PERSUASION & Ethical Suppositions of Listener Must be Understood. #MoralFoundationsTheory

Commentary by Dr. Whitesel: An interesting exercise for my students is to have them first understand and describe the moral foundation of someone to whom they wish to share the Good News. Called "Moral Foundations Theory" this posits that people have different moral foundations. And, in order to explain to them the Good News requires that we frame our discussion on their moral foundations and not ours. As an exercise, read this article to understand the moral foundation of someone with whom you may be wishing to share the Good News. If you are a Democrat, explain how you would share the Biblical Good News with a Republican. And if you are a Republican, explain how you might share the Biblical Good News with a Democrat. Remember to explain the Good News in the context of your listener’s moral foundation.

The Simple Psychological Trick to Political Persuasion

by Olga Khazan, The Atlantic, 2/1/17.

…Feinberg and his co-author, Stanford University sociologist Robb Willer, have extensively studied how it is that liberals and conservatives—two groups that now seem further apart than ever on their policy preferences—can convert people from the other side to their way of seeing things. One reason this is so hard to do, they explain, is that people tend to present their arguments in a way that appeals to the ethical code of their own side, rather than that of their opponents.

…or example, when Feinberg and Willer asked liberals to write an op-ed aiming to convince conservatives of the value of same-sex marriage, most wrote something to the tune of, “Why would we punish these people for being born a certain way? They deserve the same equal rights as other Americans.” The problem is, research on thousands of people around the world, summed up in something called Moral Foundations Theory, has shown that liberals are more likely than conservatives to endorse fairness-based arguments like these. Meanwhile, just 8 percent of the liberals in Willer and Feinberg’s study were able to craft an argument that would appeal to conservatives’ value of loyalty toward your own kind. (So something like, “Our fellow citizens of the United States of America deserve to stand alongside us … We should lift our fellow citizens up, not bring them down.”) What’s worse, some of them picked an argument that directly contradicted what many conservatives value, with arguments like, “your religion should play no part in the laws of the United States.”

…part of the same study, which they published last year in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Feinberg and Willer tried to see if this type of “moral reframing” would be more effective. Previously, they had found that conservatives were more likely to endorse environmental protections when researchers activated their concerns about purity, rather than the more liberal concern about “harm”: A picture of a forest covered in rotting garbage, in other words, performed better with Republicans than a forest of tree stumps. This time, the researchers tested four different hot-button political issues, each time trying to reframe it in terms of the values that the Moral Foundations Theory tells us are more important for the opposite political side. Again, for liberals that’s “harm and fairness (e.g. benevolence, nurturance, equality, social justice),” and for conservatives, “group loyalty, authority, and purity (e.g., patriotism, traditionalism, strictness, religious sanctity).”

Read more at …