Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

Tamim Mobayed; Jet G. Sanders

doi:10.3390/bs12050118

Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

Mobayed, Tamim;Sanders, Jet G. 2022-04-20 00:00:00 behavioral sciences Article Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours 1 , 2 , 1 Tamim Mobayed * and Jet G. Sanders Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 3PH, UK; j.g.sanders@lse.ac.uk Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK * Correspondence: tamim.mobayed@wolfson.ox.ac.uk Abstract: This preregistered, randomized controlled experiment attempts to distil the effects of Moral Foundational Framing on attitudes and behaviours towards refugees in the UK. First, moral foundations were found to robustly predict both attitudes and behaviours practised towards refugees. Next, a degree of support was found for the effectiveness of moral foundational framing in adjusting attitudes, but not behaviour, toward refugees in the UK. Individuals who scored highly on certain morals were susceptible to inﬂuence by moral foundational framing, but not always in ways that may have been expected. We conclude that the robust relationship found between moral foundations and attitudes towards refugees stresses the importance of actively shaping moral foundations. This notion is strengthened by the comparatively less robust effects of framing. Findings could be used to inform the practice of individuals interested in inﬂuencing opinion and behaviour, particularly in support of refugee acceptance. Keywords: moral foundations theory; refugees; framing; moral framing; behaviour change 1. Introduction Citation: Mobayed, T.; Sanders, J.G. The world is facing unprecedented challenges in the form of the plight of refugees. Moral Foundational Framing and Its 70.8 million people have been forced to leave their homes and live away from them today, Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours. of which 25.9 million are refugees [1]. Of this 70.8 million, it is estimated that more than Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118. https:// a third were forced to move due to sudden onset weather events [2]. According to the doi.org/10.3390/bs12050118 UNHCR, in 2018, there were a total of 126,720 refugees in the UK, including 18,519 who Academic Editor: Dario Bacchini had been offered asylum that year [1]. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford reported that more than 50% of British people believe migration should be reduced. Received: 9 October 2021 Blinder [3] reported that more than 75% of British citizens want to reduce immigration. Accepted: 4 April 2022 Negative attitudes centre around a triad of attitudinal bunches; economic burden, Published: 20 April 2022 sectarian/ethnic considerations, and safety of the host population. Such attitudes have Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral been reported widely, including within the context of Turkey [4], Japan [5], and Europe- with regard to jurisdictional claims in wide [6–8]. Buffers against holding negative attitudes towards refugees seem to come from published maps and institutional afﬁl- higher levels of education [5,9] while the informational ﬂow from elites also holds sway [5]. iations. Researchers have employed a range of approaches in their attempts to change attitudes towards refugees, including making salient certain social norms [10], holding individuals accountable for decisions they make about other groups [11], employing an inﬂuencing confederate [12], or close friends and acquaintances [13], information dissemination that Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. challenges ill-attitudes with facts [5,7,9], addressing speciﬁc concerns such as ethnic com- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. position and value worries [14], and consciousness raising [15]. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 1.1. Framing in Political Contexts conditions of the Creative Commons Framing grew from Prospect Theory; this theory centres on the ﬁnding that “decisions Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ taken by individuals can be altered by presenting information in logically equivalent but 4.0/). semantically different ways” ([16], p. 5). Their research found a signiﬁcant relationship Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050118 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 2 of 15 between the way in which information was presented and how it would be weighed by individuals. Framing can be described as a pointed packaging of information that might draw emphasis to one (or certain) aspect(s) of it; crucially, it does not result in any factual changes to the information. In politicized decision contexts, Druckman and McDermott identify two key deviations by way of emotions and susceptibility to the framing effect [17]; different emotions, both deemed negative, e.g., anger and distress, can lead to differential impacts of framing. The same authors identiﬁed emotions as one potential way to moderate the framing effect. Ref. [18] used conﬂicting elite discourse to see if it could reduce the impact of the framing effect, with mixed success. Researchers at Stanford University [19] deployed framing to tackle a phenomenon researchers call the ‘progressive paradox’, wherein individuals favour a more egalitarian society yet readily vote against candidates who seek to realize that goal at the ballot box. This built on previous research, such as Feygina, Goldsmith and Jost [20] who reported that they could increase support for environmental policies if they were framed in terms of preserving American traditions. 1.2. Moral Foundations Theory One common approach to framing in these politicized contexts [19,20] is by means of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) [21]. MFT attempts to formulate a comprehensive theory of human morality, identifying moral values that extend across cultures. By examining a range of cultures, with theoretical foundations in social psychology and anthropology, they extract ﬁve (or six [22]) universal moral dimensions: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation, which can be found within all cultures, to varying intensities and differential manifestations (the proposed sixth moral is liberty/oppression). In this study, we look at the effect of four of these frames: care, fairness, loyalty or sanctity. Authority was deselected due to both resource constraints and expectations it would not be inﬂuential (though this exclusion proved to be erroneous: statistical analyses on data collected through this study found strong, signiﬁcant relationships between the moral of authority and some of the outcome measures). Each of the ﬁve foundations is rooted in evolutionary beneﬁt, which we outline below. 1.2.1. Care/Harm This evolutionarily important value is prominent across different mammals, one form of which is embodied by a mother ’s care for her offspring; the development of expressions of care is often socially driven by the propagation of normative ideals. While the biopsychological hardware for this foundation might be similar between humans and societies, its manifestation varies greatly. Compare the expression of care/harm in Ancient Spartan society with that of contemporary California. 1.2.2. Fairness/Cheating Fairness/Cheating is linked to the notion of reciprocal altruism, where one individual (temporarily) sacriﬁces for another unrelated individual. Fairness is derived from overarch- ing reciprocal beneﬁt, following the initial cost. Sensitivity to fairness is universal [23] and observed early in human development (before the age of ﬁve, and possibly before the age of one). 1.2.3. Loyalty/Betrayal Loyalty is deﬁned as strong feelings of allegiance toward a person or group and is equally foundational. Both chimps and humans have been found to group together and initiate conﬂicts with other groups for territory, with humans having intensiﬁed this ability due to the development of ‘language, weapons, and tribal markers’ ([21] p. 70). These predispositions towards loyalty were famously activated in Sherif’s [24] seminal study that took a group of schoolboys on a camping trip, divided them into groups and had them face off against each other in competitions; they exhibited commitment to in-group members Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 3 of 15 and stark hostility towards ‘the other ’. Indeed, in-group loyalty is often associated with hostile attitudes towards out-group members [25]. 1.2.4. Authority/Subversion Dominance hierarchies are seen in many animals, especially larger mammals. Within human beings, social hierarchies vary greatly from culture to culture and might include patriarchy or matriarchy as deﬁning features. Within modern nation states, various cultures might exist (and coexist); liberals might deem obedience to authority as a vice while conservatives champion it as a virtue [26]. 1.2.5. Sanctity/Degradation Sanctity and degradation are related to the immune system, physiological aversion and disgust. The evolutionary advantages of this system are great: parasites, bacteria and viruses pose signiﬁcant threats to our collective survival. Revulsion keeps these (where possible) out of our food, bodies and societies [27]. This system also impacted our social world; “Disgust and the behavioral immune system have come to undergird a variety of moral reactions, for example, to immigrants and sexual deviants” ([21], p. 71). 1.3. Moral Framing to Shape Pro-Refugee Attitudes and Behaviour In this randomized controlled experiment, we deployed moral foundational framing to inﬂuence attitudes and behaviours in relation to refugees in the UK. Moral foundational framing has successfully been deployed in contexts including attitudes toward the environ- mental [20] and ﬁscal policy [19]. In proximity to this study, Nath et al. [28] applied Moral Foundational framing to immigrant contexts, focusing on the differences between individ- ualizing and binding (The individualizing morals are care/harm and fairness/cheating; the binding morals are loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation) morals and the way in which these moral groupings predict attitudes. Their experiments successfully applied this form of framing to inﬂuence stated attitudes regarding immigra- tion to the USA. Kaufman [14] successfully applied moral framing, showing that reframing discussions around migration could lessen it as a concern. However, most research did not consider how these attitudinal shifts respond to behaviour [16,29]. Grigorieff, Roth and Ubfal [9] found that while certain morally aligned frames changed attitudes, critically, they did not observe behaviourally-inclined changes, such as in decisions made about policy or resource distribution. In the current experiment, we therefore supplement the examination of attitudes by measures approximating pro-refugee behaviours in the real world by asking participants to sign a petition either in favour or against increasing the number of refugees in the UK and inviting them to donate 20% of their experimental earnings to a refugee charity. Another missing element from the body of literature is the notion of personalization. Studies tend to focus on identifying which one frame may function more effectively than another, or which group responds most to a certain frame. However, increasingly, this one-size-ﬁts-all perspective is being replaced by a more tailored approach [30]. Attempting to understand how moral foundational underpinning might inﬂuence individual-level responses is key to the impact of any informational campaign. In sum, we expected that Moral Foundations would signiﬁcantly predict attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. To be more speciﬁc, based on patterns observed in the literature, we expected that moral values of care and fairness signiﬁcantly predict favourable attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. Second, we expected that frames that were congruent and morally aligned would be most effective in eliciting pro-refugee attitudes. Third, we expected that congruent and morally aligned frames will be most effective in eliciting pro-refugee behaviours. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 attitudes. Third, we expected that congruent and morally aligned frames will be most ef- fective in eliciting pro-refugee behaviours. 2. Materials and Methods Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 4 of 15 2.1. Experimental Design This study utilised a one-way between subjects’ experimental design with levels (control, care, fair, sanctity and loyalty message frame). In addition, participants provided 2. Materials and Methods demographic information (age, gender, racial group and religious affiliation) and political 2.1. Experimental Design demographic information (political party alignment, political ideology, and position on This study utilised a one-way between subjects’ experimental design with levels (con- Brexit). trol, care, fair, sanctity and loyalty message frame). In addition, participants provided demographic information (age, gender, racial group and religious afﬁliation) and politi- 2.2. Control Group cal demographic information (political party alignment, political ideology, and position With the be on neBr fit exit). of hindsight, the control group employed by this experiment, when compared to the treatment groups, might have been significantly flawed. Relying on the 2.2. Control Group work of Kaufman [14], the passage used for the treatment groups is arguably contentious With the beneﬁt of hindsight, the control group employed by this experiment, when and scientifically noisy, evoking themes of inclusion and exclusion relating to migrants compared to the treatment groups, might have been signiﬁcantly ﬂawed. Relying on the and refugees (Appendix A—Table A2). The control group read a significantly different work of Kaufman [14], the passage used for the treatment groups is arguably contentious passage that contained none of these themes, leading to a potentially critical difference and scientiﬁcally noisy, evoking themes of inclusion and exclusion relating to migrants and between the treatment groups and the control groups that was not intended. Accordingly, refugees (Appendix A—Table A2). The control group read a signiﬁcantly different passage the control group was excluded from most analyses reported. that contained none of these themes, leading to a potentially critical difference between the treatment groups and the control groups that was not intended. Accordingly, the control group was excluded from most analyses reported. 2.3. Stimuli We used the Moral Foundations Theory Questionnaire-30 (MFQ-30), a 32-item meas- 2.3. Stimuli ure of individual values (30 items, plus two attention checks) to measure participants on We used the Moral Foundations Theory Questionnaire-30 (MFQ-30), a 32-item measure their level of five morals. The treatment conditions were devised by way of infusing three of individual values (30 items, plus two attention checks) to measure participants on their written passages with morally laden wording. The passages were threefold: a statement level of ﬁve morals. The treatment conditions were devised by way of infusing three on immigration in the UK (Figure 1), an excerpt from a speech of a fictional politician written passages with morally laden wording. The passages were threefold: a statement (Figure 2) and on a pimmigration olicy propos in althe (FiUK gure (Figur 3). T eh1 e), tr an eaexcerpt tment g fr rom oupa s speech were fof ive a: ﬁctional a contro politician l (Figure 2) and a policy proposal (Figure 3). The treatment groups were ﬁve: a control group, as well as four different morally framed conditions. All moral frames were infused group, as well as four different morally framed conditions. All moral frames were infused with wording that stemmed from each moral value (Tables A1 and A2). Rather than the with wording that stemmed from each moral value (Tables A1 and A2). Rather than the statement on immigration, the control group received a passage on the role of lobbyists. statement on immigration, the control group received a passage on the role of lobbyists. While the excerpt from the politician centred on refugees for four of the treatment groups, While the excerpt from the politician centred on refugees for four of the treatment groups, for the control group, the fictional politician spoke on voting systems. for the control group, the ﬁctional politician spoke on voting systems. Figure 1. Morally framed passage (care). Figure 1. Morally framed passage (care). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 5 of 15 Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). 2.4. Measures 2.4. Measures 2.4. Measures Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a statement regarding ﬁnding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or alarming Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a state- Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a state- and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel and ment regarding finding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or ment regarding finding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a pro- alarming and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel alarming and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel refugee political candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked to and Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a and Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a either provide support (1) or not (0) for a policy that would see refugee numbers increase pro-refugee political candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked pro-rin efthe uge UK e pby oli5%. tical candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked to either provide supp The ort behaviour (1) or nomeasur t (0) foes r a employed policy th wer at w e twofold. ould seeOne refug involved ee num an be invitation rs in- to sign to either provide support (1) or not (0) for a policy that would see refugee numbers in- a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural crease in the UK by 5%. crease in the UK by 5%. measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) The behaviour measures employed were twofold. One involved an invitation to sign The behaviour measures employed were twofold. One involved an invitation to sign towards a ﬁctional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insigniﬁcant, a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) It can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-ﬁfth of that amount measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) towards a fictional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insignificant, would carry value. towards a fictional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insignificant, it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. It it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. It 2.5. Participants can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-fifth of that amount can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-fifth of that amount would carry value. 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). would carry value. All were recruited through the Proliﬁc platform. 2.5. Participants Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. 