When you argue across a political or cultural divide, make your honest case in terms of the values the listener actually holds, not your own, because arguments grounded in the other side's moral vocabulary are heard as arguments while those grounded in yours are heard as noise.

How to do it

1. 1Notice your default. People overwhelmingly argue from the values that persuaded themselves; in the original studies most participants did so even when explicitly asked to persuade the other side.
2. 2Find out what the listener cares about by asking, not by assuming from a label. Moral foundations research gives a rough map (care, fairness, loyalty, authority, sanctity, liberty), but individuals vary widely within any camp.
3. 3Look for a true argument for your position that rests on one of those values. If you cannot find one you believe, do not invent one; pick a different point or concede that the disagreement is about values.
4. 4Say it in their terms without caricature, and keep the facts identical to the ones you would give anyone else. Only the emphasis changes.
5. 5Use it in reverse as a listening tool: when an argument from the other side leaves you cold, ask what value it rests on and whether there is a version that would move you.
6. 6Notice when it is used on you. An appeal wrapped in your values deserves the same fact-check as one that is not.

When to use it

• •A conversation with a relative, neighbour, or colleague whose politics differ from yours and whom you want to reach rather than defeat.
• •Writing a public appeal, op-ed, or community proposal that must win support beyond your own side.
• •Coalition-building on local issues where people agree on the outcome for different reasons.
• •Diagnosing why a message that seems obviously compelling to you has persuaded no one new.

Counters

Evidence and how strong it is

Feinberg & Willer (2015) ran six studies in the United States in both directions. Conservatives became more supportive of same-sex marriage and universal health care when the case was made in terms of loyalty and purity, and liberals became more supportive of military spending and of making English the official language when the case was made in terms of fairness. They also found that most people of either persuasion, when asked to write an argument to convince the other side, wrote one grounded in their own values. Feinberg & Willer (2019) review later replications and extensions by several labs. The approach builds on moral foundations theory (Graham, Haidt & Nosek 2009). Evidence strength: moderate. The effect is replicated in survey experiments, but effect sizes are small, outcomes are mostly stated attitudes measured immediately, durability is largely untested, and moral foundations theory is itself debated as a description of moral psychology.

1. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From Gulf to Bridge: When Do Moral Arguments Facilitate Political Influence?. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665-1681
   Six studies showing that arguments reframed in the audience's moral values persuade in both political directions, and that people rarely produce such arguments spontaneously.
2. Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019). Moral Reframing: A Technique for Effective and Persuasive Communication Across Political Divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12501
   Review of replications, mechanisms, and boundary conditions of moral reframing.
3. Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and Conservatives Rely on Different Sets of Moral Foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029-1046
   The evidence for differing moral emphases across the political spectrum on which reframing draws.
4. Haidt, J. (2012). The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion. Pantheon
   Accessible account of moral foundations theory and of why moral arguments fail across groups.