Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Moral appeals—persuasive messages aimed at invoking moral obligations—are widely used across various contexts. However, evidence about their effectiveness in changing behaviors remains mixed, and little is known about the conditions that influence it. To address this, we conducted a meta-analysis with 67 papers (k = 399) to assess the overall impact of moral appeals on behavioral intentions and behaviors, and to test various moderators of this effect. Drawing on various theories, we proposed that both morality enhancers and hindrances can influence their effectiveness and investigated three groups of moderators (Moral Content, Social Aspects, Autonomy Restraints). Results showed that, overall, moral appeals had a small, positive effect (d = 0.22). Furthermore, Moral Content (negative framing) and Social Aspects (the presence of social norms) enhanced appeal effectiveness, while Autonomy Restraints (the use of assertive language) undermined it. Our findings provide important theoretical and practical insights into moral appeals.

Keywords

moral appeals meta-analysis persuasive communication moral decision-making

Introduction

To encourage people to behave in ways that are good for society, authorities often use appeals that highlight the moral aspects of an issue, thereby persuading their audiences to behave desirably out of moral obligations (Schmitt, 1964). For example, health officials encourage vaccinations among employees “to protect vulnerable patients” (Mulder & Lokate, 2022), and governments frame tax compliance as “essential for the public good” (Blumenthal et al., 2001) or as “an act of social responsibility and patriotism” (McGraw & Scholtz, 1991). Compared to legal enforcement, moral appeals are cost-effective (Schmitt, 1964) and quick to implement, proving useful in crises like COVID-19. Unlike coercive mandates, they can also preserve autonomy and foster intrinsic motivation for lasting behavioral change (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Martela et al., 2021).

Nonetheless, it is not entirely clear how effective moral appeals are in changing behavior. While there are studies showing moral appeals promote prosocial behavior in economic games (Brañas-Garza, 2007; Tsikas, 2023) and work effectively in real-world contexts focused on increasing vaccination (Mulder & Lokate, 2022) and environmental responsibility (Hockett & Hall, 2007), other studies report null or negative effects. For instance, moral appeals seem to fail in improving people’s compliance with public rules (Apesteguia et al., 2013) and can even trigger reactance in affirmative consent policies (Tinkler et al., 2018). Results also vary across studies that target the same behavioral change domain. For example, findings for the use of moral appeals to increase tax compliance are mixed (Castro & Scartascini, 2015; Koumpias & Martínez-Vázquez, 2019; Torgler, 2013). To resolve these inconsistencies, we conducted a meta-analysis to assess their overall effect on people’s decisions to change their behavior and test when moral appeals are most persuasive.

Our meta-analysis focuses explicitly on the impact of moral appeals on behaviors while also considering behavioral intentions, as they are recognized as strong predictors of behaviors (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015; Webb & Sheeran, 2006). Our first goal is to test whether moral appeals influence people’s behavior and what the overall effect size is, emphasizing general patterns rather than domain-specific outcomes. To reach this goal and gain a better understanding of potential mechanisms underlying their impact, we developed an integrative framework (see Figure 1), proposing that two opposing dynamics have a role in determining whether moral appeals affect people’s behavior. Based on (models derived from) the four-step moral decision-making model (Butterfield et al., 2000; Moore & Gino, 2015; Rest, 1986), the concepts of bounded ethicality (Bazerman & Sezer, 2016; Chugh & Kern, 2016), and moral identity theory (Aquino & Reed, 2002), this framework presents morality enhancers—such as appeals to moral self-image or moral reputation—that likely increase the effectiveness of moral appeals. Conversely, informed by moral disengagement theory (Bandura, 2011) and psychological reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 2013), the framework also presents morality hindrances, involving moral and autonomy threats, that should hinder the impact of moral appeals.

Figure 1.

Theoretical model with the enhancers and morality hindrances of moral appeals and three groups of moderators.

Our second goal is to identify when moral appeals are most effective. As part of our integrative framework, we categorize moderators into three groups based on one of the two above dynamic(s) they are most likely to influence: (a) the Moral Content of an appeal (moral salience, negative framing, moral arguments), which can affect both enhancers and hindrances, (b) Social Aspects informing an appeal (norm information, public delivery, and conduct), which should mainly influence moral enhancers (i.e., by eliciting moral reputational concerns), and (c) the Autonomy Restraints signaled by an appeal (assertiveness, specificity), which we propose to mainly shape moral hindrances (i.e., through eliciting autonomy threats).

With this meta-analysis, we offer three significant contributions to the field. First, we clarify inconsistencies in the existing literature on moral appeals by systematically reviewing the research through our theoretical framework. This provides a comprehensive understanding of their effectiveness in influencing people’s behavior and offers practical guidance on their use. Our framework highlights that opposing psychological dynamics can underlie the effects of moral appeals, potentially offsetting or canceling out each other’s influence.

Second, much prior research on moral appeals primarily focused on their main effects, with limited systematic exploration of possible moderators (but see Dal Bó & Dal Bó, 2014; White, MacDonnell & Dahl, et al., 2011). Our framework explores moderators that relate both to an appeal’s moral content and the context in which it is used. By moving beyond simple main effects, our framework provides a nuanced understanding of how different factors impact the effectiveness of moral appeals, paving the way for applying them in more targeted ways.

Finally, by integrating insights from different theories, this meta-analysis advances our understanding of the processes through which moral appeals exert behavioral effects. For example, we show how key constructs such as moral awareness, moral identity, moral disengagement, and psychological reactance can be conceptually organized as operating through one of the two underlying dynamics we propose determine appeal effectiveness. Although a direct empirical comparison of the dynamics of these underlying processes is not possible in a meta-analysis, and thus only provides suggestive evidence of these underlying processes, articulating them systematically can clarify how seemingly disparate constructs can reflect a common underlying process. As such, our study represents an important step toward a more generative theory of how moral appeals work.

In the following sections, we first briefly introduce the concept of moral appeals before presenting our integrated theoretical framework. Then, based on this framework, we predict how our moderators shape the effects of moral appeals.

Moral Appeals as Persuasive Tools

What Are Moral Appeals?

Moral appeals combine two key aspects: the moral content of the message that aims to invoke moral norms or values (Luttrell et al., 2019; Schmitt, 1964), and the intent to influence behavior. The study of Dal Bó and Dal Bó (2014), gives a nice example of a moral appeal used in a decision-making game where participants have to allocate resources amongst themselves and others. The appeal to participants stated: “An action of yours is moral if it treats others the way you would like others to treat you. If you were to act accordingly, you would allocate 10 [resources] to the joint account.” The “moral content” here invokes a moral norm (i.e., treating others as you would like to be treated). At the same time, the “appeal” aspect attempts to influence the participant’s behavior, encouraging them to allocate resources in a specific way. To capture both aspects, we define moral appeals as “persuasive messages aimed at invoking a moral obligation among the audience for them to behave desirably.”

Our definition distinguishes moral appeals from social norm appeals, which rely on conformity (e.g., Blumenthal et al., 2001), and from moral labeling, which classifies situations as moral without intending to persuade behavior change (Capraro & Rand, 2018; Mieth et al., 2021). Additionally, moral appeals are unidirectional, with the audience playing a passive role. Therefore, activities that involve active cognitive engagement (e.g., moral priming, Aquino et al., 2009) or participatory interaction (e.g., ethical courses, Schwitzgebel et al., 2020) are not considered moral appeals.

An Integrated Framework of Moral Appeals

We propose that the impact of moral appeals is shaped by two opposing dynamics: the morality enhancers and hindrances. Below, we theorize how these two dynamics, when combined, influence the effectiveness of moral appeals and how their interplay shapes this impact.

The Morality Enhancers

According to Rest’s classical four-step model of moral decision-making and subsequent work (Butterfield et al., 2000; Chugh & Kern, 2016; Jones, 1991; Moore & Gino, 2015; Rest, 1986; Schwartz, 2016), moral awareness is the first step toward ethical behavior, as recognizing the moral relevance of an action likely initiates the moral decision-making process. Research on bounded ethicality shows that people often act unethically without realizing it (Bazerman & Sezer, 2016). Moral appeals are therefore expected to be effective because they make people aware of the moral relevance of their behavior, either by describing behaviors in moral terms (Dal Bó & Dal Bó, 2014) or providing moral arguments (Hockett & Hall, 2007).

