Water policy is competitive with multiple parties attempting to sway the public to support or oppose a proposed course of action. In this complex communication environment with rival moral frames and communicators, it can be difficult to discern what variables affect public support. In a sample ballot experiment simulating competitive pro-environmental water policy messaging (n = 3,695), moral frames (based on the moral foundations of fairness and loyalty) and politically identified communicators were found to affect support in fundamentally different ways: moral frames yielded changes in net policy support levels, while politically-identified communicators made support for the policy more or less partisan. Because policy acceptance often depends on both support from the electorate and the minimization of policy-derailing partisan division, these findings demonstrate the criticality of both moral frames and communicators. When competition was experimentally introduced with opposing moral frames (using the same moral foundations) attributed to the opposing political party, moral framing effects were undone, negating any policy support gains. Moreover, when a policy became politically divisive due to the identity of the communicator, a competing communicator was inadequate to undo the effect. Thus, in a competitive policy environment, net policy support gains were easily lost, and political divisiveness was easily fostered. This outcome suggests the importance of proactive steps to minimize competition and thereby retain desired policy support outcomes.
