How Moral Foundations Shape Conservative Climate Concerns and Perceptions

How Moral Foundations Shape Conservative Climate Concerns and Perceptions | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article How Moral Foundations Shape Conservative Climate Concerns and Perceptions Heather Bedle, Christopher R. H. Garneau This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Climate change poses one of the most significant threats facing humanity, yet engagement in climate issues among American conservatives remains low. This study demonstrates the critical role moral foundations play in climate attitudes among conservatives. Analyzing survey data (n = 2188), we find that conservatives who score higher in compassion show greater belief in human-caused climate change, suggesting that appealing to shared humanity can persuade conservatives to accept the scientific consensus. However, ingroup loyalty is more pivotal for driving personal climate concern among conservatives. The more ingroup-focused, the less conservatives believe in climate change risk or worry about its impacts. These results highlight the nuanced interactions between morality and political orientation on climate views. The implications underscore the need to target specific moral foundations in climate messaging and policy to build conservative engagement. Appealing to compassion opens minds to climate concerns, but emphasizing impacts to local community rather than global effects is likely more effective for inspiring conservative action on climate change. Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change policy Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Psychology and behaviour Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION Anthropogenic climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity. However, climate concern remains highly polarized along political lines in Western nations like the United States [ 1 ]. Conservatives consistently show lower levels of belief in climate change and climate risk compared to liberals [ 2 ]. This political divide poses a major obstacle to mobilizing climate action. Therefore, understanding and increasing climate engagement among conservatives is an urgent priority. Moral foundations theory may provide insight into the roots of climate skepticism and how to close the partisan gap. The theory identifies five innate moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation [ 3 ]. The reliance on various foundations in understanding morality differ greatly between American liberals and conservatives. Past research suggests that “individualizing” foundations of care and fairness positively predict climate concern, while the “binding” foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity negatively predict concerns [ 4 ]. While prior research suggests that conservative orientation and binding moral foundations reduce climate concern, it is unknown whether the effects of conservatism on climate concern is contingent upon which moral foundations individuals utilize. This study helps address this gap. Utilizing national survey data, we analyze how moral values affect the link between political orientation and climate concern. A key aim of our study is to identify moral drivers of conservative skepticism, and recommend ways in which climate communication can increase conservative engagement by appealing to their moral intuitions. This research has important implications for building bipartisan support for climate action as the negative impacts of climate change accelerate. Political Orientation and Climate Change Views Prior research shows strong political divisions in public attitudes towards climate change and its related risks in the United States [ 5 ]. Multiple studies find that, compared to liberals and Democrats, conservatives consistently express more skepticism about the reality and risks of climate change [e.g. 1;6;7;8]. More specifically, political conservatives in the U.S. perceive lower risk and are more skeptical about climate change than liberals. This political divide also extends to support for climate action, with conservatives having significantly less concern about climate change and less support for pro-environmental policies such as renewable energy and emissions reduction policies compared to liberals [1;2;8; 9]. Overall, Republican party affiliation and conservative political ideology are among the strongest predictors of both climate change skepticism and opposition to climate mitigation efforts in the US. Given the preponderance of research demonstrating conservative skepticism of climate concern, we hypothesize that (H1) conservatives, demonstrate lower levels of climate concern compared to liberals. Moral Foundations and Climate Change Views Moral foundations theory, developed by Haidt and colleagues [ 3 , 10 , 11 , 12 ], proposes that human morality rests on a set of innate psychological systems centered on five moral domains: 1. Care—This foundation focuses on concern for the suffering of others, including virtues of compassion, nurturance and protection of the vulnerable. Those who strongly endorse the care foundation value traits like kindness and tend to exhibit more empathy. This foundation relates to the ethics of caring for others who may be harmed. 2. Fairness—This foundation centers on concerns about injustice, inequality, cheating, and unfair treatment. Those valuing fairness highly view proportionality and concepts like justice and rights as important. Fairness morality manifests in concepts of social justice and attitudes toward fairness and reciprocity in exchanges. 3. Ingroup Loyalty—This foundation relates to obligations of group membership, such as patriotism, self-sacrifice for the group, and fidelity to ingroups versus outgroups. Those endorsing loyalty value traits like allegiance and seek to uphold group cohesion and roles. Loyalty underlies strong in-group favoritism and identification with groups one belongs to. 4. Authority—This foundation focuses on the value of obedience, respect, and deference to legitimate authorities perceived to have high status or expertise. Those valuing authority tend to respect traditions and hierarchy and feel it's important to fulfill duties within hierarchical roles. Authority relates to order, structure, rules and conscientiousness. 5. Purity—This foundation centers on abhorrence for disgusting or unnatural acts, including bodily and spiritual contagion. Those high in purity morality feel revulsion toward taboo behaviors and emphasize sanctity or sacredness across moral, physical and spiritual domains. Sanctity concerns relate to notions of physical and spiritual purity. This moral foundation structure encompasses the core moral intuitions proposed to be innate (but socially manifested to varying degrees) based on cultural learning and context. Liberals tend to prioritize care and fairness over loyalty, authority, and purity, while conservatives value all foundations more-or-less equally [13; 14; 15). These moral differences are posited to drive political conflict over social and policy issues. Research applying moral foundations theory to climate change perception has grown in recent years, but remains limited in scope. Feinberg and Willer [ 16 ] first examined the link, finding in two U.S. surveys that the individualizing foundations of care and fairness positively predicted pro-environmental views and willingness to mitigate climate change through behavioral and policy changes. Further research have provided further evidence for this relationship. Dickinson et al. [ 4 ] finds that care and fairness predict greater belief in and concern about climate change across samples from multiple countries including Australia, India, and the United States. Additionally, loyalty negatively predicts climate concern, suggesting binding foundations may decrease climate worry [ 14 ]. Vainio and Mäkiniemi [ 17 ] found similar results among university students in Finland, with care and fairness positively correlating with acceptance of climate-friendly behaviors. With regard to the emotional expression of morality, Smith and Leiserowitz [ 18 ] show that those who worry about the issue are more accepting of scientific evidence on climate change among Americans. Other work has examined how foundations predict specific climate beliefs. For instance, Wolsko [ 19 ] finds that the care foundation predicts seeing climate change as a moral issue, while fairness predicts perceptions of harmful climate impacts, and loyalty negatively predicts seeing climate action as a moral imperative and obligation. Overall, these studies provide consistent evidence that individualizing foundations of care and fairness tend to motivate public climate concern, willingness to act, and policy support. The binding foundations of authority, loyalty, and purity are often associated with more skepticism and less motivation to address climate change. However, large-scale research is still needed to confirm patterns, especially in the U.S. context. Given the state of research on moral foundations and climate concern, we hypothesize (H2) that individualizing moral foundations increase climate concern while binding moral foundations decrease climate concern. Why Moral Foundations Matter for Politics and Climate Change Belief Numerous studies demonstrate systematic differences in moral foundations endorsement based on political orientation. Liberals and conservatives exhibit divergent patterns of relying on the five foundations in moral judgments and attitudes [ 3 ]. Across samples in the U.S. and other Western cultures, liberals consistently place the strongest emphasis on the individualizing foundations of care and fairness in their moral thinking. