IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v560y1998i1p129-142.html

Manipulating Public Opinion with Moral Justification

Author

Listed:
  • KATHLEEN M. McGRAW

Abstract

Justifications that invoke moral claims are highly effective in shaping public opinion. But moral justifications (“I am obeying the dictates of my conscience†; “This policy is in the community's best interests†) are difficult to verify as to their truthfulness, raising the possibility that they can be used deceptively. In this article, the psychological and political literatures are reviewed to illustrate why it is so difficult to detect deceptive moral justifications. The difficulty arises because (1) people are not very good at detecting deception in general; (2) the mediated nature of political communication eliminates the nonverbal cues that are most predictive of deception; (3) social judgment biases lead people to focus on the individual and inhibit suspicion; (4) the norms of political culture constrain politicians from accusing each other of lying, so that the public is not prompted by other sources to regard moral claims with suspicion.

Suggested Citation

  • KATHLEEN M. McGRAW, 1998. "Manipulating Public Opinion with Moral Justification," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 560(1), pages 129-142, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:560:y:1998:i:1:p:129-142
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716298560001010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716298560001010
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716298560001010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fenno, Richard F., 1962. "The House Appropriations Committee as a Political System: The Problem of Integration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 310-324, June.
    2. Nelson, Thomas E. & Clawson, Rosalee A. & Oxley, Zoe M., 1997. "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 91(3), pages 567-583, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mubashar Hasan & Mushfique Wadud, 2020. "Re-Conceptualizing Safety of Journalists in Bangladesh," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(1), pages 27-36.
    2. Johanna Dunaway & Regina P. Branton & Marisa A. Abrajano, 2010. "Agenda Setting, Public Opinion, and the Issue of Immigration Reform," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 91(2), pages 359-378, June.
    3. Kehrberg Jason, 2020. "Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Support for Welfare Chauvinism in the United States," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 195-212, December.
    4. Bosman, Ronald & Kräussl, Roman & Mirgorodskaya, Elizaveta, 2015. "The "tone effect" of news on investor beliefs: An experimental approach," CFS Working Paper Series 522, Center for Financial Studies (CFS).
    5. Naomi Kamoen & Jasper van de Pol & André Krouwel & Claes de Vreese & Bregje Holleman, 2019. "Issue framing in online voting advice applications: The effect of left-wing and right-wing headers on reported attitudes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    6. Valerie Wright & Isaac Unah, 2017. "Media Exposure and Racialized Perceptions of Inequities in Criminal Justice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-22, June.
    7. Robert Neumann, 2019. "The framing of charitable giving: A field experiment at bottle refund machines in Germany," Rationality and Society, , vol. 31(1), pages 98-126, February.
    8. Campante, Filipe R. & Hojman, Daniel A., 2013. "Media and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 79-92.
    9. Paul A. Djupe & Andrew R. Lewis & Ted G. Jelen & Charles D. Dahan, 2014. "Rights Talk: The Opinion Dynamics of Rights Framing," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(3), pages 652-668, September.
    10. James Gerard Caillier, 2020. "Bureaucratic Bashing and Praising: What Effect Does it Have on the Performance Citizens Assign Agencies?," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 685-701, December.
    11. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    12. Douglas Auld & Michael Hoy, 2014. "An economic model of Adopt-a-Highway programmes," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(3), pages 268-277, November.
    13. Martin Baekgaard & Søren Serritzlew & Jens Blom-Hansen, 2016. "Causes of Fiscal Illusion: Lack of Information or Lack of Attention?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(2), pages 26-44, June.
    14. Katerina Linos & Kimberly Twist, 2016. "The Supreme Court, the Media, and Public Opinion: Comparing Experimental and Observational Methods," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(2), pages 223-254.
    15. Buckler, Kevin G. & Travis, Lawrence F., 2003. "Reanalyzing the prevalence and social context of collateral consequence statutes," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 435-453.
    16. Phuong Nguyen-Hoang & Ryan Yeung & Alexander Bogin, 2014. "No Base Left Behind," Public Finance Review, , vol. 42(4), pages 439-465, July.
    17. Fisher, Greg & Kuratko, Donald F. & Bloodgood, James M. & Hornsby, Jeffrey S., 2017. "Legitimate to whom? The challenge of audience diversity and new venture legitimacy," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 52-71.
    18. Corey Lang & Shanna Pearson‐Merkowitz & Zachary Scott, 2024. "Voter support for bond referenda: Does it matter if costs are presented as aggregate vs. personal costs?," Public Budgeting & Finance, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(1), pages 14-37, March.
    19. Jürgen Maier & Berthold Rittberger & Thorsten Faas, 2016. "Debating Europe: Effects of the “Eurovision Debate” on EU Attitudes of Young German Voters and the Moderating Role Played by Political Involvement," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 55-68.
    20. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:560:y:1998:i:1:p:129-142. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.