However, awareness alone does not guarantee moral action; motivation is also required, particularly for sustained behavior change (Rest, 1986). Building on moral identity theory (Aquino & Reed, 2002), the efficacy of moral appeals should also be driven by individuals’ desire to be moral, both in their own eyes (moral self-image) and in the eyes of others (moral reputation). First, being morally good is integral to one’s identity (Hardy & Carlo, 2011), and people strive for consistency with their ethical selves (Blasi, 1980; Brown, 2000). Ethical dissonance occurs when the desire to maintain a moral self-image conflicts with the temptation to act unethically (Barkan et al., 2015; Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). By highlighting the moral implications of actions, moral appeals make individuals aware that certain behaviors could threaten their self-image, thereby motivating alignment with ethical standards (Barkan et al., 2015).

In addition to self-image, most people care about their moral image in others’ eyes (though see Blair, 2007; Carlson, 2013, for exceptions such as psychopathy and narcissism) and are strongly motivated by such social motives to uphold their moral reputation (Aquino & Reed, 2002; Gneezy et al., 2018; Kajackaite & Gneezy, 2017). Concern for one’s social image drives moral behavior (Vonasch et al., 2018) because moral deviance can lead to harmful social consequences such as ostracism, social rejection (Kurzban & Leary, 2001), sanctions (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2015), and diminished self-esteem (Leary, 1999), while signaling morality can confer social benefits such as signaling trustworthiness (Grant & Mayer, 2009), gaining respect from others (Aquino & Reed, 2002), and being perceived as a principled or legitimate actor (Tyler & Blader, 2003). Moral appeals, although not communicating a social norm directly, can implicitly communicate what is considered moral by others. This can imply a social consensus, thereby shaping expectations and influencing moral decision-making (Cialdini et al., 1991; Dal Bó & Dal Bó, 2014; Jones, 1991). Together, appeals can work effectively because people want to maintain a positive moral self-image and moral reputation. For this, they need to align their actions with ethical standards.

The Morality Hindrances

Besides morality enhancers, moral appeals may also have undesired effects due to two perceived threats tied to their core elements (i.e., their moral content and persuasive intent). These elements can trigger moral and autonomy threats, undermining an appeal’s effectiveness.

The moral awareness induced by moral appeals may inadvertently be accompanied by moral threats. By highlighting the moral implications of behavior, individuals become aware of their own potential moral shortcomings that may threaten their self-image. While the drive for a moral self-image can enhance moral behavior, people can also be sensitive to criticism of their moral standing (Minson & Monin, 2012), leading them to disengage from the requested moral behavior. For example, vegans’ morally driven commitments can provoke derogation from meat-eaters (“do-gooder derogation”; Minson & Monin, 2012; Monin & Norton, 2003). Similarly, moralizing messages can be perceived as accusations of moral failure, eliciting defensive reactions such as source derogation or message rejection (Leach & Dhont, 2003). Individuals may also employ moral disengagement strategies—shifting responsibility, using euphemisms, or minimizing consequences—to protect their moral image (Bandura, 2011; Moore, 2015; Newman et al., 2020).

Closely related, autonomy threats can emerge when moral appeals are perceived as constraining one’s freedom to choose how to behave. Psychological reactance theory suggests that perceived threats to autonomy elicit resistance through counterarguing, anger, or boomerang effects, in which individuals deliberately act contrary to persuasive attempts (Brehm & Brehm, 2013; Quick & Stephenson, 2007; Dillard & Shen, 2005; Burgoon et al., 2002). In line with this, research shows that normative appeals such as “a large majority of people recycle/think that everyone should recycle” can evoke reactance in terms of experienced freedom threat and counterarguing the appropriateness of this norm (Kavvouris et al., 2020). Together, moral and autonomy threats can lead individuals to reject, ignore, or oppose moral appeals as a way of defending both their moral self-perception and autonomy.

The Effectiveness of Moral Appeals

The first goal of this meta-analysis is to reveal the overall effect of moral appeals. Given the competing dynamics and the empirical mixed findings in previous literature, however, we make no directional prediction regarding their direct impact on people’s behavior (or behavioral intentions). In the next section, we argue for boundary conditions that will strengthen or weaken this direct effect, depending on whether an appeal likely activates morality-enhancers or -hindrances, or both simultaneously.

Boundary Conditions for Effective Moral Appeals

The impact of moral appeals can be shaped by various contextual factors or appeal forms, as suggested by mixed empirical results about their effects. To better understand when moral appeals are most effective, the second goal of this research is to identify key moderators that influence their effectiveness.

Three Groups of Moderators

We categorized our moderators based on the two opposing dynamics in our framework and their theoretical underpinnings. The first set of moderators (Moral Content) likely moderate both morality enhancers and morality hindrances due to their effect on moral awareness. The moderators of the second category (Social Aspects) are likely to primarily influence moral reputation and can therefore be regarded as moderators of morality enhancers. The moderators of the third category (Autonomy Restraints) are likely moderating morality hindrances as they function as autonomy threats. By examining these moderators, we aim to construct a comprehensive model and offer insights into the complex dynamics of moral appeals’ impact on behavior (see Figure 1).

Moral Content: Moderators Affecting Both Morality Enhancers and Hindrances

Since moral appeals are reasoned to influence behavior by increasing moral awareness, any factor that enhances the recognition of an issue’s moral implications should impact their effectiveness. As recognition is primarily a cognitive process, we draw upon literature from moral cognition and persuasive communication (e.g., Jones, 1991; Janoff-Bulman et al., 2009; Wheeler & Laham, 2016) to identify content moderators, which enabled us to identify three-key content-related factors tied to moral awareness: (a) moral salience, (b) framing (negative vs. positive), and (c) the type(s) of arguments (deontological and/or consequentialist).

Moral Salience

The extent to which a moral appeal increases moral awareness varies depending on how clearly the message highlights the moral aspects of the behavior. That is, the extent to which a situation presents itself as a moral issue (moral salience; Jones, 1991). Moral salience is stronger when messages use explicit moral language (e.g., “An action of yours is moral if it maximizes the sum of everyone’s payoffs”; Dal Bó & Dal Bó, 2014) or provide multiple compelling arguments that assert the moral nature of behaviors (e.g., Balafoutas & Rezaei, 2022; Bos et al., 2020). Conversely, moral salience is weaker when references to moral values are vague or limited, with few arguments connecting morality to the behavior (e.g., “. . .substantial energy conservation will be required for the society in ‘critical peak-demand hours,’ in which electricity supply will be very limited relative to demand,” Ito et al., 2018). When moral salience is high (low), individuals are more (less) likely to recognize moral dimensions, resulting in corresponding changes in moral awareness.

Negative Framing

Whether the behavioral outcomes are expressed in terms of gains (i.e., positive framing; e.g., “Think about what will be gained in our community if we keep recycling,” White, MacDonnell & Dahl, et al., 2011; See also Chen et al., 2019), or losses (i.e., negative framing; e.g., “Think about what will be lost in our community if we don’t keep recycling,” White, MacDonnell & Dahl, et al., 2011) also influences how likely the message can elicit moral awareness. Notably, we argue that negative framings are likely to trigger moral awareness. Negative (vs. positive) framing likely evokes the “do not harm” moral principle (Leliveld et al., 2008, 2009), due to its focus on negativity and occasional direct references to harm. This linkage to harm boosts moral awareness as harm is one of the core moral concerns (Graham et al., 2013; Schein & Gray, 2018). Additionally, negativity bias makes negative information more impactful than positive, as losses are prioritized over gains (Baumeister et al., 2001; Cacioppo & Berntson, 1994; Kahneman et al., 1991). Thus, negative framings should more likely trigger moral awareness than neutral or positive framings.

