Moral Foundations Theory and trigger word combinations Moral foundations theory splits morality into six categories. In his book, The Righteous Mind, Haidt mentioned that looking at church sermons of southern baptist vs less conservative christian Church sermons showed strong moral splits into "Conservative" and "Liberal" mindsets, defined by subsets of the six foundations, in particular those that triggered more often in the texts. Specifically, this was done using a predefined list such as this one and then doing a word count for each category, thereby binning the sermon into one of the two mindsets. Lets call such words "trigger words." 

My question is the following: has there been any work done on looking at combinations of these trigger words from different categories? Let me be more specific. Lets take the sentence:

"Hurting a dog is one of the worst things a person can do." 

One such trigger word here is "hurting" which is a vice of the Care foundation. This is something that appeals to the Care foundation and will, statistically speaking, be highly agreed with by the Liberal mindset. Also there will generally be less agreement with this from the Conservative mindset. Now, what if we write the sentence as:

"We must respect dogs."

Here, "respect" is a trigger word for the Conservative mindset. Moreover, consider the sentence:

"Hurting dogs is one of the worst things a person can do. We must respect all animals and those who harm them are evil, wicked and sick." 

I've purposely overloaded the last sentence with Sanctity and Respect trigger words.

Question 1: If one overloads sentences as done above, will it trigger more positive reactions from the Conservative mindset?

Question 2: When asked to explain the above overloaded sentences, will both Liberal and Conservative mindsets agree on a similar meaning ("don't hurt dogs")?

Question 3: In other words, is there evidence for the ability to trigger low-priority foundations by invoking high-priority ones for a given mindset? I'm am relying here on the notion that words are generally ambiguous and context-dependent. As well, I am assuming reactions and parsing of meaning is instantaneous and the subject is not given time to reflect and analyze, i.e. intuition.

I'm grossly oversimplifying things here but I hope the general theme of these questions will lead to a nice discussion.
I am a research psychologist working with moral foundations theory and messaging and I haven't seen these particular questions addressed. But you maybe interested to see work that uses different framed messages with these 'trigger words' in different populations (e.g., by political orientation) and measures outcomes, e.g.,


  The Moral Roots of Environmental Attitudes - Feinberg &amp; Willer
  journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612449177