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to value all five foundations relatively equally, relying on loyalty, authority and purity concerns to a greater degree compared to liberals [13; 14; 15]. This ideological divergence in moral cognition is posited to be a key driver of partisan conflicts over social and political issues [ 13 ]. Those on the political left typically advocate for policies aligned with care and fairness ethics, such as social justice reforms and egalitarian values. Conservatives, drawing more evenly on all foundations, favor order, in-group loyalty, purity and authority concerns in their policy attitudes and political judgments [15; 20]. Mapping these differences in moral foundations reliance helps explain profound partisan divides on multiple policy dimensions [ 13 ]. Critically, the relationship between political orientation and climate views likely depends on moral foundations. It is plausible then that conservatives are less concerned about climate issues because they are disproportionately reliant on the types of moral foundations (binding) that decrease climate concern [ 3 ]. Conversely, liberals demonstrate great climate concern due to their propensity to engage in individualizing moral foundations. A great deal of research supports the idea that binding foundations decrease climate concern among conservatives. Conservatives show greater reliance on purity concerns in forming policy attitudes generally [ 21 ]. Several studies support purity as a driver of climate skepticism on the political right. Feinberg and Willer [ 16 ] find that purity predicts lower willingness among conservatives to mitigate climate change. Additionally, Koleva et al. [ 21 ] show that purity concerns strongly predict climate skepticism, particularly among conservatives. Other research shows that liberals demonstrate more climate concern due to individualizing foundations. For example, Day et al. [ 20 ] show that basing messaging on care and fairness increased climate acceptance more among liberals, while conservative audiences may be able to be swayed based on their relevant foundations. Furthermore, Smith and Leiserowitz [ 18 ] find that fairness only influences liberals. There is also evidence that care and fairness resonate particularly strongly with liberals’ moral values [ 16 ], elevating their climate worry. Research on moral foundations suggests that the link between politics and climate concern is explained by the proportion of Americans in a polarized electorate that utilize different foundations. In other words, individualizing morality increases climate concern and liberals are most likely to use individualizing morality - so liberals demonstrate greater climate concern. On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives disproportionately use binding morality - which reduces climate concern. What then can be said of the smaller proportion of liberals who are more reliant on binding forms of moral foundations? Would these liberals demonstrate lower climate concern? Likewise, would the smaller proportion of conservative who use individualizing moral foundations show increased climate concern? Even more importantly, could reframing moral messages “move” polarized Americans to utilize a moral foundation not as familiar to them in order to change climate concern? There is a good deal of experimental research that suggests this might be the case. Moral reframing studies reveal ideological asymmetries in how moral foundations inform climate concern. Wolsko et al. [ 22 ] find that an empathy-based climate message increases concern across the spectrum, but especially for conservatives. The care foundation, however, may represent a ‘moral common ground’ that boosts climate concern regardless of politics [ 19 , 23 ]. Given the state of research that shows (1) individualizing foundations increase climate concerns while binding foundations decrease climate concern, (2) liberals are more reliant on individualizing foundations while conservative are more likely to rely on binding foundations, and (3) moral reframing can increase climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals when primed with individualizing moral foundations, we hypothesize (H3) that individualizing moral foundations increase climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals. Furthermore, we hypothesize (H4) that binding moral foundations decrease climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals. Other Determinants of Climate Concern In addition to morality, a range of other factors shape public climate change risk perceptions. Broad cultural worldviews—such as egalitarianism versus individualism—strongly predict climate beliefs, with a hierarchical, individualistic orientation decreasing climate concern [ 9 , 24 ]. Science knowledge also increases climate acceptance and concern [ 7 , 25 , 26 ], but not uniformly across ideologies. Socio-demographic characteristics like age, gender, race, education, and political party affiliation are related to climate views as well, albeit mediated by cultural and ideological orientations [ 1 , 27 ]. Personal experience with extreme weather events can raise climate change concern [ 28 , 29 ], particularly when events are attributed to climate change [ 30 , 31 ]. However, impacts remain limited if the events are not seen as locally relevant [ 32 ]. While personal experience influences climate views, cultural and political identities tend to dominate [ 25 ]. This further highlights the critical importance of cultural and moral factors in driving climate change risk perceptions—particularly among groups skeptical of climate science. Focusing on extreme weather impacts alone is unlikely to mobilize broad public concern without also appealing to deeply held values. Given the importance of these factors, we include cultural worldviews and individual perceptions of weather events in our analyses. METHODS Data Data come from the 2023 OU Weather and Tolerance Survey. Data were collected via online survey panels administered by Qualtrics and carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of the University of Oklahoma Institutional Research Board, and following protocols outlined underApproval #15823. Informed consent was obtained by all subjects. Respondents were 2188 U.S. adults (18 + years) sampled via quota-based recruitment by Qualtrics to match census benchmarks for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, and U.S. region, and thus is a large and diverse representative sample. Measures We use five linear dependent variables to measure attitudes about climate change including 1) certainty about global climate change, 2) perceptions of global warming risk, 3) personal importance of global warming, 4) worry about global warming, and 5) perceptions about future impacts of global warming. These variables are adapted from the Yale Climate Opinion survey [ 5 ]. Focal independent variables include moral foundation scales and political orientation categories. Moral foundation scales closely resemble those created by Graham and colleagues [ 11 ]. Measures for moral foundations of care, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity are 24-point scales with reliability statistics ranging between .644 and .706, which are generally acceptable. Political orientation is measured with dummies for liberal (reference), moderate, and conservative. Models testing for interactions include terms for all five moral foundation scales multiplied by moderate and conservative orientations with liberal omitted as the reference category. Control variables include political party, social capital, mean-centered age (along with a squared term when significant), sex, race, education, income, marital and parental status, subjective health and happiness, religious service attendance, evangelical identity, biblical views, perceptions of recent and future weather patterns, scientific knowledge, and cultural worldviews (see [ 25 ]). See Appendix Table A1 for a full description of variable operationalization. See Appendix Table A2 for descriptive statistics on variables used in the analyses. Data Analysis Multiple linear regression analyses are used to analyze effects of moral foundations, political orientations, and control variables on dimensions of climate concern. Baseline models for each regression analysis (for all five DVs) include all five moral foundations scales, dummies for moderate and conservative (with liberal as the reference category), and control variables (not shown in tables). Subsequent models include interaction terms in addition to all variables included in baseline models. To ease interpretation, interaction figures are included based on regression models. RESULTS Baseline results for belief in climate change (Model 1 of Table 1 ) demonstrate that moderates and conservatives score lower in climate change belief compared to liberals. Results for moral foundations show that higher scores in both care and fairness increase belief in climate change while higher scores in ingroup and authority reduce belief in climate change. When interaction terms are included (Model 2 of Table 1 ), the interaction between conservative political orientation and the care foundation significantly increases belief in climate change while the interaction between conservative orientation and the ingroup foundation reduces belief in climate change. Figure 1 provides visual representations for the significant interaction effects. As adherence to the ingroup foundation increases, certainly in climate change belief is relatively unchanged for liberals and moderates. Conservatives, however, are far less likely to believe that climate change is causing global temperatures to rise as they score higher on the ingroup scale. Furthermore, results shown in Fig. 1 , demonstrate that while increased scores for the care foundation only modestly increases climate change belief for liberals and moderates, increased care drastically increases climate change belief for conservatives. Table 1 OLS Regressions for Climate Concern Variables Dependent Variable Belief Risk Importance Worried Future Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10 β β β β β β β β β β Focal Variables Moderate − .112 * − .187 − .144 * − .454 * − .159 ** − .169 − .221 *** − .025 − .078 ** − .101 Conservative − .522 *** − .184 − .582 *** − .172 − .653 *** − .053 − .705 *** − .073 − .255 *** − .109 Moral Foundations - Care .019 ** .010 .037 *** .015 .049 *** .038 * .049 *** .059 *** .021 *** .015 * Moral Foundations - Fairness .030 *** .031 ** .024 *** .037 ** .024 * .036 * .017 .022 .017 *** .024 ** Moral Foundations - Ingroup − .017 ** − .004 − .020 *** − .011 − .008 − .004 − .003 .005 − .007 − .010 Moral Foundations - Authority − .018 ** − .014 − .013 * − .019 − .019 * − .017 − .013 − .016 − .014 ** − .012 Moral Foundations - Purity − .010 − .013 .001 .004 − .005 − .001 − .014 − .014 .004 .005 Interaction Variables Care X Moderate -- .007 -- .026 -- .010 -- − .029 -- .003 Care X Conservative -- .035 * -- .050 ** -- .036 -- .013 -- .023 * Fairness X Moderate -- .001 -- − .010 -- − .020 -- − .001 -- − .013 Fairness X Conservative -- .001 -- − .027 -- − .007 -- − .011 -- − .007 Ingroup X Moderate -- − .003 -- .004 -- .009 -- .016 -- .015 Ingroup X Conservative -- − .056 *** -- − .048 *** -- − .038 * -- − .056 ** -- − .014 Purity X Moderate -- − .012 -- .006 -- .008 -- − .005 -- − .004 Purity X Conservative -- − .010 -- .005 -- − .028 -- .018 -- .000 Adjusted R 2 .334 .341 .401 .408 .337 .341 .366 .369 .361 .365 note: full models control for all variables listed in Table A2. Descriptive Statistics * p ≤ .05 ** p ≤ .01 *** p ≤ .001 (two-tailed test) Next, we examine results for belief that climate change poses a risk to humans and the environment. Baseline results (Model 3 of Table 1 ) illustrate that moderates and conservatives are less likely than liberals to report that climate change poses a risk to humans. Furthermore, results on moral foundations show that care and fairness increase perceived risk while ingroup and authority decrease perceived risk. Results from Model 4, which includes interaction terms, show similar interaction effects that we find for results on climate change belief. The interaction term for conservatives and the care foundation increases belief in climate risk while the interaction term for conservatives and the ingroup foundation decreases belief in climate risk. These results are depicted in Fig. 1 . In these analyses, we find strikingly similar results for belief in climate risk as we do with general climate change belief. Relative to liberals and moderates, conservatives have less belief in climate risk as they score higher on the ingroup foundation, and they have more belief in climate risk as they score higher on the care foundation Results for personal importance of global warming (Model 5 of Table 1 ) indicate that conservatives and moderates report far lower levels of self-reported importance