Morality on the ballot: strategic issue salience and affective moral intuitions in the 2020 US presidential election

IF 3.1 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Brittany Shaughnessy, Osama Albishri, Phillip Arceneaux, Nader Dagher, Spiro Kiousis
{"title":"Morality on the ballot: strategic issue salience and affective moral intuitions in the 2020 US presidential election","authors":"Brittany Shaughnessy, Osama Albishri, Phillip Arceneaux, Nader Dagher, Spiro Kiousis","doi":"10.1108/jcom-01-2023-0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose While morality is ever-present in elections, scholars have yet to merge political public relations and Moral Foundations Theory. It is crucial to assess the complex morality present not only in social deduction, but also in political strategic communication. The current work aims to analyze the issue agendas and their relationships in the 2020 presidential campaign and assesses their moral strategy. Design/methodology/approach This study used a computer-assisted content analysis (N = 7,888) with each moral intuition coded from the Moral Foundations Dictionary. Datapoints included campaign tweets, Facebook posts, debate performances, remarks, news releases and nomination acceptance speeches. Coverage included articles from including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Fox News to assess both liberal and conservative media. Findings Candidates' issue and moral agendas were correlated with each other and with the media's agenda. Comparatively, the Biden campaign has stronger correlations when it came to connecting with issues, stakeholders and moral intuitions in the media agenda than the Trump campaign. For issues, the Biden campaign prioritized COVID-19 and the economy, while the Trump campaign prioritized the economy and crime. The candidates also had similar moral strategies. Practical implications This study suggests effectively leveraging organizational communications in democracies can support the transfer of object salience, moral attributes and networks to media coverage, public discourse and opponent messaging. It can also help achieve organizational goals by managing public image, reputation and expectations. Originality/value This work expands the literature by taking a pluralist moral psychology approach in assessing the salience and correlation of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. This study serves as a springboard for examining morality's impact on political public relations.","PeriodicalId":51660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Communication Management","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Communication Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/jcom-01-2023-0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose While morality is ever-present in elections, scholars have yet to merge political public relations and Moral Foundations Theory. It is crucial to assess the complex morality present not only in social deduction, but also in political strategic communication. The current work aims to analyze the issue agendas and their relationships in the 2020 presidential campaign and assesses their moral strategy. Design/methodology/approach This study used a computer-assisted content analysis (N = 7,888) with each moral intuition coded from the Moral Foundations Dictionary. Datapoints included campaign tweets, Facebook posts, debate performances, remarks, news releases and nomination acceptance speeches. Coverage included articles from including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN and Fox News to assess both liberal and conservative media. Findings Candidates' issue and moral agendas were correlated with each other and with the media's agenda. Comparatively, the Biden campaign has stronger correlations when it came to connecting with issues, stakeholders and moral intuitions in the media agenda than the Trump campaign. For issues, the Biden campaign prioritized COVID-19 and the economy, while the Trump campaign prioritized the economy and crime. The candidates also had similar moral strategies. Practical implications This study suggests effectively leveraging organizational communications in democracies can support the transfer of object salience, moral attributes and networks to media coverage, public discourse and opponent messaging. It can also help achieve organizational goals by managing public image, reputation and expectations. Originality/value This work expands the literature by taking a pluralist moral psychology approach in assessing the salience and correlation of five moral intuitions: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity. This study serves as a springboard for examining morality's impact on political public relations.
选票上的道德:2020年美国总统大选中的战略问题突出性和情感道德直觉
虽然道德在选举中无处不在,但学者们还没有将政治公共关系和道德基础理论结合起来。复杂道德不仅存在于社会演绎法中,也存在于政治战略传播中。目前的工作旨在分析2020年总统竞选中的议题议程及其关系,并评估其道德战略。本研究采用计算机辅助内容分析(N = 7,888),每个道德直觉编码自《道德基础词典》。数据点包括竞选推文、Facebook帖子、辩论表演、言论、新闻发布和提名接受演讲。报道包括《纽约时报》、《华盛顿邮报》、《华尔街日报》、CNN和福克斯新闻的文章,以评估自由派和保守派媒体。候选人的议题和道德议程彼此相关,并与媒体的议程相关。相比之下,在与媒体议程中的问题、利益相关者和道德直觉相联系方面,拜登的竞选活动比特朗普的竞选活动具有更强的相关性。在议题上,拜登阵营优先考虑的是新冠肺炎和经济问题,而特朗普阵营则优先考虑经济和犯罪问题。两位候选人也有相似的道德策略。本研究表明,有效利用民主国家的组织沟通可以支持客体显著性、道德属性和网络向媒体报道、公共话语和对手信息传递的转移。它还可以通过管理公众形象、声誉和期望来帮助实现组织目标。本研究采用多元道德心理学的方法来评估五种道德直觉的显著性和相关性,这五种道德直觉是:伤害/关爱、公平/互惠、群体内/忠诚、权威/尊重和纯洁/神圣。这项研究为研究道德对政治公共关系的影响提供了一个跳板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
6.50%
发文量
29
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信