice, fairness, and compassion. (e.g. his “vision for our country is based on principles of economic justice, fairness, and compassion.”)
Participants in binding frame condition read excerpts from a speech in which the candidate emphasized values associated with binding moral foundations, such as respect for authority, loyalty, and tradition. (e.g., his “vision for America is based on respect for the values and traditions that were handed down to us: hard work, loyalty to our country, and the freedom to forge your own path.”)
For their second study, the researchers recruited a representative sample of U.S. adults (aged 18+) from NORC’s AmeriSpeak Panel. The initial sample size was 2,612 participants, resulting in a final sample of 1,695 after exclusions. The study design paralleled Study 1.
The results of the first two studies indicated that conservative participants in the control frame condition perceived economically progressive candidates as having dissimilar values. There was no significant difference between the individualizing and control frame conditions among conservatives. This indicated a default value disadvantage among conservative voters.
But when economically progressive candidates used binding framing, the value disadvantage among conservative voters was reduced. Moderate participants also perceived more value similarity with the candidate in the binding frame condition compared to individualizing and control frame conditions. Conservative and moderate participants supported the candidate significantly more in the binding frame condition than in the individualizing frame condition or the control frame condition.
“The effects among moderate candidates surprised us,” Voelkel said. “While previous research suggests that preventing harm and promoting fairness are the most universally embraced moral principles, our results suggest that moral values such as patriotism resonate most with the American public.”
For their third study, the researchers aimed to examine whether economically progressive and economically conservative candidates differ in their use of value framing during presidential debates. To this end, they analyzed transcripts from 144 debates using dictionary-based word frequency analysis to measure the value framing of candidates’ speeches.
The researchers found that more progressive candidates tended to rely less on binding value framing compared to more conservative candidates. The study’s results support the researchers’ argument that economically progressive candidates could potentially increase their support by using binding value framing.
While the trend showed that more conservative candidates tended to use more binding value framing, the researchers noted the presence of some progressive candidates who effectively used binding values, such as Bernie Sanders’ 2016 primary campaign. Sanders — who identifies as a democratic socialist and has advocated for policies such as universal healthcare, free higher education, and increased workers’ rights — used a similar level of binding values in his 2016 campaign as Republican John McCain used in his 2008 presidential campaign.
Overall, the findings provide evidence “that economically progressive candidates can build broader electoral coalitions by reframing the moral values voters associate with progressive campaigns,” Voelkel told PsyPost. “Specifically, moderate and conservative voters are more likely to support economically progressive candidates if progressive candidates frame their campaigns as promoting moral values such as patriotism and respect for American traditions.”
The researchers suggest that future studies should aim to replicate the results in different electoral contexts. The study has focused on experimental settings and debates, but real political campaigns involve a multitude of factors. For example, the researchers point out that opposing messages that challenge or counteract the framing used by a candidate could potentially reduce the impact of binding value frames, especially if conservative voters are exposed to counterframes from sources they trust.
“The main question is whether moral reframing is effective in the field,” Voelkel explained. “Real campaigns deal with challenges such as the need to win primaries and general elections, counter-framing, and heightened polarization around elections. However, real campaigns also provide opportunities such as repeatedly exposing voters to messages.”
“This probably goes without saying but it is important to note that, as with any effective political tool, the ethical value of moral reframing depends critically on the ends to which it is put. In other words, the effectiveness of moral reframing does not imply that it is necessarily socially desirable.”
The study, “Moral reframing increases support for economically progressive candidates“, was authored by Jan G. Voelkel, Joseph S. Mernyk, and Robb Willer.