2.5. Participants 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). All were recruited through the Prolific platform. Demographic Information Care (n = 210) Fair (n = 215) Loyalty (n = 217) Sanctity (n = 216) Control (n = 218) 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). Male All were re83 cruited throug 85 h the Prolific 89 platform. 82 84 Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. Female 126 128 125 132 130 White 178 184 189 176 189 Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 Care (n Fair (n = Loyalty Sanctity Control BachelorDe ’s Degree mogra and phic Information 105 102 104 109 112 = 210) 215) (n = 217) (n = 216) (n = 218) Higher Care (n Fair (n = Loyalty Sanctity Control Less Than Bachelor’s 105 113 113 107 106 Demographic Information = 210) 215) (n = 217) (n = 216) (n = 218) Male 83 85 89 82 84 Female Male 126 128 83 125 85 132 89 130 82 84 White 178 184 189 176 189 Female 126 128 125 132 130 Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 White 178 184 189 176 189 Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 6 of 15 2.6. Consent Participants actively consented to participation in the study by way of opting into the experiment and indicating their consent. 2.7. Sample Size To determine the sample size required to adequately carry out this experiment, a G-power calculation was conducted, using the following parameters: Effect size (d)—0.35; Power—0.95; Alpha (p)–0.05. An effect size of 0.35 was selected due to being as close to a strong effect (0.25) as possible, while not exceeding available resources. This yielded n of 214 per treatment group, with a total n of 1070. 2.8. Recruitment Participants were recruited in October 2019 using Proliﬁc, deemed a sound recruitment tool that avoids some of the problematic aspects that arise on MTurk [31]. Participants were reimbursed for their time at a rate of £6.43/hour. Participants were instructed they would be ‘answering a series of questions about their values and attitudes, and taking a number of measures relating to the population of the UK’. 2.9. Ethical Considerations Participants were informed that they would be free to withdraw from the study at any point. They were also provided with the email address of the LSE’s Research Governance Manager and invited to contact them should any concerns or complaints arise. Participant data was anonymized and all data was treated securely, being accessible only to the researcher and their supervisor. This study was ethically self-approved according to the LSE’s Psychological and Behavioural Science ethical guidelines. 2.10. Procedure Participants were instructed to complete some of the demographic measures be- fore they were instructed to read the ﬁrst framed item carefully and state their agree- ment/disagreement with the ﬁrst attitudinal measure. They were then instructed to read the second framed item and state their likelihood of voting for the ﬁctional political can- didate. Participants then read the framed policy proposal and stated their support or opposition to it. After the attitudinal measures, participants completed the two behavioural measures. Firstly, participants were invited to sign a petition in support of, or a petition against, increasing the number of refugees allowed into the UK. Secondly, participants were invited to donate £0.20, or any other amount, from their participation earnings. Participants were then asked to carry out the MFQ-30, followed by providing the remaining demographic information. This was purposely set to be done after the main attitudinal and behavioural measures, as it was determined these were the most important measures of the experiment, hence this was done to protect them from participant fatigue. On completion, participants were shown the participant debrief page. 2.11. Exclusion Criteria and Process The MFQ-30 has two attention-check questions. Q6 comes within the ﬁrst section, in which participants are determining how relevant the items are to their decision of whether or not something is right or wrong, The item of Q6 states: ‘Whether or not someone was good at math’. Q22, in the second section, in which participants are stating their agreement or disagreement with the items, states: ‘It is better to do good than to do bad’. According to the authors of the MFQ-30, any positive response to question six and any negative response to 22 should disqualify the participant. Eight participants violated both conditions and were removed from the data set. 18 participants violated Q22 and were removed from the data set. 159 participants violated Q6. On further enquiry, it was thought that this position could be challenged (This was challenged by two participants Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 7 of 15 who were ﬂagged for potential disqualiﬁcation). As such, a case could be made that utilitarianism, and consequentialism as a whole, are based on the idea that maths and ethics are related. Accordingly, an individual’s level of maths might be a minor factor in processing morality. A case could thus be made, very much equivocally, that intelligence and ethics can be related; certainly, consequentialist ethics relies on mathematical valuation. In light of this thinking, participants who violated Q6 were only removed if they completed the questionnaire in less than four minutes. 29 participants were removed based on the amended criteria. 2.12. Materials Stata (15.0); Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com); Proliﬁc (www.proliﬁc.co). 2.13. Pre-Registration This experiment was pre-registered with the Centre for Open Science (OSF). Areas of focus and expected ﬁndings were listed and described here (https://osf.io/7tvj6/). 3. Results 3.1. The Relationship between Moral Foundations and Attitudes towards Refugees In order to probe potential relationships between moral foundations and the com- bined attitude measures towards refugees, an Ordered Logit regression was executed. The regression analysis, with a Pseudo R2 of 0.089, showed that pro-refugee attitudes were signiﬁcantly predicted by all moral value measures, barring sanctity (z = 0.26, p < 0.80, OR = 0.979 95% CI [0.836–1.147]). Care (z = 4.21, p < 0.001, OR = 1.55, 95% CI [1.26–1.90]), fairness (z = 7.32, p < 0.001, OR = 2.28 95%CI [1.83–2.85]), loyalty (z = 2.26, p = 0.024, OR = 0.81 95% CI [0.666–0.971]) and authority (z = 6.20, p < 0.001, OR = 0.527, CI Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15 [0.43–0.645]), were all found to be signiﬁcantly related to attitude towards refugees— fairness and care positively so, loyalty and authority negatively so (See Figure 4A). As predicted, care and fairness are the strongest predictors of positive attitudes towards refugees. Figure 4. Displaying moral foundation scores by (A) the average attitude toward refugees and (B) pro-refugee behaviour. Figure 4. Displaying moral foundation scores by (A) the average attitude toward refugees and (B) pro-refugee behaviour. 3.2. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Shifting Attitudes To assess the effectiveness of framing conditions on observed attitudes, we ran the same Ordered Logit regression, including the effect of framing conditions in two blocks: first as a main effect and second with interaction effects. The model fit did not significantly improve (X2(4) = 7.36, p = 0.118) by adding a main effect (Pseudo R2 of 0.091). The model did significantly improve by adding main and interaction effects (X2(20) = 55.96, p < 0.001; Pseudo R2 of 0.101). This model displays a main effect of the care frame (Z = −4.07, p < 0.001, OR = 0.007, 95% CI = 0–0.08) and sanctity relative to the control frame (Z = −2.05, p = 0.041, OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02–0.09) relative to the control frame. Despite the unexpected directionality of the main effects (due to previously ex- plained issues with the control group), we also note a number of interaction effects: those who scored higher on authority were less likely to respond to the care (Z = −2.70, p = 0.007, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.78), fair (Z = −2.97, p = 0.003, OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.2–0.72) or loyalty (Z = −2.89, p = 0.004, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.20–0.73) frame than the control. Those who scored higher on loyalty were more likely to respond to the care frame than to the control (Z = 1.986, p = 0.047, OR = 1.85, 95% CI =1.01–3.42), which was most consistent with our prediction. Those who scored higher on for care also responded better to the care frame (Z = 2.29, p = 0.022, OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.12–4.05). We repeated this analysis without the control group (care frame as a reference). This yielded similar results: there were no main effects of frames if these were added alone but there were when interaction effects were included (Supplementary Material for the com- plete analyses). We reject the null hypothesis: not only is no one frame well suited to all participants, but some predispositions are also predictive of the frame type that may direct their attitude toward more prosocial behaviour. 3.3. The Relationship between Moral Foundations on Pro-Refugee Behaviour Did differences carry through to behaviours? We reviewed the relationships between moral foundations and behaviours practised towards refugees—two regressions models were executed. In relation to signing the pro-refugee petition, we ran a Ordered Logit regression (Pseudo R2 of 0.032): fairness was a significant positive [Z = 4.03, p < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.29–2.06], and authority was a signiﬁcant negative predictor [Z = −3.56, p < 0.001, OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–838] of pro-refugee signing (see Figure 4B). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 8 of 15 3.2. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Shifting Attitudes To assess the effectiveness of framing conditions on observed attitudes, we ran the same Ordered Logit regression, including the effect of framing conditions in two blocks: ﬁrst as a main effect and second with interaction effects. The model ﬁt did not signiﬁcantly improve (X2(4) = 7.36, p = 0.118) by adding a main effect (Pseudo R2 of 0.091). The model did signiﬁcantly improve by adding main and interaction effects (X2(20) = 55.96, p < 0.001; Pseudo R2 of 0.101). This model displays a main effect of the care frame (Z = 4.07, p < 0.001, OR = 0.007, 95% CI = 0–0.08) and sanctity relative to the control frame (Z = 2.05, p = 0.041, OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02–0.09) relative to the control frame. Despite the unexpected directionality of the main effects (due to previously explained issues with the control group), we also note a number of interaction effects: those who scored higher on authority were less likely to respond to the care (Z = 2.70, p = 0.007, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.78), fair (Z = 2.97, p = 0.003, OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.2–0.72) or loyalty (Z = 2.89, p = 0.004, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.20–0.73) frame than the control. Those who scored higher on loyalty were more likely to respond to the care frame than to the control (Z = 1.986, p = 0.047, OR = 1.85, 95% CI =1.01–3.42), which was most consistent with our prediction. Those who scored higher on for care also responded better to the care frame (Z = 2.29, p = 0.022, OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.12–4.05). We repeated this analysis without the control group (care frame as a reference). This yielded similar results: there were no main effects of frames if these were added alone but there were when interaction effects were included (Supplementary Material for the complete analyses). We reject the null hypothesis: not only is no one frame well suited to all participants, but some predispositions are also predictive of the frame type that may direct their attitude toward more prosocial behaviour. 3.3. The Relationship between Moral Foundations on Pro-Refugee Behaviour Did differences carry through to behaviours? We reviewed the relationships between moral foundations and behaviours practised towards refugees—two regressions models were executed. In relation to signing the pro-refugee petition, we ran a Ordered Logit regres- sion (Pseudo R2 of 0.032): fairness was a signiﬁcant positive [Z = 4.03, p < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.29–2.06], and authority was a signiﬁcant negative predictor [Z = 3.56, p < 0.001, OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–838] of pro-refugee signing (see Figure 4B). In relation to pro-refugee donations, we ran a binomial logistic regression model (Pseudo R2 of 0.096). We found that care [Z = 5.40, p < 0.001, OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.58–2.65] and fairness [Z = 2.07, p = 0.038, OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.01–1.73] were signiﬁcantly positive and authority [Z = 3.75, p < 0.001, OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.50–0.80] was a signiﬁcant negative predictor of donating (see Figure 4B). In sum, we reject the null hypothesis: the foundation of care predicts pro-refugee behaviour, whereas authority does so negatively. Interestingly, differences were less pro- nounced with monetary donations (odds ratio around 4) relative to the signing of the petition (odds ratio around 2). 3.4. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Pro-Refugee Behaviour To review the effects of framing on pro-refugee behaviour, we added framing condi- tions to the Ordered Logit model for pro-refugee petitions and the logistic regression model for pro-refugee donating. For pro-refugee petitions, the predictive power of the model did not signiﬁcantly improve with added effects of condition (X2(4) = 1.97, p = 0.741; Pseudo R2 of 0.033), nor when interaction effects between framing and moral foundation were added (X2(20) = 22.1, p = 0.334; Pseudo R2 of 0.044). Upon review of the two models, there were no main interaction effects. Findings did not differ when the control group was removed from the analysis (Supplementary Material). For pro-refugee donations, we used the same approach. We also observed no changes in predictive power of the model when the framing condition was added (X2(4) = 4.12, Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 9 of 15 p = 0.39; Pseudo R2 of 0.099), nor when interaction effects between framing and moral foundation were added (X2(20) = 22.16, p = 0.332; Pseudo R2 of 0.1147). Upon review of the two models, there were no main of interaction effects. For this measure too, ﬁndings did not differ when the control group was removed from the analysis (Supplementary Material). 4. Discussion In this study, we ﬁnd ﬁrst that moral foundations signiﬁcantly predict both attitudes and behaviours practised towards refugees—fairness and care positively so, and sanctity and loyalty negatively so. Second, we ﬁnd that moral foundational framing was successfully deployed to inﬂuence attitudes towards refugees, amongst some groups, most consistently in relation to the care frame and at times for the fairness frame. Third, we ﬁnd that moral foundational framing had no impact on shifting pro-refugee behaviour. Our results also demonstrate what type of attitudes are likely to shift by means of moral framing. Presenting individuals with care and fare frames evoked stronger support for voting intention for a pro-refugee political candidate. No such shifts were found for being not concerned over refugee numbers or refugee policy. These ﬁndings show that tailoring messaging based on an individual’s morals may hold potential in particular politicized domains [19,20,28]. This impact is weakened by the inability to ﬁnd signiﬁcance between framing and two of the three attitudinal measures. When we take a closer look at the differential effect frames, the morals of care and fairness were associated with positive attitudes towards refugees, while authority was negatively associated. This ﬁnding had been reported previously [29]. The replication of this result highlights the level of signiﬁcance that might be offered by framing. It might serve as a useful inﬂuencer of opinion and behaviour; however, the impact of moral values is more robust. Notably, this does not automatically make it useful for shifting attitudes: moral values are not likely to be changed by way of one experiment, but rather, are formed over the course of an individual’s psychological and moral development. These ﬁndings do offer further support for the possible uses of moral foundational framing in garnering support and aiding in persuasion. Critically, support was not found in overturning moral impulses by way of framing; individuals who scored highly in binding values (sanctity and loyalty), who would typically not be forthcoming in support for refugees, were not persuaded by the sanctity and loyalty framed messaging. Our results thus failed to replicate ﬁndings by Feygina, Goldsmith and Jost [20], and Voelkel and Willer [19], who were able to shift moral positions based on this form of framing. The predictive power of the moral foundations (rather than the frame) might offer a candid indication of where effective change lies: attempts at shaping core morals might hold more potential than adjusting the framing they encounter, especially as frames had no impact on behaviour, even if they shifted attitudes. An interesting ﬁnding relating to the discrepancy between attitudes and behaviours is found in the study’s secondary focus. When asked if they would support a hypothetical policy that would see more refugees brought into the UK, 65.24% of participants said they would. When they were asked to sign a petition in support of this goal, this number halved to 32.59%, thus again highlighting the discrepancy between changing attitudes and changing behaviours. The inability of this study to evoke a change in moral applications might of course be due to ineffective deployment of moral framing: the moral frames used might not have been sufﬁciently congruent. Another possibility is that the loyalty and sanctity- framed texts might have served to prime individuals to feel morals of which they were already in possession. If this were true, it would highlight one of the potential difﬁculties of using framing in this way. Another possible limitation is the extent to which real behaviour can be captured online. In addition, the sampled population group, as is typical of online populations, was distinctly left-wing, as highlighted by the more than 2:1 ratio of Labour to Conservative voters amongst participants. This might be addressed by means of ﬁeld experiments. An addressable weakness was identiﬁed in the measure that asked participants whether they would support a policy to increase refugee numbers by 5%: could Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 10 of 15 responses to this have been inﬂuenced by the differing degrees of what 5% more refugees in the UK would actually mean in real-world numbers? A simple follow-up question could be employed in future to account for this. The most pressing future avenue of enquiry will continue to be testing how and when framing can be catalysing enough so as to overturn a pre-held belief. This study only showed that framing can increase the strength of attitudes. While this is an important ﬁnding in and of itself, were the circumstances under which framing might overturn an attitude discovered, a signiﬁcantly different range of possibilities will open to those invested in changing attitudes and behaviours towards the oppressed, marginalized and disenfranchised. The robust relationship found between moral values and attitudes towards refugees makes salient the importance of actively shaping moral foundations, in turn shaping attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. Supplementary Materials: The following data analysis tables are available online at https://www. mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs12050118/s1. Analysis S1 Logit Regression Attitude with Control Group. Analysis S2 Logit Regression Attitude Without Control Group. Analysis S3 Logit Regres- sion Petition with Control Group. Analysis S4 Logit Regression Petition Without Control Group. Analysis S5 Binomial Regression Donation with Control Group. Analysis S6 Binomial Regression Donation Without Control Group. References [32–34] are cited in the supplementary materials. