A recent social media post highlighted a long-observed distinction in political morality, stating, > "Conservatism is associated with greater moral concern for 'close others' (family, community, country). Liberalism associated with greater moral concern for broader categories (all humanity, all living things)." This observation aligns with established psychological theories, which suggest fundamental differences in how political ideologies approach moral concerns.
For years, the prevalent Moral Foundations Theory has posited that liberals primarily emphasize moral values related to individual rights, such as harm and fairness. In contrast, conservatives are understood to value these foundations alongside "binding foundations" like loyalty, authority, and purity, which serve to strengthen group cohesion. This framework has been instrumental in understanding the moral "culture war" in many societies.
However, new research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Jake Womick, Emily Kubin, and their colleagues offers a refined perspective. The study suggests that both liberals and conservatives share a common moral foundation centered on preventing harm. The key differentiator, according to this research, lies in their "assumptions of vulnerability"—who or what each group perceives as most susceptible to harm.
The findings indicate that liberals tend to view marginalized groups and the environment as highly vulnerable, advocating for their protection. Conversely, conservatives extend greater vulnerability to entities such as the powerful and the divine. Furthermore, liberals often see vulnerability as group-based, while conservatives perceive it as more broadly distributed among individuals.
These divergent perceptions of vulnerability are crucial in explaining persistent political disagreements on various issues, from climate change to immigration and policing. The comprehensive study, which included multiple experiments, implicit measures, and real-world behavioral observations, demonstrates the robustness of these findings across different contexts and samples.
