Liberals hesitate to share progressive causes framed with conservative moral language

A new study published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology suggests that the specific moral language used to promote a political cause can affect whether people are willing to share it on social media. The findings indicate that liberals are less likely to publicly support a cause they agree with if the messaging relies on values typically associated with conservatives. In contrast, conservatives appear to focus more on the underlying cause itself and share messages consistently regardless of the moral phrasing used.

Social media platforms have vastly expanded the reach of social movements. They allow individuals to advocate for important political and social causes with the click of a button. In this digital environment, promoting a cause is a public statement that can shape perceptions, direct discourse, and catalyze actual policy changes. Because of this high visibility, the specific rhetoric attached to a particular cause may carry significant weight for everyday users.

The authors of the new research wanted to better understand how individuals navigate situations where they support a movement’s goal but feel disconnected from the moral language used to promote it. Monica Gamez-Djokic, an assistant professor at Purdue University, noted the inspiration for the work. “We became interested in how people navigate political expression online, especially in highly visible environments like social media,” Gamez-Djokic said.

“Prior research on ‘moral reframing’ suggests that people can sometimes make arguments more persuasive by framing them using the moral values of the opposing political side,” she said. “But most of that work focused on private attitudes rather than public advocacy.” The authors wanted to understand how these dynamics play out when actions are visible to others.

“We wondered whether people would actually be willing to publicly share messages that use moral language associated with the opposing political camp, even when they agree with the underlying cause itself,” Gamez-Djokic said. “Social media creates a particularly interesting context for this because sharing a message is not just about agreement; it can also signal values and identities to others.”

To test these ideas, the scientists drew upon a psychological framework that divides human moral judgments into two main categories: individualizing values and binding values. Individualizing values focus on fairness, equality, and preventing harm to individuals. Binding values emphasize group loyalty, respect for authority, and protecting purity or sanctity. Past research indicates that liberals tend to prioritize individualizing values almost exclusively, while conservatives tend to endorse both individualizing and binding values more equally.

The researchers conducted a series of five online experiments to examine how these moral frameworks influence sharing behavior. In the first set of experiments, involving 378 participants in one group and 392 participants in another, the scientists focused on the highly polarizing issue of abortion. The participants read a message from a hypothetical local organization.

One group read a message supporting abortion rights, a stance generally favored by liberals. The other group read a message opposing abortion rights, a stance generally favored by conservatives. The researchers randomly assigned participants to read a version of the message framed with either individualizing language or binding language.

The individualizing frame focused on autonomy, rights, and minimizing harm to individuals. The binding frame focused on the sanctity of the family, social order, and spiritual purity. After reading the assigned text, participants rated their willingness to share the organization’s entire message on their personal social media accounts.

The results showed a distinct asymmetry between the political groups. Liberals were significantly less willing to share the pro-abortion rights message when it used binding moral rhetoric compared to when it used individualizing rhetoric. Conservatives did not show this sensitivity to moral framing, as their willingness to share the anti-abortion rights message remained high and relatively stable regardless of the framing.

“One surprising aspect was how asymmetric the pattern was,” Gamez-Djokic told PsyPost. “We expected both liberals and conservatives might be reluctant to promote rhetoric associated with the opposing political side, but the effect was much more consistent among liberals. Conservatives appeared relatively willing to support causes aligned with their views regardless of the specific moral framing used.”

To see if this pattern held true across different issues, the researchers conducted two more experiments focusing on immigration. These studies involved much larger samples, with 1,468 participants evaluating a liberal-aligned cause and 922 participants evaluating a conservative-aligned cause. The liberal-aligned message advocated against the separation of immigrant families. The conservative-aligned message advocated for stronger border control.

The messages were framed using either individualizing language, like compassion and human rights, or binding language, like authority and national integrity. In these studies, the scientists also added a visibility condition. Some participants were asked how willing they would be to share the message publicly on social media, where thousands could see it, while others were asked if they would endorse the message privately on an anonymous advocacy platform.

“Another interesting finding was that these effects were especially apparent in public sharing contexts, such as social media, where endorsements are visible to others,” Gamez-Djokic said. The findings replicated the initial asymmetry. Liberals were much more willing to support the message against family separation when it used individualizing rhetoric rather than binding rhetoric, and there was some statistical evidence that this reluctance was slightly stronger in the public sharing condition.

Conservatives were largely unaffected by the moral framing of the border control message. They reported high willingness to support the cause across both public and private conditions, regardless of the rhetoric used. The researchers noted that conservatives might view both moral frameworks as compatible with their worldview, making them less sensitive to framing differences.

In a final experiment involving 389 participants, the scientists explored the underlying mechanism behind the liberals’ reluctance. They wanted to test if ideological signaling played a role. Ideological signaling refers to the idea that people use public actions to broadcast their beliefs and show allegiance to a specific political group.

Participants read about a company engaging in either environmentally harmful practices or dismissive responses to sexual harassment allegations. These scenarios were paired with either individualizing or binding moral arguments. Participants then rated whether sharing the message would help spread liberal or conservative moral values to their social networks.

The authors found that liberals perceived binding rhetoric as strongly associated with conservative values. This perception was directly linked to their lower willingness to share the message. The researchers used a statistical model to show that these beliefs about ideological implications acted as a bridge, explaining why liberals held back.

“Our findings suggest that the way a message is morally framed can shape whether people are willing to publicly promote it online,” Gamez-Djokic said. “Across several studies, liberals were less willing to share messages supporting causes they agreed with when those messages used ‘binding’ moral rhetoric, language emphasizing values like purity, loyalty, authority, or tradition, which are often associated with conservatism.”

“Importantly, this did not necessarily mean liberals disagreed with the cause itself,” she said. “Instead, they appeared concerned about publicly amplifying rhetoric they perceived as ideologically associated with political opponents. Conservatives, by contrast, were generally less sensitive to whether messages used binding or individualizing moral language.”

As with all research, there are a few potential limitations to consider. “One important limitation is that much of the research relied on hypothetical message-sharing decisions rather than real-world behavior, although we also included an observational study using Twitter/X data,” Gamez-Djokic said.

“In addition, some of the evidence regarding the psychological mechanisms involved is correlational, meaning future work is needed to more definitively establish why these effects occur,” she noted.

Another limitation is the use of online convenience samples, which tend to lean slightly more liberal than the general United States population. The researchers note that testing a broader, more representative sample of highly conservative individuals might yield different sensitivities to moral framing. The study also focused exclusively on individuals in the United States, meaning the results might not apply to other political cultures or multiparty systems.

The authors also acknowledge that conservatives might simply prioritize championing their key causes over shaping the broader moral discourse surrounding a topic. Future research could separate religious wording from binding moral concepts to see exactly what triggers the reluctance to share. Scientists might also explore whether conservatives ever show a similar sensitivity to framing under different conditions or with different political issues.

The study, “Navigating ideological divides in digital spaces: How political ideology and moral rhetoric shape the promotion of causes online,” was authored by Monica Gamez-Djokic, Marlon Mooijman, Matthew D. Rocklage, and Maryam Kouchaki.