This study examined the psychological mechanisms underlying the persuasive effects of moral reframing—matching message content to recipients’ core moral foundations—by focusing on processing fluency, message processing depth, and self-affirmation as mediators. An online experiment conducted in South Korea demonstrated that, across two policy issues, moral reframing promoted processing fluency and self-affirmation, thereby enhancing the perceived persuasiveness of policy advocacy messages. Furthermore, self-affirmation increased support for policies advocated by the messages. However, the depth of message processing did not differ between participants who read messages aligned with their moral foundations and those exposed to mismatched messages. In sum, the results suggest that moral reframing enhances persuasion by facilitating reflection on positive self-aspects and intuitive processing, rather than by encouraging deeper processing of the messages.
AlterA. L.OppenheimerD. M. (2009). Uniting the tribes of fluency to form a metacognitive nation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868309341564
3.
AtariM.HaidtJ.GrahamJ.KolevaS.StevensS. T.DehghaniM. (2023). Morality beyond the WEIRD: How the nomological network of morality varies across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(5), 1157–1188. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000470
4.
BrehmS. S.BrehmJ. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.
5.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P. (2021). The failings of conventional mediation analysis and a design-based alternative. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211047227
6.
BullockJ. G.GreenD. P.HaS. E. (2010). Yes, but what’s the mechanism? (Don’t expect an easy answer). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(4), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018933
7.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48(3), 306–307. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
8.
CesarioJ.HigginsE. T.ScholerA. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x
9.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K. (2014). The psychology of change: Self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 333–371. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115137
10.
CohenG. L.ShermanD. K.BastardiA.HsuL.McGoeyM.RossL. (2007). Bridging the partisan divide: Self-affirmation reduces ideological closed-mindedness and inflexibility in negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 415–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.415
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
12.
CurryO. S.Jones ChestersM.Van LissaC. J. (2019). Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory of “morality-as-cooperation” with a new questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 78, 106–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2018.10.008
13.
DayM. V.FiskeS. T.DowningE. L.TrailT. E. (2014). Shifting liberal and conservative attitudes using moral foundations theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(12), 1559–1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214551152
14.
DillardJ. P.ShenL.VailR. G. (2007). Does perceived message effectiveness cause persuasion or vice versa? 17 consistent answers. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00308.x
15.
DittoP. H.LopezD. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568
16.
EptonT.HarrisP. R.KaneR.van KoningsbruggenG. M.SheeranP. (2015). The impact of self-affirmation on health-behavior change: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 34(3), 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000116
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842
19.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2019). Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 13(12), e12501. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12501
20.
GötzF. M.GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J. (2022). Small effects: The indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620984483
21.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. In DevineP.PlantA. (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 47, pp. 55–130). Academic Press.
22.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
23.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366–385. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847
24.
GreenbergJ.PyszczynskiT.SolomonS.RosenblattA.VeederM.KirklandS.LyonD. (1990). Evidence for terror management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.308
25.
HaidtJ. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108(4), 814–834. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.4.814
26.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
27.
HaidtJ.BjorklundF. (2008). Social intuitionists answer six questions about moral psychology. In Sinnott-ArmstrongW. (Ed.), Moral psychology, Vol 2. The cognitive science of morality: Intuition and diversity. (pp. 181–217). MIT Press.
28.
HoekenH.FikkersK.EerlandA.HollemanB.van BerkumJ.Pander MaatH. (2022). The perceived convincingness model: Why and under what conditions processing fluency and emotions are valid indicators of a message’s perceived convincingness. Communication Theory, 32(4), 488–496. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtac019
29.
KidwellB.FarmerA.HardestyD. M. (2013). Getting liberals and conservatives to go green: Political ideology and congruent appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(2), 350–367. https://doi.org/10.1086/670610
30.
KimJ.KangJ.-H.KimS.-H.KimC.ParkW.LeeY.-S.ChoiS.KimS. (2019). Korean General Social Survey 2003–2018 [Data set]. Sungkyunkwan University. https://kgss.skku.edu/kgss/data.do
31.
KimK. R.KangJ.-S.YunS. (2012). Moral intuitions and political orientation: Similarities and differences between South Korea and the United States. Psychological Reports, 111(1), 173–185. https://doi.org/10.2466/17.09.21.PR0.111.4.173-185
32.
KivikangasJ. M.Fernández-CastillaB.JärveläS.RavajaN.LönnqvistJ.-E. (2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(1), 55–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000308
33.