relative to liberals. Results on moral foundations show that care and fairness increase reports of personal importance of global warming while authority decreases personal importance. Interaction effects, displayed in Model 6 of Table 1 , show a negative effect for the interaction between conservatives and the ingroup foundation. Figure 2 displays the interaction effects for political orientation and the compassion foundation on personal importance of global warming. As the figure shows, conservatives indicate far less personal importance at higher ingroup scores relative to lower scores. The level of ingroup orientation has little impact on personal importance of global warming for liberals and moderates. Results for how worried respondents are about global warming (Model 7 of Table 1 ) show that moderates, and especially conservatives, are less worried about global warming. When examining results on moral foundations, we find care increases worry about global warming. Results for interaction terms in Model 8 demonstrate a negative impact on global warming worry for the interaction between conservatives and the ingroup foundation. Visual depictions (shown in Fig. 2 ) illustrate that conservatives are far more worried about global warming at lower levels of ingroup orientation than at high levels of ingroup orientation. Similar to results on personal importance of global warming, global warming worry does not vary across ingroup orientation for either liberals or moderates. Finally, we report results for levels of belief that global warming poses harm in the future. Much like analyses on the other dependent variables, results shown in Model 9 of Table 1 demonstrate that moderates and conservatives report lower levels in belief that global warming poses harm in the future relative to liberals. Additionally, the moral foundations of care and fairness increase belief that global warming poses future harm while authority decreases the same belief. Results including interaction terms (Model 10 of Table 1 ) show a positive effect between conservatives and the care foundation on belief in future harm. A visual depiction (Fig. 3 ) shows that while increasing care orientation produces modest increases in belief in future harm for liberals and moderates, conservatives report much more concern about the future impacts of global warming at higher levels of the care scale than at lower levels. In sum, we find support for Hypothesis 1: conservatives are less likely to express belief in and concern for climate change. This comports with a wealth of research showing climate skepticism amongst more conservative Americans [e.g. 1;6;7]. Additionally, in agreement with research on moral foundations and environmental issues [4; 17; 19; 33], we generally find that higher scores on the care and fairness foundations promote climate belief and concern while higher scores for ingroup and authority foundations reduce belief and concern (which somewhat supports Hypothesis 2). We also find mixed support for our hypothesis that higher scores on care and fairness foundations increase climate belief and concern for conservatives compared to liberals (H3) and that higher scores on ingroup and authority foundations decrease climate belief and concern for conservatives relative to liberals (H4). Results for climate change belief, belief in climate risk, and belief in future harm show that increases in the care foundation only marginally increase belief and care for liberals and moderates. Conservatives, however, demonstrate far higher levels of belief and concern as they score higher on the care foundation – and are largely indistinguishable from liberals and moderates at the highest levels of care. Results on interaction effects also show that for all dependent variables except belief in future risk, increases in the ingroup foundation modestly reduces climate belief and concern for liberals and moderates while the effect is quite dramatic for conservatives. Taken together, the interaction results demonstrate that conservatives are particularly sensitive to moral foundations rooted in care and ingroup loyalty when considering positions on climate change. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION This study represents the first U.S. analysis finding ideological asymmetries in how moral foundations predict climate change attitudes. We find evidence that moral foundations interact with political ideology to shape public views on climate change, helping explain partisan polarization. As hypothesized, the individualizing foundation of care predicts greater climate belief and concern regardless of ideology, but this relationship is stronger among conservatives. Meanwhile, the binding foundation of ingroup loyalty drastically decreases climate views for conservatives, while showing little association for moderates and liberals. These results align with moral foundations theory positing innate plural ethics that manifest differently based on cultural learning, ideology, and identity [ 10 ]. The care foundation represents a moral common ground that resonates across the political spectrum, but especially fosters climate concern among conservatives who might otherwise be skeptical of climate science [23; 34]. Loyalty shapes views based on group norms, causing dismissiveness about threats like climate change among conservatives when their affiliated groups promote skepticism [8;21]. The findings have important implications for climate messaging and policy. First, appealing to compassion and protection of vulnerable groups can engage conservatives in climate solutions [ 22 ]. Discussing climate impacts on future generations and the poor rather than just environmental threats can broaden climate concern [ 33 ]. However, loyalty remains an obstacle among highly partisan conservatives. Framing climate action in terms of patriotism, defending the homeland, and preserving our way of life can build support [35;36]. Additionally, while connecting climate risks with local impacts is important [ 29 ], these results suggest global framing can resonate if linked to shared humanity. Discussing climate change in polarizing environmental terms likely worsens partisan divides given the wealth of research showing that climate change belief is heavily politicized in the United States [e.g. 1;2; 37; 38] Avoiding identity-based loyalty cues while invoking compassion provides a path to overcoming skepticism among conservatives. Policy strategies should also recognize loyalty barriers. Partisan resistance diminishes when adaptation and mitigation integrate with place identity [ 39 ]. To mobilize urgent bipartisan action as climate impacts accelerate, messaging must activate moral intuitions centering on compassion while easing ideological identity threats to conservatives. As with any study, this study has limitations. The cross-sectional survey data cannot establish causal relationships between moral foundations, ideology and climate views. Additionally, while validity tests were employed to ensure a high standard of quality for the online data, self-reported, opt-in survey data relies on accurate response which is far more difficult to obtain in this format. Additionally, while the sample was large and diverse, complex quotas may overlook some demographic segments. This study provides novel evidence that moral values interact with political identity to shape public views on the urgent issue of climate change. The findings uniquely demonstrate that compassion and loyalty motivations manifest divergently across the ideological spectrum to drive engagement with climate concerns in the United States. While prior work has linked moral foundations to climate attitudes, this research offers the first large-scale analysis of how these relationships depend on political orientation. Testing interactions between morality and ideology sheds new light on the complex social and psychological forces polarizing climate concern. These timely insights can inform more effective communication and policy-making tailored to shared moral values as climate risks accelerate. This work moves climate perception research forward by revealing ideological asymmetries around deeply held moral foundations, and thus demonstrates that motivating urgent bipartisan climate action requires recognizing how morality and identity combine to shape public responses across the political divide. Declarations Acknowledgements: We thank the University of Oklahoma, and its College of Earth and Energy for providing start-up funding to the lead author for survey collection. Additionally, we thank Dr. Ann Beutel with the University of Oklahoma’s Department of Sociology for immense help in the survey design and collection. Author contributions: Writing, project design, editing, and analysis (H.B., C.R.H.G). Data availability statement: As much as is allowed by the IRB and survey collection agreements, data can be made available by contacting the corresponding author. Competing Interests Statement: The authors declare no competing interests. References McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163–1172. Dunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., & Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4–23. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. Dickinson, J. L., McLeod, P., Bloomfield, R., & Allred, S. (2016). Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA? PloS One, 11(10), e0163852. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. & Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming's Six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication . Hamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231–242. Marquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Dietz, T., Dunlap, R. E., Kaplowitz, S. A., McCright, A. M., & Zahran, S. (2011). Understanding public opinion on climate change: a call for research. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(4), 38–42. McCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., & Dietz, T. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 76–97. Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. Graham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130. Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion . Vintage. Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98–116. Van Leeuwen, F., & Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 169–173. Weber, C., & Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107–126. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62. Vainio, A., & Mäkiniemi, J. P. (2016). How are moral foundations associated with climate-friendly consumption? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), 265–283. Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937–948. Wolsko, C. (2017). Expanding the range of environmental values: Political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 284–294. Day, M. V., Fiske, S. T., Downing, E. L., & Trail, T. E. (2014). Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1559–1573. Koleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7–19. Markowitz, E. M., & Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgment. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243–247. Kahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., & Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732–735. Kahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of Risk Theory, 725–759. Shi, J., Visschers, V. H., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35(12), 2183–2201. Howe, P. D., & Leiserowitz, A. (2013). Who remembers a hot summer or a cold winter? The asymmetric effect of beliefs about global warming on perceptions of local climate conditions in the US. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1488–1500. Akerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y., & Neuman, A. (2013). Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 81–91. Shao, W. (2016). Are actual weather and perceived weather the same? Understanding perceptions of local weather and their effects on risk perceptions of global warming. Journal of Risk Research, 19(6), 722–742. Myers, T. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Akerlof, K., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2013). The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 343–347. Demski, C., Capstick, S., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G., & Spence, A. (2017). Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change, 140(2), 149–164. Brügger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031–1037. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12501. Feygina, I., Jost, J. T., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of “system-sanctioned change”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326–338. Myers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: a letter. Climatic Change, 113, 1105–1112. Doherty, K. L., & Webler, T. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment’s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 879–884. Hart, P. S., & Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701–723. Bedle, H., Garneau, C. R., & Vera-Arroyo, A. (2023). Clustering energy support beliefs to reveal unique sub-populations using self-organizing maps. Heliyon, 9(7). Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60–85. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SciReptsBedleGarneauv2Suppl.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3931144","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":273603805,"identity":"198a0ca5-e1f1-4b37-b2a8-ab1850c5f9fe","order_by":0,"name":"Heather Bedle","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Oklahoma","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Heather","middleName":"","lastName":"Bedle","suffix":""},{"id":273603806,"identity":"4143ce0c-9062-49aa-88d7-306f33c7fef1","order_by":1,"name":"Christopher R. H. Garneau","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Oklahoma","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Christopher","middleName":"R. H.","lastName":"Garneau","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-02-05 14:03:46","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":51441780,"identity":"d5884500-a24c-4aaa-97eb-96eaf29a222e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 17:45:42","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":178310,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction Plots for climate change belief and global warming risk\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3931144/v1/06be373e04641f1d625ce5b2.png"},{"id":51441777,"identity":"a9a2da2f-0d3a-467d-8ff4-b879dd5ab7be","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 17:45:41","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":101996,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction plots for personal importance and worry about global warming\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3931144/v1/ba92b32ed9ce931cecf7e2e8.png"},{"id":51441781,"identity":"267d7d3a-2b43-429b-a0af-379a25688c45","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 17:45:43","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":105136,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInteraction plot for concern for future generations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3931144/v1/786cb7efe8f5adc5b219f258.png"},{"id":53339862,"identity":"842966e4-8e46-44b6-83af-2b542ac65d73","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-03-24 15:22:50","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":667695,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3931144/v1/ca2d8c28-d9e1-4bdc-a44b-29e8ac83d19f.pdf"},{"id":51441779,"identity":"2b8cd2ec-9d6e-43bb-b2f7-1cce0f5ada17","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-02-21 17:45:42","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":33871,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SciReptsBedleGarneauv2Suppl.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3931144/v1/b7fca8ad0d7ccdb0d244997d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"How Moral Foundations Shape Conservative Climate Concerns and Perceptions","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnthropogenic climate change is one of the most serious threats facing humanity. However, climate concern remains highly polarized along political lines in Western nations like the United States [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e]. Conservatives consistently show lower levels of belief in climate change and climate risk compared to liberals [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e]. This political divide poses a major obstacle to mobilizing climate action. Therefore, understanding and increasing climate engagement among conservatives is an urgent priority.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral foundations theory may provide insight into the roots of climate skepticism and how to close the partisan gap. The theory identifies five innate moral foundations: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and purity/degradation [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. The reliance on various foundations in understanding morality differ greatly between American liberals and conservatives. Past research suggests that \u0026ldquo;individualizing\u0026rdquo; foundations of care and fairness positively predict climate concern, while the \u0026ldquo;binding\u0026rdquo; foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity negatively predict concerns [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e]. While prior research suggests that conservative orientation and binding moral foundations reduce climate concern, it is unknown whether the effects of conservatism on climate concern is contingent upon which moral foundations individuals utilize. This study helps address this gap.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUtilizing national survey data, we analyze how moral values affect the link between political orientation and climate concern. A key aim of our study is to identify moral drivers of conservative skepticism, and recommend ways in which climate communication can increase conservative engagement by appealing to their moral intuitions. This research has important implications for building bipartisan support for climate action as the negative impacts of climate change accelerate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003ePolitical Orientation and Climate Change Views\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior research shows strong political divisions in public attitudes towards climate change and its related risks in the United States [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e]. Multiple studies find that, compared to liberals and Democrats, conservatives consistently express more skepticism about the reality and risks of climate change [e.g. 1;6;7;8]. More specifically, political conservatives in the U.S. perceive lower risk and are more skeptical about climate change than liberals. This political divide also extends to support for climate action, with conservatives having significantly less concern about climate change and less support for pro-environmental policies such as renewable energy and emissions reduction policies compared to liberals [1;2;8; 9]. Overall, Republican party affiliation and conservative political ideology are among the strongest predictors of both climate change skepticism and opposition to climate mitigation efforts in the US. Given the preponderance of research demonstrating conservative skepticism of climate concern, we hypothesize that (H1) \u003cem\u003econservatives, demonstrate lower levels of climate concern compared to liberals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMoral Foundations and Climate Change Views\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMoral foundations theory, developed by Haidt and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e], proposes that human morality rests on a set of innate psychological systems centered on five moral domains:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e1. Care\u0026mdash;This foundation focuses on concern for the suffering of others, including virtues of compassion, nurturance and protection of the vulnerable. Those who strongly endorse the care foundation value traits like kindness and tend to exhibit more empathy. This foundation relates to the ethics of caring for others who may be harmed.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e2. Fairness\u0026mdash;This foundation centers on concerns about injustice, inequality, cheating, and unfair treatment. Those valuing fairness highly view proportionality and concepts like justice and rights as important. Fairness morality manifests in concepts of social justice and attitudes toward fairness and reciprocity in exchanges.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e3. Ingroup Loyalty\u0026mdash;This foundation relates to obligations of group membership, such as patriotism, self-sacrifice for the group, and fidelity to ingroups versus outgroups. Those endorsing loyalty value traits like allegiance and seek to uphold group cohesion and roles. Loyalty underlies strong in-group favoritism and identification with groups one belongs to.