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.M.; Data curation, T.M.; Formal analysis, T.M.; Investi- gation, T.M. and J.G.S.; Methodology, T.M. and J.G.S.; Project administration, T.M.; Resources, T.M.; Supervision, J.G.S.; Validation, J.G.S.; Visualization, T.M.; Writing—original draft, T.M.; Writing— review & editing, T.M. and J.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the London School of Economics and Political Sciences’ Ethical Committee, as part of the department of Psychological and Behavioural Science; the study was self-assessed as carrying no signiﬁcant ethical concerns and proceeded as per the LSE’s ethical guidelines. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data collected as part of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Framing Terms. Framing Words and Terms Word Count Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control Frame 1 145 142 141 146 181 Frame 2 140 131 130 137 107 Frame 3 20 19 22 19 11 Total 305 292 293 302 299 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 11 of 15 Table A1. Cont. Framing Words and Terms Word Count Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control Framing Phrases welcoming the looking after one justice . . . for all rooted in . . . decency n/a stranger another treating the equality . . . for all rooted in . . . purity Loyalty to our nation n/a neglected (does not) (does not) Frame 1 giving shelter granting equality compromisee compromise n/a thnic . . . integrity the loyalty (does not) compassionate just thing to do compromise . . . for one another n/a thing to do racial . . . integrity Phrases 4 4 4 4 Total Words 12 10 10 14 Moral Words 7 7 8 10 loyalty to our caring for all fairness for all promoting purity n/a great nation preventing ensuring we excel preventing harm preventing injustice infringements n/a at upholding on sanctity letting down a denying basic sullying the vulnerable principle great name n/a greatness group of justice Frame 2 putting them in believes in the does not compromise free from injustice n/a harm’s way inviolability this country (free from) ensure the purity of free from danger, . . . enhances it n/a oppression this country (free from) . . . violence is upheld our great people n/a inequality not coloured by not coloured is uncompromised leading nations . . . n/a harm by injustice Phrases 7 7 7 7 n/a Total Words 23 23 23 24 Moral Words 12 10 12 12 protecting pure maintaining Frame 3 increasing care increasing fairness n/a values country’s greatness Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 12 of 15 Table A2. Treatment passages. Treatment Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control 1. Please read the following statement carefully: “This country’s great “This country’s great “This country’s great heritage is rooted in “This country’s great heritage is rooted in heritage is rooted in welcoming the heritage is rooted in decency and purity. looking after one Policy formation is one of stranger and treating justice and equality These values are another. Loyalty to the key aspects to the neglected. These for all. These values central to our proud our nation is central modern government. values are central to are central to our British tradition. to our proud British Policies address key areas our proud British proud British According to tradition. According of both day-to-day citizen tradition. According tradition. According Professor Eric to Professor Eric life, as well as the to Professor Eric to Professor Eric Kaufmann of the Kaufmann of the direction of the country Kaufmann of the Kaufmann of the University of University of as whole. A bad policy University of University of London, a large share London, a large share can cost a government London, a large share London, a large share of the children of of the children of power, where the of the children of of the children of immigrants have immigrants have electorate respond at the immigrants have immigrants have become White British. become White British. next election. Policies can become White British. become White British. be both partisan and Immigration has Immigration has bipartisan, but typically Immigration has Immigration has risen and fallen over risen and fallen over require a parliamentary risen and fallen over risen and fallen over time, but, like the time, but, like the majority to be enacted, in time, but, like the time, but, like the English language, English language, countries that utilise a English language, English language, Britain’s culture is Britain’s culture is parliamentary democracy. Britain’s culture is Britain’s culture is only superﬁcially only superﬁcially At times, a major policy only superﬁcially only superﬁcially affected by foreign affected by foreign decision will be decided affected by foreign affected by foreign inﬂuence. inﬂuence. by way of a referendum. inﬂuence. inﬂuence. Referenda are an example Taking refugees into Taking refugees into of direct democracy, Taking refugees into Taking refugees into our country, when our country, when Vignette wherein the people make our country, when our country, when well managed, does well managed, does a decision directly. well managed, does well managed, does not risk threatening not risk threatening Switzerland is often cited not risk threatening not risk threatening the ethnic or cultural the ethnic or cultural as an example of a the ethnic or cultural the ethnic or cultural make up of Britain. make up of Britain. country that regularly make up of Britain. make up of Britain. Indeed, Britain has Indeed, Britain has utilises referenda. Indeed, Britain has Indeed, Britain has absorbed many absorbed many The role of lobbying absorbed many absorbed many populations of populations of groups in inﬂuencing populations of populations of refugees and refugees and government policy is an refugees and refugees and migrants, French, migrants, French, area of the workings of migrants, French, migrants, French, Irish, Jews and black Irish, Jews and black modern government that Irish, Jews and black Irish, Jews and black people, all of whom people, all of whom is deemed as people, all of whom people, all of whom eventually melted eventually melted undermining democracy. eventually melted eventually melted into the white into the white Lobbying groups and into the white into the white majority. majority. Britain lobbyists do the work of majority. Britain majority. Britain Britain shapes its shapes its migrants, those who pay them, shapes its migrants, shapes its migrants, migrants, migration migration doesn’t allowing those with migration doesn’t migration doesn’t doesn’t shape Britain. shape Britain. greater access to money, shape Britain. shape Britain. greater ability to hire Taking in victims of Taking in victims of forces for lobbying. Giving shelter to Granting equality to conﬂict, war and conﬂict, war and Recent moves have been victims of conﬂict, victims of conﬂict, oppression is the oppression is the taken in countries such as war and oppression war and oppression right thing to do, and right thing to do, and the US and the UK to is both a is both a just thing to does not does not limit the inﬂuence of compassionate thing do, and one is of compromise the compromise the lobbyists. to do, and one that is value to the ethnic and racial loyalty we have for of value to the indigenous society.” integrity of this one another, or our indigenous society.” country.” country.” Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 13 of 15 Table A2. Cont. Treatment Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control 2...This part of the speech 2. Below is an excerpt from the speech of politician, Candidate X, who is running in the relates to his views upcoming election. This part of the speech relates to his refugee policy. about election reform. “My vision for this “My vision for this country is based on “My vision for this country is based on “My vision for this the principle of country is based on the principles of country is based on loyalty to our great the principle of promoting purity the principle of nation and ensuring caring for all and and preventing fairness for all and we excel at preventing harm to infringements on preventing injustice upholding its great those most in need of the sanctity of our to those most in need name. protection. society. of protection. “There is a need for a I think it is I think it is I think it is rethinking of the way in I think it is regrettable that this regrettable that this regrettable that this which elections in this regrettable that this great country great country great country country are judged. For great country only accepted only accepted only accepted too long, the only accepted 10,000 refugees in 10,000 refugees in 10,000 refugees in First-Past-the-Post system 10,000 refugees in 2018—we are letting 2018—we are letting 2018—we are has disadvantaged 2018—we are down a vulnerable down a vulnerable sullying this certain voices while denying the basic group of human group of human country’s greatness granting too much principle of justice beings, and putting beings, and putting by failing to live up weight to other voices. for all, and ignoring them in harm’s way. I them in harm’s way. to what we could be While the thinking of one of this country’s believe we are I believe we are and should strive to using this system might great values and ignoring one of this ignoring one of this rectify this have made sense in the Speech should strive to country’s great country’s great immediately. past, the UK is in need of rectify this values and should values and should modernising. immediately. strive to rectify this strive to rectify this Every human being By switching to a immediately. immediately. is born with the right Proportional Every human being to live a life that Representation (PR) is born with the right Protecting fellow Every human being allows them to strive system, this country will to live a life that is humans from danger, is born with the right towards their take a step in the right free from injustice, violence and threat, to live a life that is potential. Seeing to direction. The PR system oppression and does not free from danger that that refugees are is already being used by inequality. Seeing to compromise this and violence Seeing given their rights many other countries it that refugees are country, in fact, it to it that refugees are should be a priority around the world, the given this right enhances it. Seeing given this right for anyone who system allows for a much should be a priority to it that refugees are should be a priority believes in the realer realisation of the for all of us. Our given this right for all of us. Our inviolability of this fundamental principle policies should reﬂect should be a priority policies should reﬂect country. Our policies underlying democracy, this goal. for all of us. Our this goal. should reﬂect this “one person, one vote”. policies should reﬂect goal. Vote for me, and I this goal. Vote for me, and I will ﬁght for the right will ﬁght for the right Vote for me, and I of every human Vote for me, and I of every human will ﬁght to ensure being to live a life will ﬁght to ensure being to live a life the purity of this that is not coloured this our great people that is not coloured country and its by injustice.” continue to be by harm.” vision is upheld and among the leading uncompromised.” nations on earth.” In the interest of In the interest of In the interest of In the interest of increasing the care of increasing fairness protecting the pure maintaining our Candidate X will increase refugees, towards refugees, values of this country’s greatness refugee Policy Candidate X will Candidate X will country, Candidate X Candidate X will settlements in this increase refugee increase refugee will increase refugee increase refugee country by 5%. settlements in this settlements in this settlements in this settlements in this country by 5%. country by 5%. country by 5%. country by 5%. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 14 of 15 References 1. UNHCR. Asylum in the UK. 2019. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-in-the-uk.html (accessed on 10 June 2020). 2. Podesta, J. The Climate Crisis, Migration, and Refugees. The Brookings Institute. 2019. Available online: https://www.brookings. edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Brookings_Blum_2019_climate.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2020). 3. Blinder, S. Imagined Immigration: The Impact of Different Meanings of ‘Immigrants’ in Public Opinion and Policy Debates in Britain. Political Stud. 2013, 63, 80–100. [CrossRef] 4. Getmansky, A.; Sınmazdemir, T.; Zeitzoff, T. Refugees, xenophobia, and domestic conﬂict. J. Peace Res. 2018, 55, 491–507. [CrossRef] 5. Facchini, G.; Margalit, Y.; Nakata, H. Countering public opposition to immigration: The impact of information campaigns. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2021, 141, 103959. [CrossRef] 6. Steele, L.G.; Abdelaaty, L. Ethnic diversity and attitudes towards refugees. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2018, 45, 1833–1856. [CrossRef] 7. Alesina, A.; Miano, A.; Stantcheva, S. Immigration and Redistribution; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [CrossRef] 8. Azarnert, L.V. Refugee resettlement, redistribution and growth. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2018, 54, 89–98. [CrossRef] 9. Grigorieff, A.; ROTH, C.; Ubfal, D. Does Information Change Attitudes Towards Immigrants? Representative Evidence from Survey Experiments. SSRN Electron. J. 2016. [CrossRef] 10. Stangor, C.; Sechrist, G.B.; Jost, J.T. Changing Racial Beliefs by Providing Consensus Information. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 486–496. [CrossRef] 11. Dobbs, M.; Crano, W.D. Outgroup Accountability in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Implications for Aversive Discrimination and Social Identity Theory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 355–364. [CrossRef] 12. Blanchard, F.A.; Lilly, T.; Vaughn, L.A. Reducing the Expression of Racial Prejudice. Psychol. Sci. 1991, 2, 101–105. [CrossRef] 13. Paluck, E.L. Peer Pressure Against Prejudice: A Field Experimental Test of a National High School Prejudice Reduction Program; Working Paper; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. 14. Kaufmann, E. Assimilation and the Immigration Debate: Shifting People’s Attitudes. The London School of Economics and Political Science. 2016. Available online: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/assimilation-and-the-immigration-debate- shifting-peoples-attitudes/ (accessed on 10 June 2020). 15. Galinsky, A.D.; Moskowitz, G.B. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 708–724. [CrossRef] 16. Lecheler, S.; De Vreese, C.H. How Long Do News Framing Effects Last? A Systematic review of Longitudinal Studies. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2016, 40, 3–30. [CrossRef] 17. Druckman, J.N.; McDermott, R. Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice. Politics Behav. 2008, 30, 297–321. [CrossRef] 18. Druckman, J.N.; Nelson, K.R. Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Inﬂuence. Am. J. Politics Sci. 2003, 47, 729–745. [CrossRef] 19. Voelkel, J.G.; Willer, R. Resolving the Progressive Paradox: Conservative Value Framing of Progressive Economic Policies Increases Candidate Support. 2019. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3385818 (accessed on 10 June 2020). 20. Feygina, I.; Jost, J.T.; Goldsmith, R.E. System Justiﬁcation, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 36, 326–338. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 21. Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S.; Ditto, P. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 47, 55–130. [CrossRef] 22. Iyer, R.; Koleva, S.; Graham, J.; Ditto, P.; Haidt, J. Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identiﬁed Libertarians. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42366. [CrossRef] 23. Fisk, K. Refugee Geography and the Diffusion of Armed Conﬂict in Africa. Civ. Wars 2014, 16, 255–275. [CrossRef] 24. Sherif, M. Experimental Study of Positive and Negative Intergroup Attitudes between Experimentally Produced Groups: Robbers Cave Study; University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK, USA, 1954. 25. Yitmen, S.; ¸ Verkuyten, M. Feelings toward refugees and non-Muslims in Turkey: The roles of national and religious identiﬁcations, and multiculturalism. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 48, 90–100. [CrossRef] 26. Haidt, J.; Graham, J.; Joseph, C. Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations. Psychol. Inq. 2009, 20, 110–119. [CrossRef] 27. Thornhill, R.; Fincher, C.L. The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality: Infectious Disease, History and Human Values Worldwide; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [CrossRef] 28. Nath, L.; Pedriana, N.; Gifford, C.; Mcauley, J.W.; Fülöp, M. Examining Moral Foundations Theory through Immigration Attitudes. Athens J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 9, 9–30. [CrossRef] 29. Captari, L.E.; Shannonhouse, L.; Hook, J.N.; Aten, J.D.; Davis, E.B.; Davis, D.E.; Van Tongeren, D.; Hook, J.R. Prejudicial and Welcoming Attitudes toward Syrian Refugees: The Roles of Cultural Humility and Moral Foundations. J. Psychol. Theol. 2019, 47, 123–139. [CrossRef] 30. Bryan, C.J.; Tipton, E.; Yeager, D.S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 980–989. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Palan, S.; Schitter, C. Proliﬁc.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finance 2018, 17, 22–27. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 15 of 15 32. The Jamovi Project. Jamovi. (Version 1.2) [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 10 June 2020). 33. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 3.6). 2019. Available online: https: //cran.r-project.org/ (accessed on 10 June 2020). 34. Ripley, B.; Venables, W.; Bates, D.M.; Hornik, K.; Gebhardt, A.; Firth, D. MASS: Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS. [R package]. 2018. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=MASS (accessed on 10 June 2020). http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Behavioral Sciences Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/moral-foundational-framing-and-its-impact-on-attitudes-and-behaviours-buR1ACyiRn

