Moral reframing in contemporary U.S. presidential debates

Abstract

Moral reframing is an effective technique at altering the political views of conservatives and liberals. Moral reframing happens when a political position that a voter is opposed to is framed to match that voter’s moral values. The present study, which is based on Moral Foundations Theory, investigates the moral reframing efforts of candidates during U.S. presidential debates to understand how candidates can reach out to those who are not their core supporters. A computational content analysis using the extended Moral Foundations Dictionary examined the debate transcripts and found that Republicans were five times more likely than Democrats to reframe, though both parties were equally negative in sentiment. Also discussed is how reframing varies by candidate, issue, and incumbent vs. challenger status.