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e4. Authority\u0026mdash;This foundation focuses on the value of obedience, respect, and deference to legitimate authorities perceived to have high status or expertise. Those valuing authority tend to respect traditions and hierarchy and feel it's important to fulfill duties within hierarchical roles. Authority relates to order, structure, rules and conscientiousness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e5. Purity\u0026mdash;This foundation centers on abhorrence for disgusting or unnatural acts, including bodily and spiritual contagion. Those high in purity morality feel revulsion toward taboo behaviors and emphasize sanctity or sacredness across moral, physical and spiritual domains. Sanctity concerns relate to notions of physical and spiritual purity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis moral foundation structure encompasses the core moral intuitions proposed to be innate (but socially manifested to varying degrees) based on cultural learning and context. Liberals tend to prioritize care and fairness over loyalty, authority, and purity, while conservatives value all foundations more-or-less equally [13; 14; 15). These moral differences are posited to drive political conflict over social and policy issues. Research applying moral foundations theory to climate change perception has grown in recent years, but remains limited in scope. Feinberg and Willer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] first examined the link, finding in two U.S. surveys that the individualizing foundations of care and fairness positively predicted pro-environmental views and willingness to mitigate climate change through behavioral and policy changes. Further research have provided further evidence for this relationship. Dickinson et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e] finds that care and fairness predict greater belief in and concern about climate change across samples from multiple countries including Australia, India, and the United States. Additionally, loyalty negatively predicts climate concern, suggesting binding foundations may decrease climate worry [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eVainio and M\u0026auml;kiniemi [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e17\u003c/span\u003e] found similar results among university students in Finland, with care and fairness positively correlating with acceptance of climate-friendly behaviors. With regard to the emotional expression of morality, Smith and Leiserowitz [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] show that those who worry about the issue are more accepting of scientific evidence on climate change among Americans. Other work has examined how foundations predict specific climate beliefs. For instance, Wolsko [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e] finds that the care foundation predicts seeing climate change as a moral issue, while fairness predicts perceptions of harmful climate impacts, and loyalty negatively predicts seeing climate action as a moral imperative and obligation. Overall, these studies provide consistent evidence that individualizing foundations of care and fairness tend to motivate public climate concern, willingness to act, and policy support. The binding foundations of authority, loyalty, and purity are often associated with more skepticism and less motivation to address climate change. However, large-scale research is still needed to confirm patterns, especially in the U.S. context. Given the state of research on moral foundations and climate concern, we hypothesize (H2) that \u003cem\u003eindividualizing moral foundations increase climate concern while binding moral foundations decrease climate concern.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eWhy Moral Foundations Matter for Politics and Climate Change Belief\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNumerous studies demonstrate systematic differences in moral foundations endorsement based on political orientation. Liberals and conservatives exhibit divergent patterns of relying on the five foundations in moral judgments and attitudes [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Across samples in the U.S. and other Western cultures, liberals consistently place the strongest emphasis on the individualizing foundations of care and fairness in their moral thinking. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to value all five foundations relatively equally, relying on loyalty, authority and purity concerns to a greater degree compared to liberals [13; 14; 15].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis ideological divergence in moral cognition is posited to be a key driver of partisan conflicts over social and political issues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e]. Those on the political left typically advocate for policies aligned with care and fairness ethics, such as social justice reforms and egalitarian values. Conservatives, drawing more evenly on all foundations, favor order, in-group loyalty, purity and authority concerns in their policy attitudes and political judgments [15; 20]. Mapping these differences in moral foundations reliance helps explain profound partisan divides on multiple policy dimensions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCritically, the relationship between political orientation and climate views likely depends on moral foundations. It is plausible then that conservatives are less concerned about climate issues because they are disproportionately reliant on the types of moral foundations (binding) that decrease climate concern [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e]. Conversely, liberals demonstrate great climate concern due to their propensity to engage in individualizing moral foundations. A great deal of research supports the idea that binding foundations decrease climate concern among conservatives. Conservatives show greater reliance on purity concerns in forming policy attitudes generally [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e]. Several studies support purity as a driver of climate skepticism on the political right. Feinberg and Willer [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e] find that purity predicts lower willingness among conservatives to mitigate climate change. Additionally, Koleva et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e21\u003c/span\u003e] show that purity concerns strongly predict climate skepticism, particularly among conservatives. Other research shows that liberals demonstrate more climate concern due to individualizing foundations. For example, Day et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e20\u003c/span\u003e] show that basing messaging on care and fairness increased climate acceptance more among liberals, while conservative audiences may be able to be swayed based on their relevant foundations. Furthermore, Smith and Leiserowitz [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e18\u003c/span\u003e] find that fairness only influences liberals. There is also evidence that care and fairness resonate particularly strongly with liberals\u0026rsquo; moral values [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e], elevating their climate worry.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResearch on moral foundations suggests that the link between politics and climate concern is explained by the proportion of Americans in a polarized electorate that utilize different foundations. In other words, individualizing morality increases climate concern and liberals are most likely to use individualizing morality - so liberals demonstrate greater climate concern. On the other side of the political spectrum, conservatives disproportionately use binding morality - which reduces climate concern. What then can be said of the smaller proportion of liberals who are more reliant on binding forms of moral foundations? Would these liberals demonstrate lower climate concern? Likewise, would the smaller proportion of conservative who use individualizing moral foundations show increased climate concern? Even more importantly, could reframing moral messages \u0026ldquo;move\u0026rdquo; polarized Americans to utilize a moral foundation not as familiar to them in order to change climate concern? There is a good deal of experimental research that suggests this might be the case. Moral reframing studies reveal ideological asymmetries in how moral foundations inform climate concern. Wolsko et al. [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e] find that an empathy-based climate message increases concern across the spectrum, but especially for conservatives. The care foundation, however, may represent a \u0026lsquo;moral common ground\u0026rsquo; that boosts climate concern regardless of politics [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e19\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e23\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the state of research that shows (1) individualizing foundations increase climate concerns while binding foundations decrease climate concern, (2) liberals are more reliant on individualizing foundations while conservative are more likely to rely on binding foundations, and (3) moral reframing can increase climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals when primed with individualizing moral foundations, we hypothesize (H3) that \u003cem\u003eindividualizing moral foundations increase climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals.\u003c/em\u003e Furthermore, we hypothesize (H4) that \u003cem\u003ebinding moral foundations decrease climate concern for conservatives relative to liberals.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eOther Determinants of Climate Concern\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition to morality, a range of other factors shape public climate change risk perceptions. Broad cultural worldviews\u0026mdash;such as egalitarianism versus individualism\u0026mdash;strongly predict climate beliefs, with a hierarchical, individualistic orientation decreasing climate concern [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e24\u003c/span\u003e]. Science knowledge also increases climate acceptance and concern [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e26\u003c/span\u003e], but not uniformly across ideologies. Socio-demographic characteristics like age, gender, race, education, and political party affiliation are related to climate views as well, albeit mediated by cultural and ideological orientations [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e27\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePersonal experience with extreme weather events can raise climate change concern [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e28\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], particularly when events are attributed to climate change [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e30\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e31\u003c/span\u003e]. However, impacts remain limited if the events are not seen as locally relevant [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e32\u003c/span\u003e]. While personal experience influences climate views, cultural and political identities tend to dominate [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]. This further highlights the critical importance of cultural and moral factors in driving climate change risk perceptions\u0026mdash;particularly among groups skeptical of climate science. Focusing on extreme weather impacts alone is unlikely to mobilize broad public concern without also appealing to deeply held values. Given the importance of these factors, we include cultural worldviews and individual perceptions of weather events in our analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData come from the 2023 OU Weather and Tolerance Survey. Data were collected via online survey panels administered by Qualtrics and carried out in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations of the University of Oklahoma Institutional Research Board, and following protocols outlined underApproval #15823. Informed consent was obtained by all subjects. Respondents were 2188 U.S. adults (18\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;years) sampled via quota-based recruitment by Qualtrics to match census benchmarks for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education level, and U.S. region, and thus is a large and diverse representative sample.