Loading next page...

References (48)

Leonid Azarnert (2018)
Refugee Resettlement, Redistribution and Growth
Political Economy - Development: Domestic Development Strategies eJournal
J. Voelkel, Robb Willer (2019)
Resolving the Progressive Paradox: Conservative Value Framing of Progressive Economic Policies Increases Candidate Support
PSN: Voters & Elections (Topic)
A. Galinsky, G. Moskowitz (2000)
Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism.
Journal of personality and social psychology, 78 4
Irina Feygina, J. Jost, Rachel Goldsmith
Bulletin Personality and Social Psychology System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of ''system-sanctioned Change'' on Behalf Of: Society for Personality and Social Psychology
The Jamovi Project . Jamovi . ( Version 1 . 2 ) [ Computer Software ] . 2020 R : A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing . ( Version 3 . 6 ) . 2019
(2020)
Jamovi. (Version 1.2) [Computer Software]
Liza Steele, Lamis Abdelaaty (2019)
Ethnic diversity and attitudes towards refugees
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 45
J. Druckman, R. McDermott (2008)
Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice
Political Behavior, 30
Asylum in the UK . 2019
G. Facchini, Yotam Margalit, Hiroyuki Nakata (2016)
Countering Public Opposition to Immigration: The Impact of Information Campaigns
Econometric Modeling: Macroeconomics eJournal
(2000)
Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism
J. Pers. Soc. Psychol., 78
B. Ripley (2015)
Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley's MASS
Şenay Yitmen, M. Verkuyten (2018)
Feelings toward refugees and non-Muslims in Turkey : The roles of national and religious identifications, and multiculturalism
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 48
F. Pazhoohi (2016)
The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality, Infectious Disease, History and Human Values Worldwide
Canadian Studies in Population, 43
Ravi Iyer, Spassena Koleva, J. Graham, P. Ditto, J. Haidt (2012)
Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identified Libertarians
PLoS ONE, 7
(2016)
Does Information Change Attitudes Towards Immigrants? Representative Evidence from Survey Experiments
SSRN Electron. J.
Laura Captari, Laura Shannonhouse, J. Hook, Jamie Aten, E. Davis, Don Davis, D. Tongeren, Jenn Hook (2019)
Prejudicial and Welcoming Attitudes toward Syrian Refugees: The Roles of Cultural Humility and Moral Foundations
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 47
(2018)
MASS: Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS. [R package]
J. Haidt, Jesse Graham, C. Joseph (2009)
Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations
Psychological Inquiry, 20
Stefan Palan, Christian Schitter (2017)
Prolific.ac—A subject pool for online experiments
Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 17
(1954)
Experimental Study of Positive and Negative Intergroup Attitudes between Experimentally Produced Groups: Robbers Cave Study
J. Druckman, Kjersten Nelson (2003)
Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens'
Asylum in the UK
(2019)
The Climate Crisis, Migration, and Refugees. The Brookings Institute
J. Druckman, Kjersten Nelson (2003)
Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens' Conversations Limit Elite Influence
American Journal of Political Science, 47
(2009)
System Justification, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull., 36
Kerstin Fisk (2014)
Refugee Geography and the Diffusion of Armed Conflict in Africa
Civil Wars, 16
Scott Blinder (2015)
Imagined Immigration: The Impact of Different Meanings of ‘Immigrants’ in Public Opinion and Policy Debates in Britain
Political Studies, 63
Christopher Bryan, Elizabeth Tipton, D. Yeager (2021)
Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution
Nature Human Behaviour, 5
Michael Dobbs, W. Crano (2001)
Outgroup Accountability in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Implications for Aversive Discrimination and Social Identity Theory
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27
R. Thornhill, C. Fincher (2014)
The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality
(2019)
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 3.6)
(2006)
Peer Pressure Against Prejudice: A Field Experimental Test of a National High School Prejudice Reduction Program; Working Paper
(2006)
Peer Pressure Against Prejudice: A Field Experimental Test of a National High School Prejudice Reduction Program; Working Paper; Harvard University
Eric Kaufmann (2016)
Assimilation and the immigration debate: shifting people’s attitudes
S. Lecheler, Claes Vreese (2016)
How Long Do News Framing Effects Last? A Systematic review of Longitudinal Studies
Annals of the International Communication Association, 40
Version 1.2) [Computer Software
R. Team (2014)
R: A language and environment for statistical computing.
MSOR connections, 1
F. Blanchard, T. Lilly, L. Vaughn (1991)
Reducing the Expression of Racial Prejudice
Psychological Science, 2
(2016)
Assimilation and the Immigration Debate: Shifting People’s Attitudes. The London School of Economics and Political Science
J. Podesta (2019)
The Climate Crisis, Migration, and Refugees
J. Graham, J. Haidt, S. Koleva, Matt Motyl, Ravi Iyer, S. Wojcik, P. Ditto (2012)
Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism
, 47
(1954)
Experimental Study of Positive and Negative Intergroup Attitudes between Experimentally Produced Groups: Robbers Cave Study; University of Oklahoma
C. Stangor, G. Sechrist, J. Jost (2001)
Changing Racial Beliefs by Providing Consensus Information
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27
A. Getmansky, Tolga Sınmazdemir, T. Zeitzoff (2018)
Refugees, xenophobia, and domestic conflict
Journal of Peace Research, 55
Alexis Grigorieff, Christopher Roth, D. Ubfal (2016)
Does Information Change Attitudes Towards Immigrants? Representative Evidence from Survey Experiments
Political Methods: Experiments & Experimental Design eJournal
Leda Nath, Nicholas Pedriana, C. Gifford, J. McAuley, M. Fülöp (2021)
Examining Moral Foundations Theory through Immigration Attitudes
ATHENS JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
A. Alesina, Armando Miano, Stefanie Stantcheva (2018)
Immigration and Redistribution
Labor: Public Policy & Regulation eJournal

Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
Copyright: © 1996-2022 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
ISSN: 2076-328X
DOI: 10.3390/bs12050118
Publisher site: See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

behavioral sciences Article Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours 1 , 2 , 1 Tamim Mobayed * and Jet G. Sanders Department of Psychological and Behavioural Science, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 3PH, UK; j.g.sanders@lse.ac.uk Wolfson College, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6UD, UK * Correspondence: tamim.mobayed@wolfson.ox.ac.uk Abstract: This preregistered, randomized controlled experiment attempts to distil the effects of Moral Foundational Framing on attitudes and behaviours towards refugees in the UK. First, moral foundations were found to robustly predict both attitudes and behaviours practised towards refugees. Next, a degree of support was found for the effectiveness of moral foundational framing in adjusting attitudes, but not behaviour, toward refugees in the UK. Individuals who scored highly on certain morals were susceptible to inﬂuence by moral foundational framing, but not always in ways that may have been expected. We conclude that the robust relationship found between moral foundations and attitudes towards refugees stresses the importance of actively shaping moral foundations. This notion is strengthened by the comparatively less robust effects of framing. Findings could be used to inform the practice of individuals interested in inﬂuencing opinion and behaviour, particularly in support of refugee acceptance. Keywords: moral foundations theory; refugees; framing; moral framing; behaviour change 1. Introduction Citation: Mobayed, T.; Sanders, J.G. The world is facing unprecedented challenges in the form of the plight of refugees. Moral Foundational Framing and Its 70.8 million people have been forced to leave their homes and live away from them today, Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours. of which 25.9 million are refugees [1]. Of this 70.8 million, it is estimated that more than Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118. https:// a third were forced to move due to sudden onset weather events [2]. According to the doi.org/10.3390/bs12050118 UNHCR, in 2018, there were a total of 126,720 refugees in the UK, including 18,519 who Academic Editor: Dario Bacchini had been offered asylum that year [1]. The Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford reported that more than 50% of British people believe migration should be reduced. Received: 9 October 2021 Blinder [3] reported that more than 75% of British citizens want to reduce immigration. Accepted: 4 April 2022 Negative attitudes centre around a triad of attitudinal bunches; economic burden, Published: 20 April 2022 sectarian/ethnic considerations, and safety of the host population. Such attitudes have Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral been reported widely, including within the context of Turkey [4], Japan [5], and Europe- with regard to jurisdictional claims in wide [6–8]. Buffers against holding negative attitudes towards refugees seem to come from published maps and institutional afﬁl- higher levels of education [5,9] while the informational ﬂow from elites also holds sway [5]. iations. Researchers have employed a range of approaches in their attempts to change attitudes towards refugees, including making salient certain social norms [10], holding individuals accountable for decisions they make about other groups [11], employing an inﬂuencing confederate [12], or close friends and acquaintances [13], information dissemination that Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. challenges ill-attitudes with facts [5,7,9], addressing speciﬁc concerns such as ethnic com- Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. position and value worries [14], and consciousness raising [15]. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and 1.1. Framing in Political Contexts conditions of the Creative Commons Framing grew from Prospect Theory; this theory centres on the ﬁnding that “decisions Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ taken by individuals can be altered by presenting information in logically equivalent but 4.0/). semantically different ways” ([16], p. 5). Their research found a signiﬁcant relationship Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12050118 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 2 of 15 between the way in which information was presented and how it would be weighed by individuals. Framing can be described as a pointed packaging of information that might draw emphasis to one (or certain) aspect(s) of it; crucially, it does not result in any factual changes to the information. In politicized decision contexts, Druckman and McDermott identify two key deviations by way of emotions and susceptibility to the framing effect [17]; different emotions, both deemed negative, e.g., anger and distress, can lead to differential impacts of framing. The same authors identiﬁed emotions as one potential way to moderate the framing effect. Ref. [18] used conﬂicting elite discourse to see if it could reduce the impact of the framing effect, with mixed success. Researchers at Stanford University [19] deployed framing to tackle a phenomenon researchers call the ‘progressive paradox’, wherein individuals favour a more egalitarian society yet readily vote against candidates who seek to realize that goal at the ballot box. This built on previous research, such as Feygina, Goldsmith and Jost [20] who reported that they could increase support for environmental policies if they were framed in terms of preserving American traditions. 1.2. Moral Foundations Theory One common approach to framing in these politicized contexts [19,20] is by means of Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) [21]. MFT attempts to formulate a comprehensive theory of human morality, identifying moral values that extend across cultures. By examining a range of cultures, with theoretical foundations in social psychology and anthropology, they extract ﬁve (or six [22]) universal moral dimensions: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation, which can be found within all cultures, to varying intensities and differential manifestations (the proposed sixth moral is liberty/oppression). In this study, we look at the effect of four of these frames: care, fairness, loyalty or sanctity. Authority was deselected due to both resource constraints and expectations it would not be inﬂuential (though this exclusion proved to be erroneous: statistical analyses on data collected through this study found strong, signiﬁcant relationships between the moral of authority and some of the outcome measures). Each of the ﬁve foundations is rooted in evolutionary beneﬁt, which we outline below. 1.2.1. Care/Harm This evolutionarily important value is prominent across different mammals, one form of which is embodied by a mother ’s care for her offspring; the development of expressions of care is often socially driven by the propagation of normative ideals. While the biopsychological hardware for this foundation might be similar between humans and societies, its manifestation varies greatly. Compare the expression of care/harm in Ancient Spartan society with that of contemporary California. 1.2.2. Fairness/Cheating Fairness/Cheating is linked to the notion of reciprocal altruism, where one individual (temporarily) sacriﬁces for another unrelated individual. Fairness is derived from overarch- ing reciprocal beneﬁt, following the initial cost. Sensitivity to fairness is universal [23] and observed early in human development (before the age of ﬁve, and possibly before the age of one). 1.2.3. Loyalty/Betrayal Loyalty is deﬁned as strong feelings of allegiance toward a person or group and is equally foundational. Both chimps and humans have been found to group together and initiate conﬂicts with other groups for territory, with humans having intensiﬁed this ability due to the development of ‘language, weapons, and tribal markers’ ([21] p. 70). These predispositions towards loyalty were famously activated in Sherif’s [24] seminal study that took a group of schoolboys on a camping trip, divided them into groups and had them face off against each other in competitions; they exhibited commitment to in-group members Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 3 of 15 and stark hostility towards ‘the other ’. Indeed, in-group loyalty is often associated with hostile attitudes towards out-group members [25]. 1.2.4. Authority/Subversion Dominance hierarchies are seen in many animals, especially larger mammals. Within human beings, social hierarchies vary greatly from culture to culture and might include patriarchy or matriarchy as deﬁning features. Within modern nation states, various cultures might exist (and coexist); liberals might deem obedience to authority as a vice while conservatives champion it as a virtue [26]. 1.2.5. Sanctity/Degradation Sanctity and degradation are related to the immune system, physiological aversion and disgust. The evolutionary advantages of this system are great: parasites, bacteria and viruses pose signiﬁcant threats to our collective survival. Revulsion keeps these (where possible) out of our food, bodies and societies [27]. This system also impacted our social world; “Disgust and the behavioral immune system have come to undergird a variety of moral reactions, for example, to immigrants and sexual deviants” ([21], p. 71). 1.3. Moral Framing to Shape Pro-Refugee Attitudes and Behaviour In this randomized controlled experiment, we deployed moral foundational framing to inﬂuence attitudes and behaviours in relation to refugees in the UK. Moral foundational framing has successfully been deployed in contexts including attitudes toward the environ- mental [20] and ﬁscal policy [19]. In proximity to this study, Nath et al. [28] applied Moral Foundational framing to immigrant contexts, focusing on the differences between individ- ualizing and binding (The individualizing morals are care/harm and fairness/cheating; the binding morals are loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion and sanctity/degradation) morals and the way in which these moral groupings predict attitudes. Their experiments successfully applied this form of framing to inﬂuence stated attitudes regarding immigra- tion to the USA. Kaufman [14] successfully applied moral framing, showing that reframing discussions around migration could lessen it as a concern. However, most research did not consider how these attitudinal shifts respond to behaviour [16,29]. Grigorieff, Roth and Ubfal [9] found that while certain morally aligned frames changed attitudes, critically, they did not observe behaviourally-inclined changes, such as in decisions made about policy or resource distribution. In the current experiment, we therefore supplement the examination of attitudes by measures approximating pro-refugee behaviours in the real world by asking participants to sign a petition either in favour or against increasing the number of refugees in the UK and inviting them to donate 20% of their experimental earnings to a refugee charity. Another missing element from the body of literature is the notion of personalization. Studies tend to focus on identifying which one frame may function more effectively than another, or which group responds most to a certain frame. However, increasingly, this one-size-ﬁts-all perspective is being replaced by a more tailored approach [30]. Attempting to understand how moral foundational underpinning might inﬂuence individual-level responses is key to the impact of any informational campaign. In sum, we expected that Moral Foundations would signiﬁcantly predict attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. To be more speciﬁc, based on patterns observed in the literature, we expected that moral values of care and fairness signiﬁcantly predict favourable attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. Second, we expected that frames that were congruent and morally aligned would be most effective in eliciting pro-refugee attitudes. Third, we expected that congruent and morally aligned frames will be most effective in eliciting pro-refugee behaviours. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 15 attitudes. Third, we expected that congruent and morally aligned frames will be most ef- fective in eliciting pro-refugee behaviours. 2. Materials and Methods Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 4 of 15 2.1. Experimental Design This study utilised a one-way between subjects’ experimental design with levels (control, care, fair, sanctity and loyalty message frame). In addition, participants provided 2. Materials and Methods demographic information (age, gender, racial group and religious affiliation) and political 2.1. Experimental Design demographic information (political party alignment, political ideology, and position on This study utilised a one-way between subjects’ experimental design with levels (con- Brexit). trol, care, fair, sanctity and loyalty message frame). In addition, participants provided demographic information (age, gender, racial group and religious afﬁliation) and politi- 2.2. Control Group cal demographic information (political party alignment, political ideology, and position With the be on neBr fit exit). of hindsight, the control group employed by this experiment, when compared to the treatment groups, might have been significantly flawed. Relying on the 2.2. Control Group work of Kaufman [14], the passage used for the treatment groups is arguably contentious With the beneﬁt of hindsight, the control group employed by this experiment, when and scientifically noisy, evoking themes of inclusion and exclusion relating to migrants compared to the treatment groups, might have been signiﬁcantly ﬂawed. Relying on the and refugees (Appendix A—Table A2). The control group read a significantly different work of Kaufman [14], the passage used for the treatment groups is arguably contentious passage that contained none of these themes, leading to a potentially critical difference and scientiﬁcally noisy, evoking themes of inclusion and exclusion relating to migrants and between the treatment groups and the control groups that was not intended. Accordingly, refugees (Appendix A—Table A2). The control group read a signiﬁcantly different passage the control group was excluded from most analyses reported. that contained none of these themes, leading to a potentially critical difference between the treatment groups and the control groups that was not intended. Accordingly, the control group was excluded from most analyses reported. 