  There has been a growing body of study on the relationship between
public/political discourse and its moral-emotional foundations. Most of the
studies, however, have been confined to a single country's context, lacking
cross-cultural perspectives. Taking a comparative perspective, we examined the
emotional and moral structures of political and public discussion observed in
the U.S. and Japan by employing extensive text data that cover these two
countries. Specifically, we conducted dictionary-based sentiment and moral
analyses of floor debate in the U.S. Congress and the Japanese Diet over a long
period of time. The analyses revealed intriguing cross-national patterns in the
moral-emotional framework employed in parliamentary deliberations, which cast
doubt on some of the dominant arguments in the field, including, among others,
J. Haidt's moral foundation hypothesis.
