Moral Reframing and Transgender Athlete Bans: In-groups, Out-groups, and a Future Research Agenda

ABSTRACT Scholars have long touted the power of moral convictions in shaping political attitudes. Moral reframing involves designing messages that align with an opponent’s moral convictions with the goal of increasing their willingness to adopt that position. Using lessons from the literature on political psychology, we examine the rhetoric used by legislators supporting and opposing transgender athlete bans in US states to determine how moral reframing was used. We find that the moral convictions of both sides, coupled with their emphasis on in-groups and out-groups, lead legislators to interpret the fundamental principles of the bills differently. This dynamic renders it challenging to reframe moral arguments in a manner that might sway opponents. Additional research is needed to study the efficacy of moral reframing in legislative debates on transgender-related policies.