2.3. Stimuli We used the Moral Foundations Theory Questionnaire-30 (MFQ-30), a 32-item meas- 2.3. Stimuli ure of individual values (30 items, plus two attention checks) to measure participants on We used the Moral Foundations Theory Questionnaire-30 (MFQ-30), a 32-item measure their level of five morals. The treatment conditions were devised by way of infusing three of individual values (30 items, plus two attention checks) to measure participants on their written passages with morally laden wording. The passages were threefold: a statement level of ﬁve morals. The treatment conditions were devised by way of infusing three on immigration in the UK (Figure 1), an excerpt from a speech of a fictional politician written passages with morally laden wording. The passages were threefold: a statement (Figure 2) and on a pimmigration olicy propos in althe (FiUK gure (Figur 3). T eh1 e), tr an eaexcerpt tment g fr rom oupa s speech were fof ive a: ﬁctional a contro politician l (Figure 2) and a policy proposal (Figure 3). The treatment groups were ﬁve: a control group, as well as four different morally framed conditions. All moral frames were infused group, as well as four different morally framed conditions. All moral frames were infused with wording that stemmed from each moral value (Tables A1 and A2). Rather than the with wording that stemmed from each moral value (Tables A1 and A2). Rather than the statement on immigration, the control group received a passage on the role of lobbyists. statement on immigration, the control group received a passage on the role of lobbyists. While the excerpt from the politician centred on refugees for four of the treatment groups, While the excerpt from the politician centred on refugees for four of the treatment groups, for the control group, the fictional politician spoke on voting systems. for the control group, the ﬁctional politician spoke on voting systems. Figure 1. Morally framed passage (care). Figure 1. Morally framed passage (care). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 15 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 5 of 15 Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 2. Morally framed political speech excerpt (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). Figure 3. Morally framed policy proposal (care). 2.4. Measures 2.4. Measures 2.4. Measures Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a statement regarding ﬁnding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or alarming Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a state- Attitudinal measurement was threefold. Participants were presented with a state- and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel and ment regarding finding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or ment regarding finding the number of refugees entering the UK as being of concern or Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a pro- alarming and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel alarming and were asked to agree (1) or disagree (0) with it. Based on the work of Voelkel refugee political candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked to and Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a and Willer [19] participants were asked to provide the likelihood of their support for a either provide support (1) or not (0) for a policy that would see refugee numbers increase pro-refugee political candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked pro-rin efthe uge UK e pby oli5%. tical candidate (on a 5-point Likert scale). Finally, participants were asked to either provide supp The ort behaviour (1) or nomeasur t (0) foes r a employed policy th wer at w e twofold. ould seeOne refug involved ee num an be invitation rs in- to sign to either provide support (1) or not (0) for a policy that would see refugee numbers in- a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural crease in the UK by 5%. crease in the UK by 5%. measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) The behaviour measures employed were twofold. One involved an invitation to sign The behaviour measures employed were twofold. One involved an invitation to sign towards a ﬁctional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insigniﬁcant, a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural a petition in support of, or against, increasing refugee numbers. The second behavioural it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) It can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-ﬁfth of that amount measure was an invitation to donate 20% of participation in experiment earnings (£0.20) towards a fictional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insignificant, would carry value. towards a fictional UK-based refugee charity. While this amount might seem insignificant, it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. It it represented 20% of the total incentive offered to participants to partake in this study. It 2.5. Participants can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-fifth of that amount can fairly be deduced that for an individual motivated by £1, one-fifth of that amount would carry value. 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). would carry value. All were recruited through the Proliﬁc platform. 2.5. Participants Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. 2.5. Participants 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). All were recruited through the Prolific platform. Demographic Information Care (n = 210) Fair (n = 215) Loyalty (n = 217) Sanctity (n = 216) Control (n = 218) 1076 British participants (Age: M = 36.8, range: 18–84; 641 females—Table 1 below). Male All were re83 cruited throug 85 h the Prolific 89 platform. 82 84 Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. Female 126 128 125 132 130 White 178 184 189 176 189 Table 1. Internal Validity of Randomization. Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 Care (n Fair (n = Loyalty Sanctity Control BachelorDe ’s Degree mogra and phic Information 105 102 104 109 112 = 210) 215) (n = 217) (n = 216) (n = 218) Higher Care (n Fair (n = Loyalty Sanctity Control Less Than Bachelor’s 105 113 113 107 106 Demographic Information = 210) 215) (n = 217) (n = 216) (n = 218) Male 83 85 89 82 84 Female Male 126 128 83 125 85 132 89 130 82 84 White 178 184 189 176 189 Female 126 128 125 132 130 Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 White 178 184 189 176 189 Ethnic Minority 32 31 28 40 29 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 6 of 15 2.6. Consent Participants actively consented to participation in the study by way of opting into the experiment and indicating their consent. 2.7. Sample Size To determine the sample size required to adequately carry out this experiment, a G-power calculation was conducted, using the following parameters: Effect size (d)—0.35; Power—0.95; Alpha (p)–0.05. An effect size of 0.35 was selected due to being as close to a strong effect (0.25) as possible, while not exceeding available resources. This yielded n of 214 per treatment group, with a total n of 1070. 2.8. Recruitment Participants were recruited in October 2019 using Proliﬁc, deemed a sound recruitment tool that avoids some of the problematic aspects that arise on MTurk [31]. Participants were reimbursed for their time at a rate of £6.43/hour. Participants were instructed they would be ‘answering a series of questions about their values and attitudes, and taking a number of measures relating to the population of the UK’. 2.9. Ethical Considerations Participants were informed that they would be free to withdraw from the study at any point. They were also provided with the email address of the LSE’s Research Governance Manager and invited to contact them should any concerns or complaints arise. Participant data was anonymized and all data was treated securely, being accessible only to the researcher and their supervisor. This study was ethically self-approved according to the LSE’s Psychological and Behavioural Science ethical guidelines. 2.10. Procedure Participants were instructed to complete some of the demographic measures be- fore they were instructed to read the ﬁrst framed item carefully and state their agree- ment/disagreement with the ﬁrst attitudinal measure. They were then instructed to read the second framed item and state their likelihood of voting for the ﬁctional political can- didate. Participants then read the framed policy proposal and stated their support or opposition to it. After the attitudinal measures, participants completed the two behavioural measures. Firstly, participants were invited to sign a petition in support of, or a petition against, increasing the number of refugees allowed into the UK. Secondly, participants were invited to donate £0.20, or any other amount, from their participation earnings. Participants were then asked to carry out the MFQ-30, followed by providing the remaining demographic information. This was purposely set to be done after the main attitudinal and behavioural measures, as it was determined these were the most important measures of the experiment, hence this was done to protect them from participant fatigue. On completion, participants were shown the participant debrief page. 2.11. Exclusion Criteria and Process The MFQ-30 has two attention-check questions. Q6 comes within the ﬁrst section, in which participants are determining how relevant the items are to their decision of whether or not something is right or wrong, The item of Q6 states: ‘Whether or not someone was good at math’. Q22, in the second section, in which participants are stating their agreement or disagreement with the items, states: ‘It is better to do good than to do bad’. According to the authors of the MFQ-30, any positive response to question six and any negative response to 22 should disqualify the participant. Eight participants violated both conditions and were removed from the data set. 18 participants violated Q22 and were removed from the data set. 159 participants violated Q6. On further enquiry, it was thought that this position could be challenged (This was challenged by two participants Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 7 of 15 who were ﬂagged for potential disqualiﬁcation). As such, a case could be made that utilitarianism, and consequentialism as a whole, are based on the idea that maths and ethics are related. Accordingly, an individual’s level of maths might be a minor factor in processing morality. A case could thus be made, very much equivocally, that intelligence and ethics can be related; certainly, consequentialist ethics relies on mathematical valuation. In light of this thinking, participants who violated Q6 were only removed if they completed the questionnaire in less than four minutes. 29 participants were removed based on the amended criteria. 2.12. Materials Stata (15.0); Qualtrics (www.qualtrics.com); Proliﬁc (www.proliﬁc.co). 2.13. Pre-Registration This experiment was pre-registered with the Centre for Open Science (OSF). Areas of focus and expected ﬁndings were listed and described here (https://osf.io/7tvj6/). 3. Results 3.1. The Relationship between Moral Foundations and Attitudes towards Refugees In order to probe potential relationships between moral foundations and the com- bined attitude measures towards refugees, an Ordered Logit regression was executed. The regression analysis, with a Pseudo R2 of 0.089, showed that pro-refugee attitudes were signiﬁcantly predicted by all moral value measures, barring sanctity (z = 0.26, p < 0.80, OR = 0.979 95% CI [0.836–1.147]). Care (z = 4.21, p < 0.001, OR = 1.55, 95% CI [1.26–1.90]), fairness (z = 7.32, p < 0.001, OR = 2.28 95%CI [1.83–2.85]), loyalty (z = 2.26, p = 0.024, OR = 0.81 95% CI [0.666–0.971]) and authority (z = 6.20, p < 0.001, OR = 0.527, CI Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 15 [0.43–0.645]), were all found to be signiﬁcantly related to attitude towards refugees— fairness and care positively so, loyalty and authority negatively so (See Figure 4A). As predicted, care and fairness are the strongest predictors of positive attitudes towards refugees. Figure 4. Displaying moral foundation scores by (A) the average attitude toward refugees and (B) pro-refugee behaviour. Figure 4. Displaying moral foundation scores by (A) the average attitude toward refugees and (B) pro-refugee behaviour. 3.2. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Shifting Attitudes To assess the effectiveness of framing conditions on observed attitudes, we ran the same Ordered Logit regression, including the effect of framing conditions in two blocks: first as a main effect and second with interaction effects. The model fit did not significantly improve (X2(4) = 7.36, p = 0.118) by adding a main effect (Pseudo R2 of 0.091). The model did significantly improve by adding main and interaction effects (X2(20) = 55.96, p < 0.001; Pseudo R2 of 0.101). This model displays a main effect of the care frame (Z = −4.07, p < 0.001, OR = 0.007, 95% CI = 0–0.08) and sanctity relative to the control frame (Z = −2.05, p = 0.041, OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02–0.09) relative to the control frame. Despite the unexpected directionality of the main effects (due to previously ex- plained issues with the control group), we also note a number of interaction effects: those who scored higher on authority were less likely to respond to the care (Z = −2.70, p = 0.007, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.78), fair (Z = −2.97, p = 0.003, OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.2–0.72) or loyalty (Z = −2.89, p = 0.004, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.20–0.73) frame than the control. Those who scored higher on loyalty were more likely to respond to the care frame than to the control (Z = 1.986, p = 0.047, OR = 1.85, 95% CI =1.01–3.42), which was most consistent with our prediction. Those who scored higher on for care also responded better to the care frame (Z = 2.29, p = 0.022, OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.12–4.05). We repeated this analysis without the control group (care frame as a reference). This yielded similar results: there were no main effects of frames if these were added alone but there were when interaction effects were included (Supplementary Material for the com- plete analyses). We reject the null hypothesis: not only is no one frame well suited to all participants, but some predispositions are also predictive of the frame type that may direct their attitude toward more prosocial behaviour. 3.3. The Relationship between Moral Foundations on Pro-Refugee Behaviour Did differences carry through to behaviours? We reviewed the relationships between moral foundations and behaviours practised towards refugees—two regressions models were executed. In relation to signing the pro-refugee petition, we ran a Ordered Logit regression (Pseudo R2 of 0.032): fairness was a significant positive [Z = 4.03, p < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.29–2.06], and authority was a signiﬁcant negative predictor [Z = −3.56, p < 0.001, OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–838] of pro-refugee signing (see Figure 4B). Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 8 of 15 3.2. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Shifting Attitudes To assess the effectiveness of framing conditions on observed attitudes, we ran the same Ordered Logit regression, including the effect of framing conditions in two blocks: ﬁrst as a main effect and second with interaction effects. The model ﬁt did not signiﬁcantly improve (X2(4) = 7.36, p = 0.118) by adding a main effect (Pseudo R2 of 0.091). The model did signiﬁcantly improve by adding main and interaction effects (X2(20) = 55.96, p < 0.001; Pseudo R2 of 0.101). This model displays a main effect of the care frame (Z = 4.07, p < 0.001, OR = 0.007, 95% CI = 0–0.08) and sanctity relative to the control frame (Z = 2.05, p = 0.041, OR = 0.14, 95% CI = 0.02–0.09) relative to the control frame. Despite the unexpected directionality of the main effects (due to previously explained issues with the control group), we also note a number of interaction effects: those who scored higher on authority were less likely to respond to the care (Z = 2.70, p = 0.007, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2–0.78), fair (Z = 2.97, p = 0.003, OR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.2–0.72) or loyalty (Z = 2.89, p = 0.004, OR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.20–0.73) frame than the control. Those who scored higher on loyalty were more likely to respond to the care frame than to the control (Z = 1.986, p = 0.047, OR = 1.85, 95% CI =1.01–3.42), which was most consistent with our prediction. Those who scored higher on for care also responded better to the care frame (Z = 2.29, p = 0.022, OR = 2.12, 95% CI = 1.12–4.05). We repeated this analysis without the control group (care frame as a reference). This yielded similar results: there were no main effects of frames if these were added alone but there were when interaction effects were included (Supplementary Material for the complete analyses). We reject the null hypothesis: not only is no one frame well suited to all participants, but some predispositions are also predictive of the frame type that may direct their attitude toward more prosocial behaviour. 3.3. The Relationship between Moral Foundations on Pro-Refugee Behaviour Did differences carry through to behaviours? We reviewed the relationships between moral foundations and behaviours practised towards refugees—two regressions models were executed. In relation to signing the pro-refugee petition, we ran a Ordered Logit regres- sion (Pseudo R2 of 0.032): fairness was a signiﬁcant positive [Z = 4.03, p < 0.001, OR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.29–2.06], and authority was a signiﬁcant negative predictor [Z = 3.56, p < 0.001, OR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–838] of pro-refugee signing (see Figure 4B). In relation to pro-refugee donations, we ran a binomial logistic regression model (Pseudo R2 of 0.096). We found that care [Z = 5.40, p < 0.001, OR = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.58–2.65] and fairness [Z = 2.07, p = 0.038, OR = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.01–1.73] were signiﬁcantly positive and authority [Z = 3.75, p < 0.001, OR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.50–0.80] was a signiﬁcant negative predictor of donating (see Figure 4B). In sum, we reject the null hypothesis: the foundation of care predicts pro-refugee behaviour, whereas authority does so negatively. Interestingly, differences were less pro- nounced with monetary donations (odds ratio around 4) relative to the signing of the petition (odds ratio around 2). 3.4. The Effect of Moral Foundational Framing on Pro-Refugee Behaviour To review the effects of framing on pro-refugee behaviour, we added framing condi- tions to the Ordered Logit model for pro-refugee petitions and the logistic regression model for pro-refugee donating. For pro-refugee petitions, the predictive power of the model did not signiﬁcantly improve with added effects of condition (X2(4) = 1.97, p = 0.741; Pseudo R2 of 0.033), nor when interaction effects between framing and moral foundation were added (X2(20) = 22.1, p = 0.334; Pseudo R2 of 0.044). Upon review of the two models, there were no main interaction effects. Findings did not differ when the control group was removed from the analysis (Supplementary Material). For pro-refugee donations, we used the same approach. We also observed no changes in predictive power of the model when the framing condition was added (X2(4) = 4.12, Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 9 of 15 p = 0.39; Pseudo R2 of 0.099), nor when interaction effects between framing and moral foundation were added (X2(20) = 22.16, p = 0.332; Pseudo R2 of 0.1147). Upon review of the two models, there were no main of interaction effects. For this measure too, ﬁndings did not differ when the control group was removed from the analysis (Supplementary Material). 4. Discussion In this study, we ﬁnd ﬁrst that moral foundations signiﬁcantly predict both attitudes and behaviours practised towards refugees—fairness and care positively so, and sanctity and loyalty negatively so. Second, we ﬁnd that moral foundational framing was successfully deployed to inﬂuence attitudes towards refugees, amongst some groups, most consistently in relation to the care frame and at times for the fairness frame. Third, we ﬁnd that moral foundational framing had no impact on shifting pro-refugee behaviour. Our results also demonstrate what type of attitudes are likely to shift by means of moral framing. Presenting individuals with care and fare frames evoked stronger support for voting intention for a pro-refugee political candidate. No such shifts were found for being not concerned over refugee numbers or refugee policy. These ﬁndings show that tailoring messaging based on an individual’s morals may hold potential in particular politicized domains [19,20,28]. This impact is weakened by the inability to ﬁnd signiﬁcance between framing and two of the three attitudinal measures. When we take a closer look at the differential effect frames, the morals of care and fairness were associated with positive attitudes towards refugees, while authority was negatively associated. This ﬁnding had been reported previously [29]. The replication of this result highlights the level of signiﬁcance that might be offered by framing. It might serve as a useful inﬂuencer of opinion and behaviour; however, the impact of moral values is more robust. Notably, this does not automatically make it useful for shifting attitudes: moral values are not likely to be changed by way of one experiment, but rather, are formed over the course of an individual’s psychological and moral development. These ﬁndings do offer further support for the possible uses of moral foundational framing in garnering support and aiding in persuasion. Critically, support was not found in overturning moral impulses by way of framing; individuals who scored highly in binding values (sanctity and loyalty), who would typically not be forthcoming in support for refugees, were not persuaded by the sanctity and loyalty framed messaging. Our results thus failed to replicate ﬁndings by Feygina, Goldsmith and Jost [20], and Voelkel and Willer [19], who were able to shift moral positions based on this form of framing. The predictive power of the moral foundations (rather than the frame) might offer a candid indication of where effective change lies: attempts at shaping core morals might hold more potential than adjusting the framing they encounter, especially as frames had no impact on behaviour, even if they shifted attitudes. An interesting ﬁnding relating to the discrepancy between attitudes and behaviours is found in the study’s secondary focus. When asked if they would support a hypothetical policy that would see more refugees brought into the UK, 65.24% of participants said they would. When they were asked to sign a petition in support of this goal, this number halved to 32.59%, thus again highlighting the discrepancy between changing attitudes and changing behaviours. The inability of this study to evoke a change in moral applications might of course be due to ineffective deployment of moral framing: the moral frames used might not have been sufﬁciently congruent. Another possibility is that the loyalty and sanctity- framed texts might have served to prime individuals to feel morals of which they were already in possession. If this were true, it would highlight one of the potential difﬁculties of using framing in this way. Another possible limitation is the extent to which real behaviour can be captured online. In addition, the sampled population group, as is typical of online populations, was distinctly left-wing, as highlighted by the more than 2:1 ratio of Labour to Conservative voters amongst participants. This might be addressed by means of ﬁeld experiments. An addressable weakness was identiﬁed in the measure that asked participants whether they would support a policy to increase refugee numbers by 5%: could Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 10 of 15 responses to this have been inﬂuenced by the differing degrees of what 5% more refugees in the UK would actually mean in real-world numbers? A simple follow-up question could be employed in future to account for this. The most pressing future avenue of enquiry will continue to be testing how and when framing can be catalysing enough so as to overturn a pre-held belief. This study only showed that framing can increase the strength of attitudes. While this is an important ﬁnding in and of itself, were the circumstances under which framing might overturn an attitude discovered, a signiﬁcantly different range of possibilities will open to those invested in changing attitudes and behaviours towards the oppressed, marginalized and disenfranchised. The robust relationship found between moral values and attitudes towards refugees makes salient the importance of actively shaping moral foundations, in turn shaping attitudes and behaviours towards refugees. Supplementary Materials: The following data analysis tables are available online at https://www. mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs12050118/s1. Analysis S1 Logit Regression Attitude with Control Group. Analysis S2 Logit Regression Attitude Without Control Group. Analysis S3 Logit Regres- sion Petition with Control Group. Analysis S4 Logit Regression Petition Without Control Group. Analysis S5 Binomial Regression Donation with Control Group. Analysis S6 Binomial Regression Donation Without Control Group. References [32–34] are cited in the supplementary materials. Author Contributions: Conceptualization, T.M.; Data curation, T.M.; Formal analysis, T.M.; Investi- gation, T.M. and J.G.S.; Methodology, T.M. and J.G.S.; Project administration, T.M.; Resources, T.M.; Supervision, J.G.S.; Validation, J.G.S.; Visualization, T.M.; Writing—original draft, T.M.; Writing— review & editing, T.M. and J.G.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research received no external funding. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the London School of Economics and Political Sciences’ Ethical Committee, as part of the department of Psychological and Behavioural Science; the study was self-assessed as carrying no signiﬁcant ethical concerns and proceeded as per the LSE’s ethical guidelines. Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Data Availability Statement: Data collected as part of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. Appendix A Table A1. Framing Terms. Framing Words and Terms Word Count Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control Frame 1 145 142 141 146 181 Frame 2 140 131 130 137 107 Frame 3 20 19 22 19 11 Total 305 292 293 302 299 Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 11 of 15 Table A1. Cont. Framing Words and Terms Word Count Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control Framing Phrases welcoming the looking after one justice . . . for all rooted in . . . decency n/a stranger another treating the equality . . . for all rooted in . . . purity Loyalty to our nation n/a neglected (does not) (does not) Frame 1 giving shelter granting equality compromisee compromise n/a thnic . . . integrity the loyalty (does not) compassionate just thing to do compromise . . . for one another n/a thing to do racial . . . integrity Phrases 4 4 4 4 Total Words 12 10 10 14 Moral Words 7 7 8 10 loyalty to our caring for all fairness for all promoting purity n/a great nation preventing ensuring we excel preventing harm preventing injustice infringements n/a at upholding on sanctity letting down a denying basic sullying the vulnerable principle great name n/a greatness group of justice Frame 2 putting them in believes in the does not compromise free from injustice n/a harm’s way inviolability this country (free from) ensure the purity of free from danger, . . . enhances it n/a oppression this country (free from) . . . violence is upheld our great people n/a inequality not coloured by not coloured is uncompromised leading nations . . . n/a harm by injustice Phrases 7 7 7 7 n/a Total Words 23 23 23 24 Moral Words 12 10 12 12 protecting pure maintaining Frame 3 increasing care increasing fairness n/a values country’s greatness Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 12 of 15 Table A2. Treatment passages. Treatment Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control 1. Please read the following statement carefully: “This country’s great “This country’s great “This country’s great heritage is rooted in “This country’s great heritage is rooted in heritage is rooted in welcoming the heritage is rooted in decency and purity. looking after one Policy formation is one of stranger and treating justice and equality These values are another. Loyalty to the key aspects to the neglected. These for all. These values central to our proud our nation is central modern government. values are central to are central to our British tradition. to our proud British Policies address key areas our proud British proud British According to tradition. According of both day-to-day citizen tradition. According tradition. According Professor Eric to Professor Eric life, as well as the to Professor Eric to Professor Eric Kaufmann of the Kaufmann of the direction of the country Kaufmann of the Kaufmann of the University of University of as whole. A bad policy University of University of London, a large share London, a large share can cost a government London, a large share London, a large share of the children of of the