When a juror looks at an act and declares it to be bad or good, where is that coming from? Well, hopefully, it is coming from the evidence. But inevitably, it is also coming from that juror’s own habits of moral judgment. And it isn’t just a choice formed in the moment, but is instead a product of baked-in systems of thought: relatively stable arrangements of values that differentiate individuals and groups. The recent study of those systems of thought falls under the heading of Moral Foundations Theory. Continuing work in this area reminds us that judgments are not purely subjective or arbitrary, but are instead the result of organized ways of thinking that cut across national and cultural groups and are the product of our human social evolution.

Our moral foundations can also help us understand why liberals and conservatives will often view the same controversy through different lenses. One recent study of populations in the United States and New Zealand (Turner-Zwinkels, et al., 2020) shows not only that there are differences in the ways liberals and conservatives prioritize moral values, but also that there are differences in how separated or connected those values will be. In short, liberals are more likely to treat moral foundations as separate entities, and conservatives are more likely to see them all as connected. In this post, I will take a look at this research as well as its implications for persuading jurors on both ends of the ideological spectrum.

What Are the Moral Foundations?

Five categories of moral value have been broadly observed across cultures and groups. Three of them are characterized as group-oriented or ‘binding’ values:

Authority/Respect: Valuing obedience, deference to authority, and following rules.

Ingroup/Loyalty: Valuing support for one’s own group more than others, and showing faithfulness to that group.

Purity/Sanctity: Valuing standards of what is pure or sacred, reducing feelings of contamination and disgust.

The other two moral foundations are characterized as individual-oriented values:

Harm/Care: Valuing kindness and the protection of the vulnerable.

Fairness/Reciprocity: Valuing equal treatment and justice.

The research finds that these values have biological, psychological, and social roots. Most people will emphasize all five in their own morality, but groups will differ in how much comparative emphasis they give to each.

How Do Liberals and Conservatives Differ on Moral Values?

Conservatives are more likely to emphasize the group-oriented values while liberals are more likely to emphasize the individual-oriented values. An emphasis on group-oriented values is also associated with a tendency to be more punitive when evaluating a perceived transgression.

The recent study adds the observation that liberals are more likely to treat the individual and the group values as something different, while conservatives are more likely to connect them. For example, they found that for conservatives, “fairness items are more likely to cluster with loyalty items, so fairness might be more likely to imply loyalty.” When there is a tendency to connect values, there is a drift in the evaluation: “If a person judges an act or event as impure, they are also likely to see it as disloyal to their country or lacking respect for authority.” While the habit of connecting values is a general one, liberals are more likely to separate these values than conservatives.

The researchers also hypothesized that education would super-charge these differences, because the higher-educated are more likely to operate from ideologies. That held to some extent for liberals but not for conservatives: higher-educated liberals were more likely to separate their values, but education differences among conservatives were not consistent.

What Are the Practical Implications for Persuaders?

Ask Which Values Are Implicated in Your Own Case

When thinking about what might motivate jurors to see “justice” in your side of the case, it helps to think about the five foundations as they relate to your own trial story. To what extent is this case about protecting individuals or protecting groups? Are there instances of harm, or unfairness? Is there a role for authority, a risk of contamination, or a threat to loyalty? Asking yourself what master values might be at play can help in selecting a theme and tailoring the story.

Look for Connected Attitudes

The attitudes of your jurors are not disconnected items, like jellybeans in a jar. Instead, they are interconnected, a network. In voir dire, you can’t always ask directly on a case issue without drawing an objection or risking the perception that you are asking them to prejudge the case. But you can ask them about related attitudes. Even when values like fairness or loyalty are not strictly relevant legal issues, they will still matter to a juror’s general moral reaction.

Address the Ideological Differences

Conservatives are more likely to care about loyalty, purity, and authority, while liberals are more likely to care about individual harm and unfairness. Conservatives are also more likely to connect these values, thinking for example that something that threatens authority is also something that is individually harmful. This reinforces the fact that it is essential these days to have at least some knowledge of the ideological leanings of your panel, because these underpinnings will strongly influence how they’ll react to your story.

____________________

Turner-Zwinkels, F. M., Johnson, B. B., Sibley, C. G., & Brandt, M. J. (2021). Conservatives’ moral foundations are more densely connected than liberals’ moral foundations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(2), 167-184.

Image credit: 123rf.com, used under license