Standing up or giving up? Moral foundations mediate political differences in evaluations of BLACK LIVES MATTER and other protests

Abstract

Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests challenge the existing social order whereas other protests do not (e.g., gun-rights protests). Some protests even reinforce it (e.g., Blue Lives Matter protests). Protests challenging the social order align with "individualizing" moral foundations (e.g., fairness, harm/care) but undermine "binding" moral foundations (e.g., loyalty, authority), which may partially explain political differences in approval of protesting. Four studies examined whether moral foundation endorsement mediated the effect of political orientation on protest evaluations. In Study 1, liberals rated BLM protests and general protesting as more moral than conservatives, partially due to increased individualizing and decreased binding endorsement. Studies 2-4 replicated this pattern for BLM and general protesting, but these effects disappeared for gun-rights protests and largely reversed for Blue Lives Matter protests, which uphold the status quo. These results suggest that protest evaluations partially reflect the moral values prioritized by different political groups.

Double standards in judging collective action

“…Second, we might argue that their different moral concerns (Graham et al, 2009;Kivikangas et al, 2021) lead progressives and conservatives to see their support of certain causes as a fundamental matter of right or wrong (Skitka et al, 2021) and, by thus moralizing those causes, to accept more extreme means to achieving them. This aligns with Richardson and Conway's (2022) finding that their different moral concerns explained why liberals rated protesting for liberal causes as more moral than conservatives and vice versa. Future research should seek to disentangle which of those plausible mechanisms best explains partisan differences in judging collective action.…”