President Barack Obama gave a strong message at the G20 economic summit Monday, condemning the anti-refugee responses of Republican governors and reaffirming that the United States would continue to welcome Syrian refugees into the country after ISIS attacks in Paris.
"When I heard political leaders suggest that there would be a religious test for which a person who's fleeing a warn-torn country is admitted... that's shameful," Obama said. "That's not American. That's not who we are. We don't have religious tests to our compassion."
Advertisement
But if he was hoping to win the hearts and minds of Republican adversaries with his speech, he may have used exactly the wrong rhetoric.
According to new research published in this month's Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Obama would have a better chance of building consensus if he appealed to conservative values (e.g., "Let's not turn our backs on the American ideals of freedom and inclusivity") rather than calling adversaries "shameful."
Advertisement
This may seem obvious, but it remains nearly impossible to do.
"People can’t easily see past their own moral reason for taking a position," Robb Willer, a professor of sociology at Stanford University and coauthor of the new study, told The Huffington Post.
Previous sociological research has found that conservatives and liberals have different moral profiles, Willer explained. Liberals tend to endorse values like equality, fairness and protecting vulnerable people from harm. Conservatives, on the other hand, are more likely to value patriotism, group loyalty, respect for authority and moral purity.
Advertisement
"Liberals tend to make arguments in terms of their own moral values, even when they know they’re talking to conservatives," Willer said. "And conservatives do the same."
These tendencies held true in Willer's study, which asked participants to craft a convincing argument to change the mind of a political opponent on a polarizing issue, such as military spending or same-sex marriage.
Participants did an exceedingly poor job of winning over their political foes. Some participants crafted arguments grounded in their own morality, rather than in the morality of their opponents. Others outright insulted their opponents' morality, despite being specifically tasked with crafting empathetic arguments.
When researchers flipped the script, however, and presented their own scientifically targeted moral arguments to study participants, the recipients found them much more appealing.
Liberals, for example, were unmoved by a conventional patriotism arguments for military spending. When asked to consider how the military creates equal opportunities for the poor and for minorities, however, they tended to increase support for the issue.
Advertisement
Likewise, conservatives found a patriotism argument for same-sex marriage much more convincing than an argument pegged to equality and fairness.
Obama may feel a greater urgency to set the nation's message, rather than appeal to Republican voters, this late in his presidency. But 2016 presidential hopefuls might want to heed this advice during the upcoming general election.
For example, instead of appealing to Americans' morality by calling refugee refusal "shameful," perhaps a Democratic candidate should argue, as Fox News anchor Shepard Smith did, that "our unique experiment in freedom, tolerance, openness, and equality, is our gift to societies and peoples everywhere."
Smith went on to make a biblical reference to America as the "shining city on the hill," ticking off conservative lynchpins religion, patriotism and moral purity, while simultaneously making an argument for accepting refugees into the U.S.
Advertisement
"Come, join us," he said. "Enjoy a chance at the American dream." That's some cutting-edge moral psychology right there.
As for Willer, the larger takeaway is pretty straightforward. "When you fit the moral undergirding of an argument to people’s underlying moral values, it’s more persuasive to them," he said. "And this results in political persuasion on issues that we would normally think of as issues where it’s impossible to move people."
Also on HuffPost:
Numbers That Show There's Much More To Do To Help Syrian Refugees
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.