KnowlesE. S.LinnJ. A. (Eds.). (2004). Resistance and persuasion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
KodapanakkalR. I.BrandtM. J.KoglerC.van BeestI. (2022). Moral frames are persuasive and moralize attitudes: Nonmoral frames are persuasive and de-moralize attitudes. Psychological Science, 33(3), 433–449. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211040803
35.
KolevaS. P.GrahamJ.IyerR.DittoP. H.HaidtJ. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.01.006
36.
KrebsP.ProchaskaJ. O.RossiJ. S. (2010). A meta-analysis of computer-tailored interventions for health behavior change. Preventive Medicine, 51(3–4), 214–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2010.06.004
37.
LabrooA. A.LeeA. Y. (2006). Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(3), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.3.374
38.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
39.
LeeJ. H.ChoG. H. (2014). Differences in moral foundation between liberals and conservatives. The Korean Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 28(1). 1–26. https://doi.org/10.21193/kjspp.2014.28.1.001
40.
LohW. W.MoerkerkeB.LoeysT.VansteelandtS. (2022). Disentangling indirect effects through multiple mediators without assuming any causal structure among the mediators. Psychological Methods, 27(6), 982–999. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000314
41.
LustriaM. L. A.CorteseJ.GerendM. A.SchmittK.KungY. M.McLaughlinC. (2016). A model of tailoring effects: A randomized controlled trial examining the mechanisms of tailoring in a web-based STD screening intervention. Health Psychology, 35(11), 1214–1224. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0000399
42.
LustriaM. L. A.NoarS. M.CorteseJ.Van SteeS. K.GlueckaufR. L.LeeJ. (2013). A meta-analysis of web-delivered tailored health behavior change interventions. Journal of Health Communication, 18(9), 1039–1069. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.768727
43.
LuttrellA.PettyR. E.BriñolP.WagnerB. C. (2016). Making it moral: Merely labeling an attitude as moral increases its strength. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 65, 82–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.04.003
44.
LuttrellA.Philipp-MullerA.PettyR. E. (2019). Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychological Science, 30(8), 1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854706
45.
LuttrellA.TogansL. J. (2021). The stability of moralized attitudes over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47(4), 551–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220935737
46.
LuttrellA.TrentadueJ. T. (2024). Advocating for mask-wearing across the aisle: Applying moral reframing in health communication. Health Communication, 39(2), 270–282. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2163535
47.
MatzS. C.KosinskiM.NaveG.StillwellD. J. (2017). Psychological targeting as an effective approach to digital mass persuasion. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(48), 12714–12719. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1710966114
48.
McNeishD. (2017). Multilevel mediation with small samples: A cautionary note on the multilevel structural equation modeling framework. Structural Equation Modeling, 24(4), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1280797
49.
McQueenA.KleinW. M. P. (2006). Experimental manipulations of self-affirmation: A systematic review. Self and Identity, 5(4), 289–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860600805325
50.
MilesM. R. (2016). Presidential appeals to moral foundations: How modern presidents persuade cross-ideologues. Policy Studies Journal, 44(4), 471–490. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12151
51.
MutzD. C. (2021). Improving experimental treatments in political science. In GreenD. P.DruckmanJ. N. (Eds.), Advances in Experimental Political Science (pp. 219–238). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108777919.016
52.
NabiR.Moyer-GuséE.ByrneS. (2007). All joking aside: A serious investigation into the persuasive effect of funny social issue messages. Communication Monographs, 74(1), 29–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750701196896
53.
NapperL.HarrisP. R.EptonT. (2009). Developing and testing a self-affirmation manipulation. Self and Identity, 8(1), 45–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860802079786
54.
NguyenT. Q.SchmidI.StuartE. A. (2021). Clarifying causal mediation analysis for the applied researcher: Defining effects based on what we want to learn. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 255–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000299
55.
NoarS. M.BenacC. N.HarrisM. S. (2007). Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychological Bulletin, 133(4), 673–693. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.133.4.673
56.
NoarS. M.HarringtonN. G. (2016). Tailored communications for health-related decision-making and behavior change. In DiefenbachM. A.Miller-HalegouaS.BowenD. J. (Eds.), Handbook of health decision science (pp. 251–263). Springer.
57.
O’KeefeD. J. (2020). Message pretesting using perceived persuasiveness measures: Reconsidering the correlational evidence. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2019.1620711
58.
PersoskieA.FerrerR. A.TaberJ. M.KleinW. M.ParascandolaM.HarrisP. R. (2015). Smoke-free air laws and quit attempts: Evidence for a moderating role of spontaneous self-affirmation. Social Science & Medicine, 141, 46–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.015
59.
