Why Moral Advocacy Leads to Polarization and Proselytization: The Role of Self-Persuasion Abeywickrama, RS, Rhee, Josh, Crone, DL and Laham, SM 2020, Why Moral Advocacy Leads to Polarization and Proselytization: The Role of Self-Persuasion, Journal of Social and Political Psychology, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 473-503, doi: 10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1346. Attached Files Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads Title Why Moral Advocacy Leads to Polarization and Proselytization: The Role of Self-Persuasion Author(s) Abeywickrama, RS Rhee, Josh Crone, DL Laham, SM Journal name Journal of Social and Political Psychology Volume number 8 Issue number 2 Start page 473 End page 503 Total pages 31 Publisher PsychOpen Place of publication Trier, Germany Publication date 2020 ISSN 2195-3325 2195-3325 Keyword(s) advocacy ARGUMENTS ATTITUDE attitudes CONSEQUENTIALIST CONSERVATIVES CONVICTION DETERMINANTS FOUNDATIONS LIBERALS MEDIATION migration moral foundations morality persuasion polarization Psychology Psychology, Social self-persuasion Social Sciences Summary This research is the first to examine the effects of moral versus practical pro-attitudinal advocacy in the context of self-persuasion. We validate a novel advocacy paradigm aimed at uncovering why moral advocacy leads to polarization and proselytization. We investigate four distinct possibilities: (1) expression of moral foundational values (harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, purity), (2) reliance on moral systems (deontology and consequentialism), (3) expression of moral outrage, (4) increased confidence in one’s advocacy attempt. In Study 1 (N = 255) we find differences between moral and practical advocacy on the five moral foundations, deontology, and moral outrage. In Study 2 (N = 218) we replicate these differences, but find that only the expression of moral foundations is consequential in predicting attitude polarization. In Study 3 (N = 115) we replicate the effect of moral foundations on proselytization. Our findings suggest that practical compared to moral advocacy may attenuate polarization and proselytization. This carries implications for how advocacy can be re-framed in ways which minimize social conflict. Language eng DOI 10.5964/jspp.v8i2.1346 Field of Research 1606 Political Science 1608 Sociology 1701 Psychology HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal Free to Read? Yes Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30158408 Document type: Journal Article Collections: Faculty of Health School of Psychology Open Access Collection Related Links Link Description Link to full-text (open access)   Connect to Elements publication management system Go to link with your DU access privileges     Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved. Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au. Versions Version Filter Type Fri, 12 Nov 2021, 07:14:11 EST Tue, 16 Nov 2021, 07:50:54 EST Fri, 26 Nov 2021, 15:10:01 EST Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 10:55:09 EST Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 15:27:07 EST Fri, 14 Jan 2022, 15:31:04 EST Filtered Full Citation counts:   Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science Cited 0 times in Scopus Search Google Scholar Access Statistics: 18 Abstract Views, 0 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics Created: Fri, 12 Nov 2021, 07:14:11 EST