Political ideologies may share a similar moral compass, but liberals and conservatives diverge on who counts as a victim, a new study suggests.
Differing Assumptions About Vulnerability
Research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin introduces the concept of “assumptions of vulnerability” — beliefs about who is most susceptible to harm, mistreatment, and victimization. This concept helps explain why people from the right and left reach different moral conclusions.
“We all care about protecting the vulnerable from harm, but we make different assumptions about who is especially susceptible to victimization,” says Daniela Goya-Tocchetto, assistant professor of organization and human resources at the University at Buffalo School of Management and a co-author of the study.
Liberals and Conservatives Agree on Morality, Disagree on Vulnerability
The study, involving over 6,000 participants across 12 studies, including surveys, experiments, implicit reaction-time tests, and real charitable donation choices, shows that both liberals and conservatives agree on protecting vulnerable groups from harm. However, their perceptions of vulnerability differ significantly.
Liberals perceive minority groups, such as immigrants and racial minorities, and the environment as more vulnerable. They also see powerful individuals and religious principles as less vulnerable. Conservatives, on the other hand, view all these groups and ideals as equally vulnerable to harm.
Related: Scientists revive exhausted immune cells
This disparity in perceptions of vulnerability can lead to stark differences in moral judgments. For example, liberals might view it as more immoral to build a pipeline through indigenous land, while conservatives might see it as less so, given their assumption that all groups are equally capable of resilience.
According to Goya-Tocchetto, this shared moral ground of caring about vulnerability could be a starting point for debates on divisive issues. She suggests addressing perceptions of vulnerability directly, rather than trying to change underlying values.
“Messaging, media framing, or education that highlights a target’s vulnerability or invulnerability could meaningfully shift how people judge a given issue or behavior,” she says.
Additional collaborators on the study are from California State University, Bakersfield; the University of Oxford; the University of California, Davis; the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; the University of California, Los Angeles; Ohio State University; and Duke University.
