Two experiments (N = 449; 246 men, 198 women) examined how political identity moderates appreciation of disparagement humor that violates different moral foundations described in moral foundations theory. In Experiment 1, liberals evaluated memes violating the individualizing moral foundations as more offensive and less funny than conservatives, whereas conservatives rated memes violating the binding moral foundations as more offensive and less funny than liberals. Moreover, conservatives judged the memes across all experimental conditions more favorably than liberals because they more strongly endorse cavalier humor beliefs. Experiment 2 examined the mediating role of perceived personal moral violations. Specifically, liberals evaluate humor violating the individualizing foundations as more offensive than conservatives because they see it as a greater personal moral violation. Similarly, conservatives judged humor violating the binding foundations as more offensive compared to liberals because they see it as a greater personal moral violation.

两次实验（N= 449; 246名男性，198名女性）研究了政治身份如何适度贬低了幽默品格，从而破坏了道德基础理论中描述的不同道德基础。在实验1中，自由主义者认为违反个性化道德基础的模因比保守主义者更具攻击性和趣味性，而保守派则认为违反约束性道德基础的模因比自由主义者更具攻击性和趣味性。而且，保守派在所有实验条件下对模因的判断都比自由派更有利，因为他们更强烈地支持骑士的幽默信念。实验2考察了个人道德违规行为的中介作用。具体来说，自由主义者认为违反个性化基础的幽默比保守主义者更具攻击性，因为他们认为这是对个人道德的更大侵犯。同样，保守派认为与自由主义者相比，违反约束性基础的幽默更具有攻击性，因为他们认为幽默是对个人道德的更大侵犯。