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eMeasures\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe use five linear dependent variables to measure attitudes about climate change including 1) certainty about global climate change, 2) perceptions of global warming risk, 3) personal importance of global warming, 4) worry about global warming, and 5) perceptions about future impacts of global warming. These variables are adapted from the Yale Climate Opinion survey [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFocal independent variables include moral foundation scales and political orientation categories. Moral foundation scales closely resemble those created by Graham and colleagues [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e]. Measures for moral foundations of care, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity are 24-point scales with reliability statistics ranging between .644 and .706, which are generally acceptable. Political orientation is measured with dummies for liberal (reference), moderate, and conservative. Models testing for interactions include terms for all five moral foundation scales multiplied by moderate and conservative orientations with liberal omitted as the reference category.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eControl variables include political party, social capital, mean-centered age (along with a squared term when significant), sex, race, education, income, marital and parental status, subjective health and happiness, religious service attendance, evangelical identity, biblical views, perceptions of recent and future weather patterns, scientific knowledge, and cultural worldviews (see [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e25\u003c/span\u003e]). See Appendix Table A1 for a full description of variable operationalization. See Appendix Table A2 for descriptive statistics on variables used in the analyses.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple linear regression analyses are used to analyze effects of moral foundations, political orientations, and control variables on dimensions of climate concern. Baseline models for each regression analysis (for all five DVs) include all five moral foundations scales, dummies for moderate and conservative (with liberal as the reference category), and control variables (not shown in tables). Subsequent models include interaction terms in addition to all variables included in baseline models. To ease interpretation, interaction figures are included based on regression models.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003eBaseline results for belief in climate change (Model 1 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) demonstrate that moderates and conservatives score lower in climate change belief compared to liberals. Results for moral foundations show that higher scores in both care and fairness increase belief in climate change while higher scores in ingroup and authority reduce belief in climate change. When interaction terms are included (Model 2 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e), the interaction between conservative political orientation and the care foundation significantly increases belief in climate change while the interaction between conservative orientation and the ingroup foundation reduces belief in climate change. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e provides visual representations for the significant interaction effects. As adherence to the ingroup foundation increases, certainly in climate change belief is relatively unchanged for liberals and moderates. Conservatives, however, are far less likely to believe that climate change is causing global temperatures to rise as they score higher on the ingroup scale. Furthermore, results shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, demonstrate that while increased scores for the care foundation only modestly increases climate change belief for liberals and moderates, increased care drastically increases climate change belief for conservatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOLS Regressions for Climate Concern Variables\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"21\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c15\" colnum=\"15\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c16\" colnum=\"16\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c17\" colnum=\"17\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c18\" colnum=\"18\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c19\" colnum=\"19\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c20\" colnum=\"20\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c21\" colnum=\"21\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDependent Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBelief\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRisk\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorried\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 1\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 2\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 3\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 4\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 5\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 6\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c15\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 7\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 8\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 9\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModel 10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c15\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c17\" namest=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c19\" namest=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c21\" namest=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFocal Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.112\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.187\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.144\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.454\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.159\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.169\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.221\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.025\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.078\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.101\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConservative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.522\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.184\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.582\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.172\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.653\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.053\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.705\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.073\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.255\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.109\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral Foundations - Care\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.049\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.021\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral Foundations - Fairness\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.030\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.031\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.037\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.024\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral Foundations - Ingroup\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral Foundations - Authority\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.019\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.017\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoral Foundations - Purity\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInteraction Variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCare X Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.026\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.029\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCare X Conservative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.035\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.050\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.036\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.023\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFairness X Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.020\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.013\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFairness X Conservative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.027\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.011\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.007\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIngroup X Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.003\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.009\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.016\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.015\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIngroup X Conservative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.048\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e***\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.038\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e*\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.056\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e**\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.014\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurity X Moderate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.012\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.006\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.008\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.004\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePurity X Conservative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.010\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.028\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.018\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.334\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.341\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.401\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.408\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.337\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.341\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.366\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c15\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c16\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.369\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c17\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c18\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.361\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c19\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c20\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e.365\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c21\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003enote: full models control for all variables listed in Table A2. Descriptive Statistics\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e* p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.05 ** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.01 *** p\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;.001 (two-tailed test)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNext, we examine results for belief that climate change poses a risk to humans and the environment. Baseline results (Model 3 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) illustrate that moderates and conservatives are less likely than liberals to report that climate change poses a risk to humans. Furthermore, results on moral foundations show that care and fairness increase perceived risk while ingroup and authority decrease perceived risk. Results from Model 4, which includes interaction terms, show similar interaction effects that we find for results on climate change belief. The interaction term for conservatives and the care foundation increases belief in climate risk while the interaction term for conservatives and the ingroup foundation decreases belief in climate risk. These results are depicted in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e. In these analyses, we find strikingly similar results for belief in climate risk as we do with general climate change belief. Relative to liberals and moderates, conservatives have less belief in climate risk as they score higher on the ingroup foundation, and they have more belief in climate risk as they score higher on the care foundation\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults for personal importance of global warming (Model 5 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) indicate that conservatives and moderates report far lower levels of self-reported importance relative to liberals. Results on moral foundations show that care and fairness increase reports of personal importance of global warming while authority decreases personal importance. Interaction effects, displayed in Model 6 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, show a negative effect for the interaction between conservatives and the ingroup foundation. Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e displays the interaction effects for political orientation and the compassion foundation on personal importance of global warming. As the figure shows, conservatives indicate far less personal importance at higher ingroup scores relative to lower scores. The level of ingroup orientation has little impact on personal importance of global warming for liberals and moderates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eResults for how worried respondents are about global warming (Model 7 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) show that moderates, and especially conservatives, are less worried about global warming. When examining results on moral foundations, we find care increases worry about global warming. Results for interaction terms in Model 8 demonstrate a negative impact on global warming worry for the interaction between conservatives and the ingroup foundation. Visual depictions (shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e) illustrate that conservatives are far more worried about global warming at lower levels of ingroup orientation than at high levels of ingroup orientation. Similar to results on personal importance of global warming, global warming worry does not vary across ingroup orientation for either liberals or moderates.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, we report results for levels of belief that global warming poses harm in the future. Much like analyses on the other dependent variables, results shown in Model 9 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e demonstrate that moderates and conservatives report lower levels in belief that global warming poses harm in the future relative to liberals. Additionally, the moral foundations of care and fairness increase belief that global warming poses future harm while authority decreases the same belief. Results including interaction terms (Model 10 of Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e) show a positive effect between conservatives and the care foundation on belief in future harm. A visual depiction (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) shows that while increasing care orientation produces modest increases in belief in future harm for liberals and moderates, conservatives report much more concern about the future impacts of global warming at higher levels of the care scale than at lower levels.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn sum, we find support for Hypothesis 1: conservatives are less likely to express belief in and concern for climate change. This comports with a wealth of research showing climate skepticism amongst more conservative Americans [e.g. 1;6;7]. Additionally, in agreement with research on moral foundations and environmental issues [4; 17; 19; 33], we generally find that higher scores on the care and fairness foundations promote climate belief and concern while higher scores for ingroup and authority foundations reduce belief and concern (which somewhat supports Hypothesis 2). We also find mixed support for our hypothesis that higher scores on care and fairness foundations increase climate belief and concern for conservatives compared to liberals (H3) and that higher scores on ingroup and authority foundations decrease climate belief and concern for conservatives relative to liberals (H4). Results for climate change belief, belief in climate risk, and belief in future harm show that increases in the care foundation only marginally increase belief and care for liberals and moderates. Conservatives, however, demonstrate far higher levels of belief and concern as they score higher on the care foundation \u0026ndash; and are largely indistinguishable from liberals and moderates at the highest levels of care. Results on interaction effects also show that for all dependent variables except belief in future risk, increases in the ingroup foundation modestly reduces climate belief and concern for liberals and moderates while the effect is quite dramatic for conservatives. Taken together, the interaction results demonstrate that conservatives are particularly sensitive to moral foundations rooted in care and ingroup loyalty when considering positions on climate change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e "},{"header":"DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study represents the first U.S. analysis finding ideological asymmetries in how moral foundations predict climate change attitudes. We find evidence that moral foundations interact with political ideology to shape public views on climate change, helping explain partisan polarization. As hypothesized, the individualizing foundation of care predicts greater climate belief and concern regardless of ideology, but this relationship is stronger among conservatives. Meanwhile, the binding foundation of ingroup loyalty drastically decreases climate views for conservatives, while showing little association for moderates and liberals.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results align with moral foundations theory positing innate plural ethics that manifest differently based on cultural learning, ideology, and identity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e]. The care foundation represents a moral common ground that resonates across the political spectrum, but especially fosters climate concern among conservatives who might otherwise be skeptical of climate science [23; 34]. Loyalty shapes views based on group norms, causing dismissiveness about threats like climate change among conservatives when their affiliated groups promote skepticism [8;21].\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings have important implications for climate messaging and policy. First, appealing to compassion and protection of vulnerable groups can engage conservatives in climate solutions [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e22\u003c/span\u003e]. Discussing climate impacts on future generations and the poor rather than just environmental threats can broaden climate concern [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e33\u003c/span\u003e]. However, loyalty remains an obstacle among highly partisan conservatives. Framing climate action in terms of patriotism, defending the homeland, and preserving our way of life can build support [35;36]. Additionally, while connecting climate risks with local impacts is important [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e29\u003c/span\u003e], these results suggest global framing can resonate if linked to shared humanity. Discussing climate change in polarizing environmental terms likely worsens partisan divides given the wealth of research showing that climate change belief is heavily politicized in the United States [e.g. 1;2; 37; 38] Avoiding identity-based loyalty cues while invoking compassion provides a path to overcoming skepticism among conservatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePolicy strategies should also recognize loyalty barriers. Partisan resistance diminishes when adaptation and mitigation integrate with place identity [\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e39\u003c/span\u003e]. To mobilize urgent bipartisan action as climate impacts accelerate, messaging must activate moral intuitions centering on compassion while easing ideological identity threats to conservatives.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs with any study, this study has limitations. The cross-sectional survey data cannot establish causal relationships between moral foundations, ideology and climate views. Additionally, while validity tests were employed to ensure a high standard of quality for the online data, self-reported, opt-in survey data relies on accurate response which is far more difficult to obtain in this format. Additionally, while the sample was large and diverse, complex quotas may overlook some demographic segments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study provides novel evidence that moral values interact with political identity to shape public views on the urgent issue of climate change. The findings uniquely demonstrate that compassion and loyalty motivations manifest divergently across the ideological spectrum to drive engagement with climate concerns in the United States. While prior work has linked moral foundations to climate attitudes, this research offers the first large-scale analysis of how these relationships depend on political orientation. Testing interactions between morality and ideology sheds new light on the complex social and psychological forces polarizing climate concern. These timely insights can inform more effective communication and policy-making tailored to shared moral values as climate risks accelerate. This work moves climate perception research forward by revealing ideological asymmetries around deeply held moral foundations, and thus demonstrates that motivating urgent bipartisan climate action requires recognizing how morality and identity combine to shape public responses across the political divide.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe thank the University of Oklahoma, and its College of Earth and Energy for providing start-up funding to the lead author for survey collection. \u0026nbsp;Additionally, we thank Dr. Ann Beutel with the University of Oklahoma\u0026rsquo;s Department of Sociology for immense help in the survey design and collection.