Digging In: The Effects of Congenial Political Messaging on Moral Conviction

• In Event: How to Increase Polarization

Abstract

Recent research finds that selective exposure—in which people seek out political messaging they already agree with—may not be as prevalent as once assumed. However, once exposed to congenial political messaging, people evaluate it as more credible and persuasive than non-congenial messaging, which may further reinforce pre-existing views. In this study, I use a two-wave survey experiment to investigate whether congenial political messaging affects people’s views on divisive political issues, as well as their attitudes toward those who disagree with them. Across two issues (climate change and gene editing), I find that people exposed to a message consistent with their pre-existing views come to hold those views with greater moral conviction, relative to people who saw a message that challenged those views. Surprisingly, this occurred regardless of whether the message was framed in moral terms. Furthermore, and in line with theory about the moral drivers of political animus, those who saw congenial political messaging were also more willing to dehumanize, and less willing to befriend, those who opposed them on the issue. These results suggest that, in the context of divisive issues, political content that reinforces pre-existing views may ramp up perceived moral conflict between those on opposite sides. Therefore, even if people do not actively seek out echo chambers, being surrounded by congenial messaging due to sorting or passive selection may still have polarizing effects.

Author

• Robin Bayes, Rowan University