Attacking on morality: When foundation match recipients’ political affiliation.

Abstract Purpose. The present contribution investigated implicit and explicit effects of negative campaigns based on different moral foundations in liberal vs. conservative participants. Background. Research suggested that the effects of negative campaigns on the perception of the involved candidates are influenced by the specific content of the attack. As for morality, according to the MFT, liberals rely more on individualizing foundations, whereas conservatives rely also on binding foundations). Method. Studies 1 and 2 explored how conservatives and liberals explicitly and implicitly evaluate a candidate who attacked the opponent on individualizing vs. binding foundations. Study 3 analyzed how conservatives and liberals evaluate both the source and the target of a negative campaign based on the 5 different foundations. Study 4 analyzed the implicit and explicit evaluation of a target who received an initial attack and who counterattacked on the same foundation of the initial attack. Results. Studies 1 and 2 suggested that participants evaluated more negatively the source when the attacks concerned the foundations less relevant for them according to the MFT. Study 3 indicated that participants evaluated more negatively the target when the attacks were about the foundations more relevant for them. Study 4 suggested that the target of a negative campaign that counterattacks is evaluated more positively only at the explicit level. Conclusions: Overall, these studies suggested that the evaluation of the source and the target of negative campaigns are affected by the specific content of the moral attack and by the political ideology of participants.