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWriting, project design, editing, and analysis (H.B., C.R.H.G).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs much as is allowed by the IRB and survey collection agreements, data can be made available by contacting the corresponding author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests Statement:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCright, A. M., \u0026amp; Dunlap, R. E. (2011). Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 21(4), 1163\u0026ndash;1172.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDunlap, R. E., McCright, A. M., \u0026amp; Yarosh, J. H. (2016). The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization widens in the US. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(5), 4\u0026ndash;23.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham, J., Haidt, J., \u0026amp; Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029\u0026ndash;1046.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDickinson, J. L., McLeod, P., Bloomfield, R., \u0026amp; Allred, S. (2016). Which moral foundations predict willingness to make lifestyle changes to avert climate change in the USA? PloS One, 11(10), e0163852.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLeiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C. \u0026amp; Smith, N. (2011) Global Warming's Six Americas, May 2011. \u003cem\u003eYale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHamilton, L. C. (2011). Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects. Climatic Change, 104(2), 231\u0026ndash;242.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarquart-Pyatt, S. T., Shwom, R. L., Dietz, T., Dunlap, R. E., Kaplowitz, S. A., McCright, A. M., \u0026amp; Zahran, S. (2011). Understanding public opinion on climate change: a call for research. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 53(4), 38\u0026ndash;42.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcCright, A. M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., \u0026amp; Dietz, T. (2016). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counter-frame. Topics in Cognitive Science, 8(1), 76\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., \u0026amp; Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622\u0026ndash;626.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham, J., Haidt, J., Koleva, S., Motyl, M., Iyer, R., Wojcik, S., \u0026amp; Ditto, P. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55\u0026ndash;130.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGraham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., \u0026amp; Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaidt, J. (2012). \u003cem\u003eThe Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion\u003c/em\u003e. Vintage.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHaidt, J., \u0026amp; Graham, J. (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 98\u0026ndash;116.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVan Leeuwen, F., \u0026amp; Park, J. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 169\u0026ndash;173.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWeber, C., \u0026amp; Federico, C. M. (2013). Moral foundations and heterogeneity in ideological preferences. Political Psychology, 34(1), 107\u0026ndash;126.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeinberg, M., \u0026amp; Willer, R. (2013). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56\u0026ndash;62.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eVainio, A., \u0026amp; M\u0026auml;kiniemi, J. P. (2016). How are moral foundations associated with climate-friendly consumption? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 29(2), 265\u0026ndash;283.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSmith, N., \u0026amp; Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis, 34(5), 937\u0026ndash;948.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolsko, C. (2017). Expanding the range of environmental values: Political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 284\u0026ndash;294.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDay, M. V., Fiske, S. T., Downing, E. L., \u0026amp; Trail, T. E. (2014). Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1559\u0026ndash;1573.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKoleva, S. P., Graham, J., Iyer, R., Ditto, P. H., \u0026amp; Haidt, J. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184\u0026ndash;194.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., \u0026amp; Seiden, J. (2016). Red, white, and blue enough to be green: Effects of moral framing on climate change attitudes and conservation behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 7\u0026ndash;19.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMarkowitz, E. M., \u0026amp; Shariff, A. F. (2012). Climate change and moral judgment. Nature Climate Change, 2(4), 243\u0026ndash;247.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKahan, D. M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L. L., Braman, D., \u0026amp; Mandel, G. (2012). The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, 2(10), 732\u0026ndash;735.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKahan, D. M. (2012). Cultural cognition as a conception of the cultural theory of risk. Handbook of Risk Theory, 725\u0026ndash;759.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShi, J., Visschers, V. H., \u0026amp; Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35(12), 2183\u0026ndash;2201.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHowe, P. D., \u0026amp; Leiserowitz, A. (2013). Who remembers a hot summer or a cold winter? The asymmetric effect of beliefs about global warming on perceptions of local climate conditions in the US. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1488\u0026ndash;1500.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAkerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y., \u0026amp; Neuman, A. (2013). Do people \u0026ldquo;personally experience\u0026rdquo; global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 81\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShao, W. (2016). Are actual weather and perceived weather the same? Understanding perceptions of local weather and their effects on risk perceptions of global warming. Journal of Risk Research, 19(6), 722\u0026ndash;742.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMyers, T. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Akerlof, K., \u0026amp; Leiserowitz, A. A. (2013). The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Climate Change, 3(4), 343\u0026ndash;347.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDemski, C., Capstick, S., Pidgeon, N., Sposato, R. G., \u0026amp; Spence, A. (2017). Experience of extreme weather affects climate change mitigation and adaptation responses. Climatic Change, 140(2), 149\u0026ndash;164.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBr\u0026uuml;gger, A., Dessai, S., Devine-Wright, P., Morton, T. A., \u0026amp; Pidgeon, N. F. (2015). Psychological responses to the proximity of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(12), 1031\u0026ndash;1037.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeinberg, M., \u0026amp; Willer, R. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12501.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFeygina, I., Jost, J. T., \u0026amp; Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). System justification, the denial of global warming, and the possibility of \u0026ldquo;system-sanctioned change\u0026rdquo;. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(3), 326\u0026ndash;338.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMyers, T. A., Nisbet, M. C., Maibach, E. W., \u0026amp; Leiserowitz, A. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: a letter. Climatic Change, 113, 1105\u0026ndash;1112.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDoherty, K. L., \u0026amp; Webler, T. N. (2016). Social norms and efficacy beliefs drive the alarmed segment\u0026rsquo;s public-sphere climate actions. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 879\u0026ndash;884.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHart, P. S., \u0026amp; Nisbet, E. C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701\u0026ndash;723.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBedle, H., Garneau, C. R., \u0026amp; Vera-Arroyo, A. (2023). Clustering energy support beliefs to reveal unique sub-populations using self-organizing maps. Heliyon, 9(7).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eScannell, L., \u0026amp; Gifford, R. (2013). Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior, 45(1), 60\u0026ndash;85.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eClimate change poses one of the most significant threats facing humanity, yet engagement in climate issues among American conservatives remains low. This study demonstrates the critical role moral foundations play in climate attitudes among conservatives. Analyzing survey data (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2188), we find that conservatives who score higher in compassion show greater belief in human-caused climate change, suggesting that appealing to shared humanity can persuade conservatives to accept the scientific consensus. However, ingroup loyalty is more pivotal for driving personal climate concern among conservatives. The more ingroup-focused, the less conservatives believe in climate change risk or worry about its impacts. These results highlight the nuanced interactions between morality and political orientation on climate views. The implications underscore the need to target specific moral foundations in climate messaging and policy to build conservative engagement. Appealing to compassion opens minds to climate concerns, but emphasizing impacts to local community rather than global effects is likely more effective for inspiring conservative action on climate change.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"How Moral Foundations Shape Conservative Climate Concerns and Perceptions","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-02-21 17:45:36","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3931144/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"897091a1-3498-401a-a59b-235f58f95002","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 21st, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":28830633,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":28830634,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Climate change policy"},{"id":28830635,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences/Psychology and behaviour"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-03-24T15:14:40+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-02-21 17:45:36","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3931144","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3931144","identity":"rs-3931144","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"rHA-KDH7Qsr4HCuvH75dn","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}