Ideological differences in moral judgments: The case of acceptance of collateral civilian killings in war

Public sentiment on collateral civilian killings during wartime may crucially impact critical governmental decisions and the trajectory of the conflict itself. Our research is the first to systematically explore the role of political orientation in shaping citizens' acceptance of collateral civilian killings across diverse war scenarios, and the potential mechanisms underlying these ideological differences. Across six studies in Israel and the US, findings indicate that conservatives/rightists consistently show higher acceptance of collateral civilian killings, regardless of whether the civilians killed are members of a current rival group or a strategic partner, whether the war involves real-life or fictitious groups, and whether participants are members of the group conducting collateral killings or mere observers. These ideological differences were explained by conservatives'/rightists' lower endorsement of individualizing moral foundations, but not by their higher endorsement of binding moral foundations. Finally, perceived ideological ingroup norms played an indirect role in shaping these ideological differences.