Types of Moral Arguments

Based on ethics literature (Alexander & Moore, 2007; Bartels & Medin, 2007; Sinnott-Armstrong, 2015; Uhlmann et al., 2009), two types of reasons for moral behaviors can be distinguished: deontological appeals emphasizing rules, values, and obligations (Alexander & Moore, 2007; “Please get vaccinated to fulfill your duty as a nurse.”), and consequential appeals emphasizing action outcomes (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2015; “Please get vaccinated to reduce the infection risks of vulnerable patients”). We argue that moral awareness can be influenced by framing messages in these two terms. Deontological appeals resonate with innate values of right and wrong (i.e., moral conviction, Skitka et al., 2005), which likely promote strong intentions for people to act in line with this moral standard and be resistant to external influence (Skitka et al., 2009). Conversely, consequentialist appeals frame issues around weighing losses and gains. Unlike absolute moral convictions, consequentialist arguments allow for compromise and avoid judging one’s intrinsic moral character, reducing pressure to choose between right and wrong. While both types can elicit moral awareness, this flexibility means consequentialist appeals tend to activate it less strongly than deontological ones.

In conclusion, the three factors related to the moral content of an appeal—moral salience, negative framing, and the type of moral arguments—likely influence how strongly moral awareness is activated. However, given that moral awareness can simultaneously activate enhancers (i.e., moral self-image) and hindrances (i.e., moral threats) dynamics, it is hard to predict when and how moral content factors will moderate moral appeals’ effect. We therefore test the moderating effects of these factors in a more exploratory way rather than proposing directional hypotheses.

Social Aspects: Moderators Affecting Morality Enhancers

Social motives, such as adhering to social norms and maintaining a good reputation, strongly influence behavior (Cialdini et al., 1991). Specifically, past research shows that contexts that directly enhance perceived social norms and reputational salience make people comply more often with the request. Moral appeals on their own can also induce desired behaviors by implicitly conveying social consensus, but may be more successful in contexts with more salient social norms. This would activate the enhancer mechanism of moral reputation in our framework. Building upon literature about social context effects (Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009; Cialdini et al., 1991; Lapinski & Rimal, 2005), we identified two such contexts: the presence of social norm-related information in moral appeals themselves (i.e., norm information), and external factors beyond the content of messages that exert social pressure for compliance, namely whether the moral appeal is delivered publicly or not (i.e., public delivery) and whether the targeted behavior is publicly observable or not (i.e., public conduct). Specifically, norm information signals shared expectations (Cialdini et al., 1991), while public delivery and conduct increase reputational visibility (Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009) and social accountability (Lapinski & Rimal, 2005).

Norm Information

Norm information often explicitly communicates social norms by providing examples of others’ behaviors (e.g., “Your neighbors’ average (median) consumption June to October 2006: 35,000 gallons. You consumed more water than 72% of your Cobb County neighbors,” Ferraro & Price, 2013) or by referencing established norms (e.g., “The Chinese nation has always had the tradition of helping those in need”; Chen et al., 2019). By strengthening social motives, norm information could enhance the power of moral appeals in two ways. First, norm information explicitly highlights how others behave or think, clarifying the social consensus on moral norms. By enhancing the moral reputation enhancers dynamic, and leveraging the pressure of social conformity, adding norm information alongside moral appeals increases the likelihood of behavioral conformity. Second, for moral appeals delivered by those in power, norm information also enhances the perceived legitimacy of the message. Legitimacy, as the acceptance of authority, not only promotes the perceived duty to comply but also implies that institutions act in alignment with public moral values, thus fostering citizens’ law-abiding behaviors and cooperation (Jackson et al., 2012; Tyler, 2006; Tyler & Hou, 2002). By incorporating norm information consistent with the appeals, institutions highlight that their request reflects public opinion, therefore strengthening perceived legitimacy and enhancing the persuasive power of moral appeals.

Hypothesis 1: Moral appeals combined with (vs. without) norm information will be more effective in behavioral and intentional changes.

Public Delivery and Conduct

Public settings may also strengthen the moral reputation morality enhancers as publicity amplifies the presence of social norms and others’ judgment (Andreoni & Bernheim, 2009). Hence, moral appeals delivered in public settings (e.g., on signposts in public transport) are expected to make individuals more sensitive to their moral reputation than private appeals (e.g., e-mail), thus encouraging greater conformity to the appeals. For the same reasons, moral appeals promoting publicly visible behaviors (e.g., feeding animals in a park) will be more effective than those targeting private behaviors (e.g., paying taxes). Additionally, the presence of an audience often amplifies the sense of behavioral accountability (Leary, 2019), thereby heightening individuals’ awareness of the moral consequences of their behaviors. Conversely, without observers, individuals may feel less accountable and less mindful of moral implications.

Taken together, public (vs. private) settings increase both reputational concerns and moral self-image concerns, leading to the following prediction:

Hypothesis 2: Moral appeals delivered publicly (vs. privately) will be more effective in behavioral and intentional changes.

Hypothesis 3: Moral appeals recommending behaviors conducted in public (vs. private) will be more effective in behavioral and intentional changes.

Autonomy Restraints: Moderators Affecting Morality Hindrances

Moderators in our final third category are most likely to influence the effectiveness of moral appeals by affecting perceived autonomy threats. Autonomy threats are mainly triggered when people experience a reduced freedom to choose (Brehm & Brehm, 2013; Quick & Stephenson, 2007). Past research suggests two important factors influencing this experienced constraint: (a) how assertively framed the moral appeals were (Assertiveness; Staunton et al., 2022; Miller et al., 2007), and (b) how specific the desired behaviors were described (Specificity; Ball & Goodboy, 2014; Mulder et al., 2020). Assertiveness employs commanding and directive language, which reduces perceived freedom, and specificity increases prescriptiveness by limiting behavioral options. As both factors influence autonomy threat—a process underlying the morality hindrances of moral appeals—we expect these factors to moderate their effectiveness. This makes these two factors theoretically closely relevant to autonomy threats, which drive the morality hindrances in our framework (Brehm & Brehm, 2013; Quick & Stephenson, 2007).

Assertiveness

One of the most studied factors contributing to reactance is assertive language (Miller et al., 2007; Staunton et al., 2022). Assertive messages are often characterized by intense and dogmatic language, exerting pressure on receivers for compliance. Typically, assertive persuasions use imperative words (e.g., “Ought,” “Must”), leaving limited room for negotiation and clearly conveying the sender’s persuasive intention (Miller et al., 2007). Hence, assertive language poses significant threats to an individual’s need for autonomy and self-determination as it is often seen as forceful and controlling (Jenkins & Dragojevic, 2013). We hence hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 4: Moral appeals delivered in an assertive (vs. non-assertive) tone will be less effective in behavioral and intentional changes.

Specificity

The specificity of recommended behaviors in moral appeals—referring to how detailed and narrowly defined the suggested action is—can also influence how controlling the message feels. Highly specific appeals often prescribe exactly what the audience should do (e.g., “Finish all the food on your plate to avoid waste,” Dolnicar et al., 2020), leaving little room for alternative actions. In contrast, general appeals express values or goals more broadly (e.g., “Respect nature and its resources”; Chang, 2022), allowing recipients more freedom to determine how to act on the message. By prescribing a single, fixed course of action, specific messages can limit the audience’s sense of agency and make the appeal feel externally imposed rather than a personally endorsed choice. Consequently, they are more likely to increase feelings of coercion, potentially undermining moral appeals.

Hypothesis 5: Moral appeals describing the recommended behaviors in a specific (vs. general) manner will be less effective in behavioral and intentional changes.

Secondary Moderators of Interest and Controls

Beyond the primary moderators central to our theorizing about moral appeals, we examined several secondary factors. These variables are less directly linked to the morality-enhancing or morality-inhibiting mechanisms but may affect overall persuasiveness and were therefore treated as message-related controls. For moral content, we included message length, argument elaboration, and monetary versus non-monetary outcomes, which primarily influence attention, cognitive effort, or motivation rather than systematically engaging moral principles (Jones, 1991; Janoff-Bulman et al., 2009; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986; Singhapakdi et al., 2013; Wheeler & Laham, 2016). Similarly, message source (e.g., researchers, government, organizations) may affect credibility or perceived authority (Pornpitakpan, 2004), but is less directly tied to the core mechanisms of moral reputation and social pressure emphasized in our model. Finally, following prior meta-analyses (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001), we included several design- and publication-related characteristics (e.g., study year, journal field, repeated exposure, measurement timing) as controls to account for systematic methodological variation in effect sizes (Ebbinghaus, 1913/1964; Rosenthal, 1979). These secondary moderators were included to assess robustness and rule out alternative explanations rather than for theoretical reasons related to moral appeals, though full results are reported for completeness (see Tables 3 and 4).

