Recent polls suggest conservatives are more likely than liberals to support bans on politicized practices, even when both groups view the practice as similarly immoral (e.g., abortion opposition among pro-life conservatives vs. pro-life liberals). We propose a novel theory to explain this phenomenon based on people's moral philosophies. Nine studies found that conservatives tended to endorse moral absolutism, whereas liberals tend to endorse moral relativism, and that moral absolutists were more likely to support banning practices they deem immoral. Conservatives on X (formerly Twitter™) used more absolute language than liberals, particularly in tweets containing morality-related words (Study 1). In a data set spanning 59 countries and 30 years, conservatives more often endorsed moral absolutism over relativism (Study 2). Studies 3-4 identified a need for closure as an underlying mechanism. Studies 5-9 documented a downstream consequence of moral absolutism: support for banning practices one deems immoral. The link between the perceived immorality of a practice and support for banning it was stronger among conservatives, even after controlling for attitude extremity (Study 5). Moral absolutism predicted support for banning practices deemed immoral even after controlling for regulatory focus, deontological thinking, individual and binding foundations, ideological extremity (Study 6), and attitude strength of the politicized practices (Study 7). Liberals and conservatives exposed to moral relativism reduced their support for banning practices that they opposed (Study 8-9). Our theory linking ideology to moral absolutism versus relativism can help explain why the link between perceived immorality and support for bans varies across the ideological spectrum. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
Goyal et al. (Thu,) studied this question.