PettyR. E.BardenJ.WheelerS. C. (2009). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion: Developing health promotions for sustained behavioral change. In DiClementeR. J.CrosbyR. A.KeglerM. C. (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (pp. 185–214). Jossey-Bass.
60.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press.
61.
PettyR. E.WegenerD. T. (1998). Matching versus mismatching attitude functions: Implications for scrutiny of persuasive messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(3), 227–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167298243001
62.
PirlottA. G.MacKinnonD. P. (2016). Design approaches to experimental mediation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 66, 29–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.09.012
63.
PreacherK. J.SeligJ. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6(2), 77–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2012.679848
64.
PreacherK. J.ZyphurM. J.ZhangZ. (2010). A general multilevel SEM framework for assessing multilevel mediation. Psychological Methods, 15(3), 209–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020141
65.
RaneyA. A.OliverM. B.BartschA. (2020). Eudaimonia as media effect. In OliverM. B.RaneyA. A.BryantJ. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (4th ed., pp. 258–274). Routledge.
66.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
67.
ReberR.SchwarzN.WinkielmanP. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver’s processing experience?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8(4), 364–382. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0804_3
68.
RyanT. J. (2017). No compromise: Political consequences of moralized attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12248
69.
RyuW.RheeJ. W. (2017). The effects of moral foundations on political ideology, political expressions and tolerance: A South Korean remodeling of Haidt’s Moral Foundation Model. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 61(5), 491–525. https://doi.org/10.20879/kjjcs.2017.61.5.016
70.
SchimelJ.ArndtJ.BankoK. M.CookA. (2004). Not all self-affirmations were created equal: The cognitive and social benefits of affirming the intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) self. Social Cognition, 22(1), 75–99. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.1.75.30984
71.
SchwarzN. (2004). Metacognitive experiences in consumer judgment and decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(4), 332–348. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1404_2
72.
SkitkaL. J. (2010). The psychology of moral conviction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/j.1751-9004.2010.00254.x
SkitkaL. J.BaumanC. W.SargisE. G. (2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895
75.
SkitkaL. J.WashburnA. N.CarselT. S. (2015). The psychological foundations and consequences of moral conviction. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 41–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.025
76.
SmithL. H.VanderWeeleT. J. (2019). Mediational E-values: Approximate sensitivity analysis for unmeasured mediator–outcome confounding. Epidemiology, 30(6), 835–837. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001064
77.
SteeleC. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). Academic Press.
78.
TomaC. L.HancockJ. T. (2013). Self-affirmation underlies Facebook use. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(3), 321–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212474694
79.
VanderWeeleT. J. (2015). Explanation in causal inference: Methods for mediation and interaction. Oxford University Press.
80.
VanderWeeleT. J.DingP. (2017). Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value. Annals of Internal Medicine, 167(4), 268–274. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-2607
81.
van LeeuwenF.ParkJ. H. (2009). Perceptions of social dangers, moral foundations, and political orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 47(3), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.017
82.
VansteelandtS.DanielR. M. (2017). Interventional effects for mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiology, 28(2), 258–265. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000596
83.
WalterN.DemetriadesS. Z.MurphyS. T. (2019). Just a spoonful of sugar helps the messages go down: Using stories and vicarious self-affirmation to reduce e-cigarette use. Health Communication, 34(3), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2017.1407275
84.
WattS. E.MaioG. R.HaddockG.JohnsonB. T. (2008). Attitude functions in persuasion: Matching, involvement, self-affirmation, and hierarchy. In CranoW. D.PrislinR. (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 189–211). Psychology Press.
85.
WolskiS.NabiR. L. (2000, June1–5). Message processing quality: Confirmatory analysis of an elaboration depth measure [Conference paper]. 50th Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
86.
WolskoC. (2017). Expanding the range of environmental values: Political orientation, moral foundations, and the common ingroup. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 284–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.04.005
87.
YangS.MaloneyE. K.TanA. S. L.CappellaJ. N. (2018). When visual cues activate moral foundations: Unintended effects of visual portrayals of vaping within electronic cigarette video advertisements. Human Communication Research, 44(3), 223–246. https://doi.org/10.1093/hcr/hqy004
88.
ZaichkowskyJ. L. (1985). Measuring the involvement construct. Journal of Consumer Research, 12(3), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1086/208520
89.
ZhangZ.ZyphurM. J.PreacherK. J. (2009). Testing multilevel mediation using hierarchical linear models: Problems and solutions. Organizational Research Methods, 12(4), 695–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428108327450
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