Method

Transparency and Openness

We adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for systematic reviews (Figure 2, Page et al., 2021). All data and R syntax are available on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/xrj69/?view_only=2d405902eb21438fb8b31cd52e2c67a8. This study’s design and its analysis were not preregistered.

Figure 2.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses diagram of the flow of reports and studies into the meta-analysis.

Literature Search

Relevant studies for this meta-analysis were identified in Web of Science, EBSCOhost, Google Scholar, and SSRN by using the following keywords¹: moral appeal*, moral suasion, moral persuasion, normative appeal*, moral message, moralized persuasion, message fram* along with moral or ethical, and moral reframing. We also used snowball sampling by reviewing the reference lists of identified articles to include additional relevant studies. To reduce publication bias, we launched a call for unpublished data in January 2025.

For inclusion in this meta-analysis, studies had to meet the following inclusion criteria: First, eligible studies should describe one or more experiments containing at least one treatment group that exposed participants to a moral appeal that is experimentally manipulated and held constant across participants. Papers without standard manipulation (e.g., use personalized moral messages; Kalla et al., 2022 ) fall outside the scope of our research, as such personalization prevents the clear identification and comparison of a single, standardized moral-appeal manipulation. Second, they should include a comparison between the moral appeal treatment group and a valid control group without moral appeal, which could be a group that received no message, or one exposed to a message not designed to induce moral obligations. Third, the dependent variable measured should be either intentions and/or behaviors. Lastly, participants should be adults (age 18 or above). Studies were excluded if they did not report appropriate statistics (either in the literature or corresponding supplemental materials) necessary to calculate the effect size (e.g., F ratios, means and SDs, frequencies, or exact p values).

The final sample consists of 67 papers,² reporting on 77 studies and 401 effect sizes. The papers in this meta-analysis include 61 peer-reviewed articles, 2 preprints (Dutta-Powell et al., 2023; Garrett et al., 2023), and 2 working papers (Bailey et al., 2023; Kusztal et al., 2023), 1 thesis (Vitro, 2023), and 1 conference paper (Nicoletti & Delehanty, 2017), all published between 1982 and December 2024 (M = 2015, SD = 9).

Coding of Moderators

A coding manual was developed with descriptions of each variable and was used to code all relevant studies we identified accordingly (see Appendix A).

To ensure the reliability of the coding process, two coders first independently coded 11 papers across 3 rounds. Following each round, any discrepancies in coding were discussed and resolved collectively, resulting in subsequent updates to the codebook. The independent coding phase concluded once the inter-rater reliability achieved a satisfactory level. Specifically, all variables of interest demonstrated an intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) exceeding 0.80, which can be considered as good according to Koo and Li (2016). Following the resolution of disagreements through discussion, the rest of the papers were distributed among the coders for them to code the papers separately.

Theoretical Moderators

We classify the moderators into three categories: (a) Moral Content, (b) Social Aspects, and (c) Autonomy Restraints.³

The first category of Moral Content includes moral salience, negative framing, and the use of moral arguments. Moral salience represents how likely participants would interpret the issue at hand as morally relevant after being exposed to moral appeals, which was evaluated subjectively on a 5-point scale (−2 = low(salience), 2 = high (salience); ICC = 0.815). Negative Framing represents whether the appeal highlights positive or negative consequences if people undertake (or refrain from) the advocated actions with a 5-point scale (−2 = positive (framing), 2 = negative (framing); ICC = 0.871). Lastly, the use of moral arguments entailed the type of moral arguments that were used in the message. These could be either consequentialist arguments, deontological arguments, or both based on the moral arguments the message has used.

For the second category of Social Aspects, we dichotomously coded whether or not the message indicates that other people behave in line or have norms that are in line with moral appeals (norm information), whether the appeal was made in a situation where people receive the moral appeals privately or publicly (delivery: public vs. private), whether the behavior endorsed in the moral appeal is intended to be carried out in private or public settings (conduct: public vs. private vs. unknown). For conduct, in some instances, it was unclear or unknown whether others would observe participants’ behavior or not (e.g., payment with an honest box in a public place; Pruckner & Sausgruber, 2013). We coded for “unknown” in such cases.

Two continuous variables were coded for the third category Autonomy Restraints. Assertiveness captures the degree of assertiveness of the message with a 3-point scale (−1 = non-assertive, 0 = neither assertive nor non-assertive, 1 = assertive; ICC = 0.824). Specifically, we coded for “assertive” when the message use imperative forms (e.g., “should,” “must”) and “non-assertive” when the message use polite words (e.g., “please,” “may”).“Neither assertive nor non-assertive” indicates that no specific request is made to the audience for them to behave in a certain way (yet still with persuasive intentions), but only an explanation is given about the consequences of the behavior or a reference to values is made (e.g., “do what you think is morally right”; Bilancini et al., 2020). We also coded a message as “Neither assertive nor non-assertive” if a specific request is made without non-assertive and assertive language (e.g., “Cherish the earth; treasure its food”; Chang, 2022). Specificity encoded whether the messages were specific in that they clearly describe which behaviors are expected of people, or were more general in that they used more comprehensible guidelines (i.e., general messages) with a 5-point scale (−2 = low [specificity], 2 = high [specificity]; ICC = 0.958).

Meta-Analytic Procedures

For this meta-analysis, we used Cohen’s d as the measure of effect size, which is calculated as the difference between two means divided by the pooled standard deviation. When means and standard deviations were not directly reported, we calculated Cohen’s d from t-score, F-score, chi-square values, or rates of desired behavioral changes (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001).

For model estimations, we relied on metafor (Viechtbauer, 2010) and meta (Schwarzer et al., 2015) R packages. Prior to all formal analysis, we checked for outliers in the effects of moral appeals, that is, values deviating by more than four standard deviations⁴ from the mean effect size (Auer & Papies 2020; Bijmolt et al., 2005; Peng et al., 2023). Based on this criterion, we identiﬁed and removed two outliers (d = 1.83, Dutta-Powell et al., 2023; d = 1.66, Ferraro et al., 2011), which leaves us 399 effect sizes in total.

After that, we first computed and tested the average moral appeal main effect generalizing across all studies that compare the effect of moral appeals on behaviors and intentions as compared to the control group. A core assumption of meta-analysis is the independence between effect sizes. However, when a study reports more than one effect size contributing to the same meta-analytic effect size (e.g., if a study used different scales to measure the same outcome, or compared multiple interventions to one single control group), dependency introduced by those designs can bias meta-analytic estimates (Borenstein et al., 2009). To deal with statistical dependencies, the current study used a three-level multilevel meta-analytic method with the metafor R package, with effect sizes (Level 1) nested within studies (Level 2), and between-study heterogeneity modeled at Level 3 (Viechtbauer, 2010). A multilevel meta-analysis allows for increased power and greater accuracy when pooling information together for estimation of the overall effect size, as compared to other methods such as averaging effect sizes within a study, only including one effect size per study, or ignoring the statistical dependencies (Bijmolt & Pieters, 2001).