children of power, where the of the children of of the children of immigrants have immigrants have electorate respond at the immigrants have immigrants have become White British. become White British. next election. Policies can become White British. become White British. be both partisan and Immigration has Immigration has bipartisan, but typically Immigration has Immigration has risen and fallen over risen and fallen over require a parliamentary risen and fallen over risen and fallen over time, but, like the time, but, like the majority to be enacted, in time, but, like the time, but, like the English language, English language, countries that utilise a English language, English language, Britain’s culture is Britain’s culture is parliamentary democracy. Britain’s culture is Britain’s culture is only superﬁcially only superﬁcially At times, a major policy only superﬁcially only superﬁcially affected by foreign affected by foreign decision will be decided affected by foreign affected by foreign inﬂuence. inﬂuence. by way of a referendum. inﬂuence. inﬂuence. Referenda are an example Taking refugees into Taking refugees into of direct democracy, Taking refugees into Taking refugees into our country, when our country, when Vignette wherein the people make our country, when our country, when well managed, does well managed, does a decision directly. well managed, does well managed, does not risk threatening not risk threatening Switzerland is often cited not risk threatening not risk threatening the ethnic or cultural the ethnic or cultural as an example of a the ethnic or cultural the ethnic or cultural make up of Britain. make up of Britain. country that regularly make up of Britain. make up of Britain. Indeed, Britain has Indeed, Britain has utilises referenda. Indeed, Britain has Indeed, Britain has absorbed many absorbed many The role of lobbying absorbed many absorbed many populations of populations of groups in inﬂuencing populations of populations of refugees and refugees and government policy is an refugees and refugees and migrants, French, migrants, French, area of the workings of migrants, French, migrants, French, Irish, Jews and black Irish, Jews and black modern government that Irish, Jews and black Irish, Jews and black people, all of whom people, all of whom is deemed as people, all of whom people, all of whom eventually melted eventually melted undermining democracy. eventually melted eventually melted into the white into the white Lobbying groups and into the white into the white majority. majority. Britain lobbyists do the work of majority. Britain majority. Britain Britain shapes its shapes its migrants, those who pay them, shapes its migrants, shapes its migrants, migrants, migration migration doesn’t allowing those with migration doesn’t migration doesn’t doesn’t shape Britain. shape Britain. greater access to money, shape Britain. shape Britain. greater ability to hire Taking in victims of Taking in victims of forces for lobbying. Giving shelter to Granting equality to conﬂict, war and conﬂict, war and Recent moves have been victims of conﬂict, victims of conﬂict, oppression is the oppression is the taken in countries such as war and oppression war and oppression right thing to do, and right thing to do, and the US and the UK to is both a is both a just thing to does not does not limit the inﬂuence of compassionate thing do, and one is of compromise the compromise the lobbyists. to do, and one that is value to the ethnic and racial loyalty we have for of value to the indigenous society.” integrity of this one another, or our indigenous society.” country.” country.” Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 13 of 15 Table A2. Cont. Treatment Care Fairness Sanctity Loyalty Control 2...This part of the speech 2. Below is an excerpt from the speech of politician, Candidate X, who is running in the relates to his views upcoming election. This part of the speech relates to his refugee policy. about election reform. “My vision for this “My vision for this country is based on “My vision for this country is based on “My vision for this the principle of country is based on the principles of country is based on loyalty to our great the principle of promoting purity the principle of nation and ensuring caring for all and and preventing fairness for all and we excel at preventing harm to infringements on preventing injustice upholding its great those most in need of the sanctity of our to those most in need name. protection. society. of protection. “There is a need for a I think it is I think it is I think it is rethinking of the way in I think it is regrettable that this regrettable that this regrettable that this which elections in this regrettable that this great country great country great country country are judged. For great country only accepted only accepted only accepted too long, the only accepted 10,000 refugees in 10,000 refugees in 10,000 refugees in First-Past-the-Post system 10,000 refugees in 2018—we are letting 2018—we are letting 2018—we are has disadvantaged 2018—we are down a vulnerable down a vulnerable sullying this certain voices while denying the basic group of human group of human country’s greatness granting too much principle of justice beings, and putting beings, and putting by failing to live up weight to other voices. for all, and ignoring them in harm’s way. I them in harm’s way. to what we could be While the thinking of one of this country’s believe we are I believe we are and should strive to using this system might great values and ignoring one of this ignoring one of this rectify this have made sense in the Speech should strive to country’s great country’s great immediately. past, the UK is in need of rectify this values and should values and should modernising. immediately. strive to rectify this strive to rectify this Every human being By switching to a immediately. immediately. is born with the right Proportional Every human being to live a life that Representation (PR) is born with the right Protecting fellow Every human being allows them to strive system, this country will to live a life that is humans from danger, is born with the right towards their take a step in the right free from injustice, violence and threat, to live a life that is potential. Seeing to direction. The PR system oppression and does not free from danger that that refugees are is already being used by inequality. Seeing to compromise this and violence Seeing given their rights many other countries it that refugees are country, in fact, it to it that refugees are should be a priority around the world, the given this right enhances it. Seeing given this right for anyone who system allows for a much should be a priority to it that refugees are should be a priority believes in the realer realisation of the for all of us. Our given this right for all of us. Our inviolability of this fundamental principle policies should reﬂect should be a priority policies should reﬂect country. Our policies underlying democracy, this goal. for all of us. Our this goal. should reﬂect this “one person, one vote”. policies should reﬂect goal. Vote for me, and I this goal. Vote for me, and I will ﬁght for the right will ﬁght for the right Vote for me, and I of every human Vote for me, and I of every human will ﬁght to ensure being to live a life will ﬁght to ensure being to live a life the purity of this that is not coloured this our great people that is not coloured country and its by injustice.” continue to be by harm.” vision is upheld and among the leading uncompromised.” nations on earth.” In the interest of In the interest of In the interest of In the interest of increasing the care of increasing fairness protecting the pure maintaining our Candidate X will increase refugees, towards refugees, values of this country’s greatness refugee Policy Candidate X will Candidate X will country, Candidate X Candidate X will settlements in this increase refugee increase refugee will increase refugee increase refugee country by 5%. settlements in this settlements in this settlements in this settlements in this country by 5%. country by 5%. country by 5%. country by 5%. Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 14 of 15 References 1. UNHCR. Asylum in the UK. 2019. Available online: https://www.unhcr.org/asylum-in-the-uk.html (accessed on 10 June 2020). 2. Podesta, J. The Climate Crisis, Migration, and Refugees. The Brookings Institute. 2019. Available online: https://www.brookings. edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Brookings_Blum_2019_climate.pdf (accessed on 15 August 2020). 3. Blinder, S. Imagined Immigration: The Impact of Different Meanings of ‘Immigrants’ in Public Opinion and Policy Debates in Britain. Political Stud. 2013, 63, 80–100. [CrossRef] 4. Getmansky, A.; Sınmazdemir, T.; Zeitzoff, T. Refugees, xenophobia, and domestic conﬂict. J. Peace Res. 2018, 55, 491–507. [CrossRef] 5. Facchini, G.; Margalit, Y.; Nakata, H. Countering public opposition to immigration: The impact of information campaigns. Eur. Econ. Rev. 2021, 141, 103959. [CrossRef] 6. Steele, L.G.; Abdelaaty, L. Ethnic diversity and attitudes towards refugees. J. Ethn. Migr. Stud. 2018, 45, 1833–1856. [CrossRef] 7. Alesina, A.; Miano, A.; Stantcheva, S. Immigration and Redistribution; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018. [CrossRef] 8. Azarnert, L.V. Refugee resettlement, redistribution and growth. Eur. J. Political Econ. 2018, 54, 89–98. [CrossRef] 9. Grigorieff, A.; ROTH, C.; Ubfal, D. Does Information Change Attitudes Towards Immigrants? Representative Evidence from Survey Experiments. SSRN Electron. J. 2016. [CrossRef] 10. Stangor, C.; Sechrist, G.B.; Jost, J.T. Changing Racial Beliefs by Providing Consensus Information. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 486–496. [CrossRef] 11. Dobbs, M.; Crano, W.D. Outgroup Accountability in the Minimal Group Paradigm: Implications for Aversive Discrimination and Social Identity Theory. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2001, 27, 355–364. [CrossRef] 12. Blanchard, F.A.; Lilly, T.; Vaughn, L.A. Reducing the Expression of Racial Prejudice. Psychol. Sci. 1991, 2, 101–105. [CrossRef] 13. Paluck, E.L. Peer Pressure Against Prejudice: A Field Experimental Test of a National High School Prejudice Reduction Program; Working Paper; Harvard University: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2006. 14. Kaufmann, E. Assimilation and the Immigration Debate: Shifting People’s Attitudes. The London School of Economics and Political Science. 2016. Available online: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/assimilation-and-the-immigration-debate- shifting-peoples-attitudes/ (accessed on 10 June 2020). 15. Galinsky, A.D.; Moskowitz, G.B. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 708–724. [CrossRef] 16. Lecheler, S.; De Vreese, C.H. How Long Do News Framing Effects Last? A Systematic review of Longitudinal Studies. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2016, 40, 3–30. [CrossRef] 17. Druckman, J.N.; McDermott, R. Emotion and the Framing of Risky Choice. Politics Behav. 2008, 30, 297–321. [CrossRef] 18. Druckman, J.N.; Nelson, K.R. Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Inﬂuence. Am. J. Politics Sci. 2003, 47, 729–745. [CrossRef] 19. Voelkel, J.G.; Willer, R. Resolving the Progressive Paradox: Conservative Value Framing of Progressive Economic Policies Increases Candidate Support. 2019. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3385818 (accessed on 10 June 2020). 20. Feygina, I.; Jost, J.T.; Goldsmith, R.E. System Justiﬁcation, the Denial of Global Warming, and the Possibility of “System-Sanctioned Change”. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2009, 36, 326–338. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 21. Graham, J.; Haidt, J.; Koleva, S.; Motyl, M.; Iyer, R.; Wojcik, S.; Ditto, P. Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2013, 47, 55–130. [CrossRef] 22. Iyer, R.; Koleva, S.; Graham, J.; Ditto, P.; Haidt, J. Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Dispositions of Self-Identiﬁed Libertarians. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e42366. [CrossRef] 23. Fisk, K. Refugee Geography and the Diffusion of Armed Conﬂict in Africa. Civ. Wars 2014, 16, 255–275. [CrossRef] 24. Sherif, M. Experimental Study of Positive and Negative Intergroup Attitudes between Experimentally Produced Groups: Robbers Cave Study; University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, OK, USA, 1954. 25. Yitmen, S.; ¸ Verkuyten, M. Feelings toward refugees and non-Muslims in Turkey: The roles of national and religious identiﬁcations, and multiculturalism. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2017, 48, 90–100. [CrossRef] 26. Haidt, J.; Graham, J.; Joseph, C. Above and Below Left–Right: Ideological Narratives and Moral Foundations. Psychol. Inq. 2009, 20, 110–119. [CrossRef] 27. Thornhill, R.; Fincher, C.L. The Parasite-Stress Theory of Values and Sociality: Infectious Disease, History and Human Values Worldwide; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [CrossRef] 28. Nath, L.; Pedriana, N.; Gifford, C.; Mcauley, J.W.; Fülöp, M. Examining Moral Foundations Theory through Immigration Attitudes. Athens J. Soc. Sci. 2022, 9, 9–30. [CrossRef] 29. Captari, L.E.; Shannonhouse, L.; Hook, J.N.; Aten, J.D.; Davis, E.B.; Davis, D.E.; Van Tongeren, D.; Hook, J.R. Prejudicial and Welcoming Attitudes toward Syrian Refugees: The Roles of Cultural Humility and Moral Foundations. J. Psychol. Theol. 2019, 47, 123–139. [CrossRef] 30. Bryan, C.J.; Tipton, E.; Yeager, D.S. Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 980–989. [CrossRef] [PubMed] 31. Palan, S.; Schitter, C. Proliﬁc.ac—A subject pool for online experiments. J. Behav. Exp. Finance 2018, 17, 22–27. [CrossRef] Behav. Sci. 2022, 12, 118 15 of 15 32. The Jamovi Project. Jamovi. (Version 1.2) [Computer Software]. 2020. Available online: https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 10 June 2020). 33. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. (Version 3.6). 2019. Available online: https: //cran.r-project.org/ (accessed on 10 June 2020). 34. Ripley, B.; Venables, W.; Bates, D.M.; Hornik, K.; Gebhardt, A.; Firth, D. MASS: Support Functions and Datasets for Venables and Ripley’s MASS. [R package]. 2018. Available online: https://cran.r-project.org/package=MASS (accessed on 10 June 2020).

Journal

Behavioral Sciences – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

Published: Apr 20, 2022

Keywords: moral foundations theory; refugees; framing; moral framing; behaviour change

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

Moral Foundational Framing and Its Impact on Attitudes and Behaviours

References (48)

Abstract

Journal

Recommended Articles

There are no references for this article.

Our policy towards the use of cookies