Before conducting subgroup analysis and meta-regression, we used several strategies to deal with missing data in the dataset. We did not use listwise deletion, as that would substantially reduce k and statistical power. For missing data in Age (62.84% missing), Gender (53.37% missing), and Length (15.71% missing), we replaced them with the respective mean values (Mean_age = 35.74; Mean_Gender = 0.49; Mean_Length = 254). Sometimes, the papers did not provide us with the original materials of the moral appeals, resulting in the absence of key variables. Consequently, message-related moderators, including Assertiveness (12.72% missing), Framing (11.72% missing), Specificity (13.96% missing), Elaboration (14.21% missing), and Moral Salience (13.96% missing), which were scored with the Likert scale, had missing data. In such cases, we substituted missing data with the central score of the scale (i.e., zero).⁵

After this, we used three-level mixed-effects models for each categorical theoretical and control moderator. Specifically, we conduct subgroup analyses for this data set by including each categorical moderator separately and obtain estimates for the impact of only that moderator and the corresponding 95% CIs. Our last step was to conduct meta-regressions using three-level mixed-effects models to examine the impact of all moderators and control variables simultaneously. Before conducting the meta-regressions, we checked for multicollinearity by calculating the generalized variance inflation factor [GVIF]^1/(2*df), which is used when there are dummy regressors from categorical variables; it is comparable to the square root of the variance inflation factor (SQRT[VIF]) for 1 degree of freedom (df = 1; Fox & Monette, 1992). In an iterative procedure (Schmidt & Bijmolt, 2020), we excluded the moderator with the highest GVIF^1/(2*df) and re-estimated the model repeatedly, until all moderators had a GVIF^1/(2*df) < 2. This cut-off value of 2 is comparable to a VIF cut-off value of 4, which could be regarded as acceptable (Hair et al., 2019, p. 316) and has been applied in other disciplines (e.g., Schmidt & Bijmolt, 2020). Accordingly, we excluded two moderators in the following order: type of experiments (GVIF^1/(2*df)= 3.36), trust appeal (GVIF^1/(2*df)= 2.66), authority mentioned in the content (GVIF^1/(2*df)= 2.19), and DV domains (GVIF^1/(2*df)= 2.04).⁶

Publication Bias

We used various ways to control and examine the existence of publication bias. First, we included non-peer-reviewed literature (n_total = 6; k_total = 29) in our dataset. Second, the set of observed effect sizes contains substantial proportions of positive and negative as well as significant and non-significant effects. Third, we applied the trim-and-fill method (Duval & Tweedie, 2000), which imputed zero studies on the left side, again indicating no publication bias. Given critiques of trim-and-fill regarding its assumptions and limited accuracy (Carter et al., 2019; Simonsohn et al., 2014), we interpreted its results cautiously and in conjunction with other complementary approaches. To complement this, we examined the distribution of effect sizes using a funnel plot and conducted Egger’s test (Egger et al., 1997). Egger’s test in a mixed-effects meta-regression model was non-significant (p = .53), indicating no evidence of publication bias. We conducted Precision Effect Test (PET) analyses (Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2014) to assess small-study effects. The PET slope was not significant (b = 0.45, SE = 0.37, z = 1.22, p = .22), indicating no evidence of small-study bias, while the PET intercept remained significant (b = 0.17, SE = 0.06, z = 2.86, p = .004) and residual heterogeneity being substantial, QE(397)= 83,241.24, p < .001. Following recommended practice, we estimated a PEESE model (Stanley & Doucouliagos, 2014). The PEESE intercept was also significant (b = 0.19, SE = 0.04, z = 4.71, p < .001), and the SE² term was not (p = .14), with residual heterogeneity remaining high, QE (397)= 83,912.28, p < .001. Although PET–PEESE can be less reliable with very few or very small studies (Stanley, 2017), our dataset avoids these limitations. Despite the high heterogeneity, both PET and PEESE still remained significant, supporting the robustness of the underlying effect.

Results

For ease of interpretation, Table 1 provides a summary of all hypotheses, a brief overview of the results, and concise interpretations. All supplementary analyses and robustness checks are reported in Appendixes C and D.

Table 1.

Summary of Hypotheses and Main Results for the Effectiveness and Boundary Conditions of Moral Appeals.

Category	Variable	Hypothesis	Main results	Interpretation
Main effect	The overall effectiveness of moral appeals	No directional hypothesis	Moral appeals have a small, positive effect (d = 0.22)	Moral appeals show a small positive impact on behaviors and behavioral intentions
Boundary conditions for effective moral appeals
Moral content	Moral salient	No directional hypothesis	No effect	Increasing moral salience did not affect moral appeal effectiveness
	Negative framing	No directional hypothesis	Negative framings were more effective than positive ones	Moral appeals framed negatively (vs. positively) enhance moral appeals
	Types of moral arguments	No directional hypothesis	No effect	The type of moral argument (consequentialist or deontological, or both) did not affect moral appeals effectiveness
Social aspects	Norm information	Hypothesis 1: Moral appeals combined with (vs. without) norm information would be more effective in changing intentions and behaviors.	Supported	Including norm information enhances moral appeals
	Public delivery	Hypothesis 2: Moral appeals delivered publicly (vs. privately) will be more effective in behavioral and intentional changes	Marginally supported	Public delivery may increase moral appeal effectiveness, but the effect was marginal and should be interpreted with caution.
	Public conduct	Hypothesis 3: Moral appeals recommending behaviors conducted in public (vs. private) will be more effective in behavioral and intentional changes.	Not supported	Public conduct recommendations did not affect moral appeals effectiveness
Autonomy restraints	Assertiveness	Hypothesis 4: Moral appeals delivered in an assertive (vs. non-assertive) tone will be less effective.	Supported	An assertive tone reduces moral appeal effectiveness.
Autonomy restraints	Specificity	Hypothesis 5: Moral appeals describing the recommended behaviors in a specific (vs. general) manner will be less effective.	Not supported	Specificity of behavior descriptions did not affect moral appeal effectiveness

Overall Effect Size

We first examined the overall effect of moral appeals on behavior and behavioral intentions (all combined). Our results showed that moral appeals have a small effect size, d = 0.22, 95% CI [0.16, 0.29], p < .001 (see Table 2). We also compared our three-level model with a two-level, simple random-effects model that constrained Level 3 heterogeneity to zero. The results showed that the three-level model provided a significantly better fit compared to the two-level model (χ²₁ = 139.84; p < .001). Hence, moral appeals have a small and positive effect on outcomes. That is, relative to participants in comparison groups, participants exposed to moral appeals showed behavior or had behavioral intentions that were more in line with the position advocated by the appeals.

Table 2.

Overall Average Effect Sizes, Heterogeneity, and Publication Bias.

Comparison	k	d	95% CI	τ ² _{Level 2}	τ ² _{Level 3}	I ² _{Level 2}	I ² _{Level 3}
Moral appeals vs. control	399	0.22***	[0.16, 0.29]	.04	.07	35.42%	64.14%

Note. k = number of included effect sizes; d = standardized mean difference; CI = confidence interval; ***p < .001.

The test of homogeneity was statistically significant, Q (398) = 83,967.29, p < .001, indicating the effect sizes were heterogeneous. Moreover, the estimated variance components were τ²_{Level 2} = .04 and τ²_{Level 3} = .07. Further analysis showed that I²_{Level 3} = 64.14 % of the total variation can be attributed to between-cluster, and I²_{Level 2} = 35.42% to within-cluster heterogeneity, which suggests substantial between- and within-study heterogeneity, supporting the presence of moderators.

Moderator Tests

The results of the subgroup analysis can be found in Table 3, and the results of the meta-regression with all the moderators that met the multicollinearity standard are in Table 4. Subgroup analysis showed that moral appeals are effective at most levels of different moderators. However, as subgroup analysis can only analyze one variable at a time and cannot analyze continuous variables sufficiently, we primarily rely on the results of meta-regression analysis in Table 4 when interpreting the moderating effects. Meta-regression can assess how various moderators contribute to heterogeneity simultaneously and accommodate both categorical and continuous variables, providing a more comprehensive test of the moderating effects.

Table 3.

Subgroup Analysis for Categorical Moderators.

Category of variables	Variables	Level/operationalization	k	d	95% CI		Significance
Moral content	Types of moral arguments	Both	109	0.20	0.10	0.29	***
		Consequentialist	178	0.21	0.13	0.30	***
		Deontological	76	0.28	0.17	0.39	***
		Unknown	36	0.26	0.00	0.51	*
Social aspect	Norm information	No	309	0.20	0.13	0.27	***
		Yes	41	0.46	0.34	0.58	***
		Unknown	49	0.22	0.03	0.41	*
	Public delivery	Private	340	0.21	0.14	0.28	***
		Public	59	0.33	0.13	0.54	**
	Public conduct	Private	283	0.20	0.13	0.27	***
		Public	54	0.34	0.20	0.47	***
		Unknown	62	0.20	0.08	0.33	**
Moderator of secondary interest	Non-monetary vs. monetary	Monetary	195	0.19	0.10	0.28	***
		Non-monetary	204	0.26	0.17	0.35	***
	Source	Researchers	161	0.25	0.14	0.35	***
		Businesses and services	62	0.19	0.04	0.34	*
		Government	113	0.18	0.05	0.31	**
		Organization	24	0.22	−0.09	0.52
		Other	39	0.35	0.17	0.53	***
Controls
Message	Nonverbal vs. verbal	Verbal	34	0.32	0.11	0.53	**
		Nonverbal	365	0.22	0.14	0.29	***
	Trust appeal	No	329	0.23	0.16	0.31	***
		Yes	23	0.15	−0.09	0.40
		Unknown	47	0.22	0.02	0.42	*
	Authority in content	No	287	0.24	0.16	0.32	***
		Yes	59	0.16	0.02	0.31	*
		Unknown	53	0.21	0.03	0.39	*
Behavior	Behaviors vs. intentions	Behaviors	314	0.24	0.16	0.31	***
		Behavioral intentions	85	0.20	0.08	0.32	**
	Domain	Tax-paying	70	0.15	−0.01	0.30	†
		Health-related behavior	45	0.14	−0.03	0.31	†
		Green behavior	121	0.32	0.20	0.45	***
		Other	163	0.23	0.13	0.33	***
Research design	Number of measurements	Once	289	0.23	0.16	0.31	***
		Repeatedly/continuously	110	0.19	0.06	0.32	**
	Number of exposures	Once	211	0.26	0.18	0.34	***
		More than once	188	0.16	0.05	0.27	**
	Measurement delay	Immediate	193	0.27	0.19	0.36	***
		<1 month	50	0.14	0.01	0.28	*
		1~ 6 months	51	0.17	0.02	0.32	*
		> 6 months	37	0.17	0.01	0.33	*
		Unknown	68	0.10	−0.09	0.29
	Type of control	Neutral message	54	0.10	−0.08	0.28
		Messages without moral appeal	162	0.23	0.14	0.32	***
		No message	183	0.26	0.18	0.34	***
	Experiment type	Field	230	0.18	0.09	0.27	***
		Lab	80	0.37	0.23	0.50	***
		Survey	89	0.20	0.09	0.31	***
Participants	Sample type	Non-students	339	0.21	0.14	0.28	***
		Student sample	60	0.31	0.14	0.47	***
	Region	USA	201	0.25	0.15	0.35	***
		Asia	44	0.28	0.10	0.46	**
		Europe and UK	106	0.15	0.03	0.27	*
		Middle East	25	−0.09	−0.47	0.28
		Other	23	0.39	0.16	0.62	**
Publication	Moral focus	No	139	0.22	0.11	0.34	***
		Yes	260	0.23	0.14	0.31	***
	Year of publication	> 2010	337	0.20	0.12	0.27	***
		≤2010	64	0.36	0.20	0.52	***
	Journal field	Economics	148	0.24	0.13	0.36	***
		Law and criminology	26	−0.13	−0.40	0.14
		Management and business	56	0.27	0.07	0.48	**
		Psychology	95	0.23	0.10	0.37	***
		Other	74	0.26	0.13	0.39	***

Note. k = the number of studies for each moderator level; d = standardized mean effect size estimated meta-analytically for the indicated moderator level; 95% CI = 95% confidence interval for d; type of experiments, trust appeal, authority mentioned in the content, and DV domains were excluded from meta-regression due to multicollinearity.

***

p < .001. **p < .01. *p < .05. †p < .1.

Table 4.

Meta-Regression.

Category of variables	Variables	Level/operationalization	Estimate	Standard error	p-value	Significance
Moral content	Moral salience	−2 = low to 2 = high	0.01	0.03	.78
	Negative framing	−2 = positive to 2 = negative framing	0.04	0.02	.02	*
	Types of moral arguments	Both
		Consequentialist	0.10	0.08	.20
		Deontological	0.13	0.08	.11
Social aspect	Norm information	No
		Yes	0.31	0.06	<.001	***
	Public delivery	Private
		Public	0.26	0.14	.07	*
	Public conduct	Private
		Public	0.00	0.08	.96
		Unknown	−0.02	0.11	.83
Autonomy restrains	Assertiveness	−1 = non-assertive to 1 = assertive	−0.11	0.05	.04	*
	Specificity	−2 = low to 2 = high	−0.05	0.03	.15
Moderators of secondary interest	Length	Word counts of moral appeals in texts	0.02	0.02	.18
	Elaboration	−2 = low to 2 = high	0.01	0.03	.72
	Non-monetary vs. monetary	Monetary
		Non-monetary	0.15	0.08	.06	†
	Source	Researchers
		Businesses and services	−0.17	0.13	.18
		Government	−0.14	0.13	.28
		Organization	−0.17	0.19	.37
		Other	0.04	0.13	.74
Controls
Message	Nonverbal vs. verbal	Verbal
		Nonverbal	0.04	0.15	.80
Behavior	Behaviors vs. intentions	Behaviors
		Behavioral intentions	−0.02	0.11	.83
Research design	Number of measurements	Once
		Repeatedly/continuously	−0.11	0.08	.16
	Number of exposures	More than once
		Once	0.22	0.12	.07	†
	Measurement delay	Immediate
		<1 month	−0.15	0.12	.22
		1~ 6 months	−0.11	0.13	.42
		>6 months	−0.13	0.13	.33
	Type of control	Neutral message
		Messages without moral appeal	0.20	0.14	.15
		No message	0.25	0.14	.08	†
Participants	Sample type	Non-students
		Student sample	0.26	0.13	.06	†
	Region	USA
		Asia	−0.01	0.14	.92
		Europe and UK	−0.11	0.10	.31
		Middle East	0.08	0.24	.74
		Other	0.24	0.15	.11
	Age		0.01	0.01	.38
	Gender	Percentage of female participants	−0.05	0.11	.63
Publication	Moral focus	No
		Yes	0.03	0.09	.76
	Year of publication	> 2010
		≤2010	0.19	0.12	.12
	Journal field	Economics
		Law and criminology	−0.67	0.20	.001	***
		Management and business	−0.28	0.15	.06	†
		Psychology	−0.38	0.15	.01	*
		Other	−0.23	0.13	.08	†

Note. k = 399.

***

p < .001. *p < .05. †p < .1.

Moral Content

Moral salience had no significant influence on moral appeals (b = 0.01, SE = 0.03, p = .78). Framing did exert an influence (b = 0.04, SE = 0.02, p = .02) in that negative framings were more effective than positive ones. Regarding types of moral arguments, moral appeals using consequentialist (d = 0.21; 95% CI [0.13, 0.30]; b = 0.10, SE = 0.08, p = .20), deontological (d = 0.28; [0.17, 0.39]; b = 0.13, SE = 0.08, p = .11), and both framings (d = 0.20; 95% CI [0.10, 0.29]) are equally effective.

Social Aspects

Moral appeals combined with norm information (d = 0.46; 95% CI [0.34, 0.58]) are significantly more effective than those without (d = 0.20; [0.13, 0.27]), b = 0.31, SE = 0.06, p < .001, supporting our Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, results suggest that the effects of moral appeals delivered in public (d = 0.33; [0.13, 0.54]) appear to be larger than in private (d = 0.21; [0.14, 0.28]), b = 0.26, SE = 0.14, p = .07. This finding should be interpreted with caution due to its marginal significance. Regarding behavioral conduct, the effect of moral appeals is equally effective when the outcome behaviors are intended to be conducted in public (d = 0.34; [0.20, 0.47]; b = 0.00, SE = 0.08, p = .96), private (d = 0.20; [0.13, 0.27]), and the ambiguous settings (d = 0.20; [0.08, 0.33]; b = −0.02, SE = 0.11, p = .83), failing to support Hypothesis 3.

Autonomy Restraints

Concerning moderators related to Autonomy Restraints, the more assertive the message is, the weaker the effect of moral appeals (b = −0.11, SE = 0.05, p = .04), in line with our theorizing and provides support for Hypothesis 4. Contrary to Hypothesis 5, how specific the behaviors described in the message did not influence the effect of moral appeals (b = −0.05, SE = 0.03, p = .15).

General Discussion

This meta-analysis aims to address inconsistent findings on the main effect of moral appeals, test moral appeals’ overall influence, and identify when they are most effective by examining various moderators. In our integrated framework, we reasoned that moral appeals increase moral awareness, but that this could evoke either morality enhancers (movements towards behaviors in line with the moral appeal spurred by the desire to strive for a moral self-image and moral reputation) or morality hindrances (counter-movements spurred by defensive reactions to moral self-threats or autonomy threats). We further reasoned that the Moral Content of the appeal, Social Aspects surrounding the communication of the appeal, and aspects related to Autonomy Constraints would influence the effect of moral appeals through one or both dynamics.

Our main result is that moral appeals are successful in influencing intentions and behaviors across conditions, with a small, positive effect size, suggesting that, overall, morality enhancers are generally dominant over morality hindrances. Furthermore, there was not one level of any moderator that we tested for which moral appeals significantly backfired to produce worse outcomes relative to the comparison groups. Instead, we were able to identify various moderators that can enhance their effectiveness to make moral appeals work better.

When Moral Appeals Work Better

Of the three groups of moderators (i.e., Moral Content, Social Aspects, and Autonomy Restraints), our results emphasized Social Aspects as key to enhancing moral appeals, while also providing preliminary evidence that Autonomy Restraints weaken them. Moral Content tended to produce null effects.

For Social Aspects, consistent with our expectations, moral appeals that explicitly incorporate social norm information were generally more effective. Public delivery of the message showed a small, marginally significant increase in effectiveness, whereas whether the behavior itself was public or private did not appear to matter. Given the modest size of the public-delivery effect, these interpretations should be viewed as preliminary. However, they do suggest that moral appeals are more effectively strengthened by highlighting group norms, rather than merely emphasizing the visibility of individual actions. This pattern suggests that moral appeal may contribute to a “social tipping point.” By making norms salient in public contexts, it can help reach critical thresholds needed to facilitate broader behavioral change in a social domain (Judge et al., 2024).

Regarding Autonomy Restraints, our results align with the idea that forceful wording can threaten autonomy and dampen the persuasive impact of an appeal. Furthermore, contrary to our hypothesis, specific instructions had no effect. We had argued that specific language would be experienced as more controlling and evoke more reactance. What could explain this null effect is that specific instructions also have the advantage of being clearer (Ball & Goodboy, 2014; Miller et al., 2007), making them easier to follow as concrete guidelines than more general instructions (Mulder et al., 2020). This finding aligns with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2002), which posits that perceived control over one’s behavior (i.e., knowing what to do and how) can facilitate action. So, this benefit of specific instructions in a moral appeal may offset their potential to trigger reactance.

For Moral Content, we made no directional hypothesis, as we reasoned that moral salience, negative framing, or the type of argument could affect moral awareness by simultaneously triggering morality-enhancing (moral self-image) or hindering (moral threat) processes and, thus, result in null effects. Consistent with this, the meta-analysis found no moderating effect of moral salience, nor did deontological appeals (referring to rules, values, and obligations) differ in effectiveness from consequentialist appeals (referring to outcomes). This could suggest that moral salience and the type of appeals may activate competing psychological processes, thereby cancelling out any overall effect. However, the absence of a moderation of any moral content factor may also be explained in alternative ways. For example, highlighting moral aspects may not meaningfully shift participants’ perceptions or actions (Haidt, 2001; Van Bavel et al., 2012). Additionally, deontological and consequentialist appeals may both be effective in distinct ways; deontological appeals may engage emotional responses, while consequentialist appeals may elicit cognitive deliberation (Conway & Gawronski, 2013). Finally, methodological factors could also play a role. For example, the way morality was salient differed across studies, which could have introduced noise and further attenuated observable effects (Shadish et al., 2002). Moreover, the lack of a moderating effect could have been due to limited variation introduced through data imputation (Little & Rubin, 2019). Indeed, our multiple-imputation robustness analyses identified deontological framing as a significant moderator, whereas this effect did not emerge under mean imputation, suggesting that deontological (relative to consequentialist) framing may exert an effect under certain analytic assumptions.

One Moral Content factor that did enhance the effectiveness of moral appeals was negative framing, suggesting moral appeals focusing on the negative aspects of undesired behavior were more persuasive than those emphasizing the positive aspects of desired behavior. Drawing on the “bad is stronger than good” principle (Baumeister et al., 2001), we reasoned that negative framing would enhance moral awareness. Our results suggest that this contributes more to the enhancers’ dynamic of moral self-image than to the hindrances’ dynamic of moral threat. This may be because people are more motivated to maintain a self-image of not being immoral than to be seen as actively moral (see Trafimow & Trafimow, 1999, on perfect vs. imperfect duty violations). This may help them overcome the moral threat elicited by the appeal and instead boost their motivation to restore their moral self-image, thereby increasing their likelihood of compliance.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This meta-analysis offers several contributions. First, we clarify the concept of moral appeals by emphasizing that moral appeals consist of two primary components: moral content and persuasive intent, thereby differentiating moral appeals from related constructs such as moral priming (Aquino et al., 2009) and moral labeling (e.g., Mieth et al., 2021). This conceptual clarification provides a clearer foundation for future research and application.

Second, this is the first meta-analysis to systematically assess the overall effectiveness of moral appeals. We find that moral appeals have a small but reliable positive effect on behavior and behavioral intentions and, importantly, do not backfire on average. This challenges common concerns that moralizing messages alienate recipients (Driessen, 2022). Although modest, such effects can be meaningful when scaled across populations or accumulated over time (Cohen, 1992; Funder & Ozer, 2019). Moral appeals operate at the individual level (Chater & Loewenstein, 2023), yet repeated exposure can aggregate into substantial organizational, political, or societal impact. At the same time, the modest effect size suggests that moral persuasion is not universally powerful. Our findings further refine this understanding by identifying moderators that indicate when moral appeals are more or less effective. For instance, subgroup analyses showed that when combined with norm information, moral appeals produced a medium-sized effect (d = 0.46), and when delivered publicly, they produced a small-to-medium effect (d = 0.33). Together, these findings suggest that moral appeals should be viewed as one ingredient in a broader behavior-change toolkit rather than a standalone intervention for producing large short-term changes.

Third, we systematically examine moderators of moral appeals—an area previously underexplored. Despite constraints in available coding, our results show that moral appeals are most effective when combined with social cues (e.g., norm information), negatively framed, and delivered without assertive language, with tentative evidence that public delivery further enhances effectiveness. These findings indicate that the effectiveness of moral appeals is context-dependent. Notably, social aspects emerged as the strongest moderator, suggesting that moral appeals work best when they signal shared support beyond the sender. Substantial residual heterogeneity further indicates that additional moderators that were beyond the scope of this meta-analysis remain important targets for future research.

Beyond its theoretical contributions, this study has several practical implications. Moral appeals can be used with relative confidence, as they are unlikely to backfire and can positively influence behavior. However, given their small average effect, they should not be viewed as a standalone solution; other strategies, such as monetary incentives, may be more effective (Wang et al., 2021). Instead, moral appeals may be best understood as one ingredient in a broader package of behavior-change strategies. Second, how moral appeals are delivered matters: practitioners can get more out of moral appeals when they align them with perceived social norms, use negative framing, and avoid overly assertive language that may trigger autonomy threats. And, with some caution, our findings suggest that moral appeals may work better if they are delivered publicly.

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

A key strength of this study is its methodological approach. By meta-analyzing a wide range of field and laboratory experiments across diverse domains (e.g., environmental behavior, health, tax compliance), we enhance the reliability and generalizability of our conclusions. Importantly, we found no difference in the effectiveness of moral appeals on behavioral intentions versus actual behaviors, suggesting that moral appeals influence both intended and enacted behavior. As a result, studies using intention measures may still offer valid insights into real-world behavior change—an encouraging finding given the widespread use of intentions in persuasion research.

Despite its merits, this study has several limitations. First, our analysis was limited to the moderators of our focus, which left others unexplored. Some were not considered due to insufficient data, such as those related to the audience (e.g., personality traits) and the sender (e.g., perceived trustworthiness). For example, the meta personality factor Stability—a combination of agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability (DeYoung et al., 2002)—may influence responses to moral appeals as it has been linked to greater compliance and lower reactance (e.g., Seemann et al., 2005). Individuals high in stability may be more receptive to moral persuasion. Furthermore, there may be factors, apart from the ones we coded and tested, that relate to our three categories of moderators (moral content, social aspects, and autonomy restraints) and may also moderate the effect of moral appeals. An example of this is the extent to which an appeal to ingroup values is made (related to social aspects), which is expected to contribute to the effect of a moral appeal. Last, although coded in our meta-analysis, domain type could not be tested as a moderator. Our dataset spanned multiple domains (e.g., tax compliance, health, environmental behavior), but this factor could not be included in the meta-regression models due to multicollinearity. Future research should therefore examine how domains impact moral appeals. When doing this, particular attention could be given to differences between polarized (e.g., climate policy) versus less polarized contexts (e.g., tax compliance) as moralization may amplify identity threat and intergroup conflict in polarized domains but function more normatively in less polarized settings (D’Amore et al., 2024).

A second limitation is that, although robustness checks using multiple imputation largely corroborated the main conclusions of the meta-analysis, some moderators were less stable to this robustness check. Assertiveness was no longer significant under multiple imputation, likely because this approach introduces additional variance by accounting for uncertainty in the imputed values, which can attenuate effects that are marginal or sensitive to study characteristics (Sterne et al., 2009; White, Royston & Wood, et al., 2011) and should therefore be interpreted with caution. In addition, deontological framing emerged as a significant moderator in the robustness check, suggesting that rule-based reasoning may play a larger role in moral appeal effectiveness than indicated by the primary models.

Another limitation is that our meta-analytic approach did not allow us to directly test the underlying mechanisms of moral awareness, moral self-image, and moral threat dynamics. Our theoretical model primarily served as an organizing framework for generating hypotheses about the effects of moral appeals and their moderators, rather than for testing mediation. Consequently, the present findings provide suggestive rather than definitive evidence regarding underlying causal processes, and alternative explanations—such as the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 2002), and process dissociation accounts (Conway & Gawronski, 2013)—may also contribute to the observed effects. Although available data did not allow us to empirically adjudicate between alternative explanations, our model can guide future research to test when moral appeals affirm moral self-image versus elicit threat or reactance—for example, in contexts where social norms conflict with moral imperatives (e.g., vegetarianism vs. meat-eating; Monin & Norton, 2003) versus contexts aligned with shared values (e.g., reducing food waste; Dolnicar et al., 2020).

A further limitation of this meta-analysis is its exclusive focus on behavioral intentions and actual behaviors, without examining attitudinal outcomes. This focus reflects our primary goal of assessing whether moral appeals translate into action-oriented change, as well as conceptual and methodological considerations. Conceptually, our model emphasizes moral awareness rather than attitudinal change as a trigger for behavior, consistent with evidence that moral attitudes do not reliably translate into action, particularly at the collective level (Ajzen, 1991; Sheeran, 2002; Bolderdijk & Cornelissen, 2022). Moral appeals may also influence behavior without (first) changing attitudes, as suggested by theories such as nudging (Thaler & Sunstein, 2009), self-perception theory (Bem, 1967), and the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Methodologically, attitude measures are operationalized heterogeneously across moral appeal studies (e.g., as moral concern, beliefs about responsibility, or subjective evaluations of messages). Because general attitudes toward policies, people, institutions, and events correlate with broad rather than specific behaviors (Ajzen et al., 2018), combining diverse measures would inflate heterogeneity and reduce precision. Nevertheless, future research integrating both attitudinal and behavioral outcomes could clarify when and how moral appeals shift attitudes and whether such changes mediate subsequent behavior.

One last limitation concerns our reliance on the conventional significance threshold of .05 and the reporting of effects approaching this threshold. While this approach maintains comparability with prior work (Turner & Rains, 2021; Witte & Allen, 2000), we acknowledge that testing multiple moderators in our sample increases the chance of false positives (Streiner & Norman, 2011). However, all moderator analyses were pre-specified and theory-driven, which should mitigate this concern. Furthermore, stricter corrections would substantially increase Type II error given the limited number of studies for some moderators (Borenstein et al., 2009; Rothman, 1990). Nevertheless, marginal effects, especially the distinction between public versus private delivery, should be interpreted with caution and warrant replication under stricter correction procedures.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis provides the most comprehensive evaluation of moral appeals to date, revealing their small but positive overall effect on intentions and behaviors across domains. Our moderator analyses indicate that moral appeals are more effective when they incorporate social cues, such as norm information, when negatively framed, and avoid assertive language. It also tentatively suggests that appeals may benefit from public delivery. Our results also highlight the need for further research on the role of moral awareness in shaping moral appeals, particularly the interplay between the competing psychological dynamics it may trigger. We believe our analysis offers a comprehensive overview of the existing literature and provides valuable insights and promising directions for future research on moral appeals.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672261437934 – Supplemental material for The Behavioral Impact of Moral Appeals: An Integrated Framework and Meta-Analysis

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-psp-10.1177_01461672261437934 for The Behavioral Impact of Moral Appeals: An Integrated Framework and Meta-Analysis by Sylvia Y. Xu, Laetitia B. Mulder, Floor A. Rink, Tammo H. A. Bijmolt and Marijke C. Leliveld in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Author Note

An earlier version of this manuscript was accepted at the 2025 Academy of Management Annual Meeting. The corresponding abstract can be found in the Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2025).

ORCID iDs

Sylvia Y. Xu

Laetitia B. Mulder

Floor A. Rink

Tammo H. A. Bijmolt

Marijke C. Leliveld

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data and R syntax are available on the Open Science Framework at . This research was not preregistered.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Ajzen

(2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(4), 665–683. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x

Ajzen

Fishbein

Lohmann

Albarracín

(2018). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In Albarracín

Johnson

B. T.

(Eds.), The handbook of attitudes: Volume 1. Basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 197–255). Routledge.

Alexander

Moore

(2007). Deontological ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

* AlSheddi

M. M.

(2022). Do message framing and source credibility matter?: Examining framed COVID-19 prevention messaging in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Educational and Psychological Studies, 16(4), 294–307. https://doi.org/10.53543/jeps.vol16iss4pp294-307

Andreoni

Bernheim

B. D.

(2009). Social image and the 50–50 norm: A theoretical and experimental analysis of audience effects. Econometrica, 77(5), 1607–1636. https://doi.org/10.3982/ecta7384

*Anicker

Bamberg

Pütz

Bohner

(2024). Do biospheric values moderate the impact of information appeals on pro-environmental behavioral intentions? Sustainability, 16(7), 2915. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072915

*Antinyan

Horváth

Jia

(2020). Curbing the consumption of positional goods: Behavioral interventions versus taxation. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 179, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2020.08.018

*Apesteguia

Funk

Iriberri

(2013). Promoting rule compliance in daily-life: Evidence from a randomized field experiment in the public libraries of Barcelona. European Economic Review, 64, 266–284. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1705467

10.

Aquino

Freeman

Reed

II Lim

V. K.

Felps

(2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: the interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015406

11.

Aquino

Reed

II . (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423. https://doi.org/10.1037/t08774-000

12.

*Ariel

(2012). Deterrence and moral persuasion effects on corporate tax compliance: Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 50(1), 27–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00256.x

13.

Auer

Papies

(2020). Cross-price elasticities and their determinants: A meta-analysis and new empirical generalizations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48(3), 584–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00642-0

14.

*Bailey

M. R.

Brown

D. P.

Shaffer

B. C.

Wolak

F. A.

(2023). Show Me the Money! Incentives and nudges to shift electric vehicle charge timing (No. w31630). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w31630

15.

*Balafoutas

Rezaei

(2022). Moral suasion and charitable giving. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 20780. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24944-6

16.

Ball

Goodboy

A. K.

(2014). An experimental investigation of the antecedents and consequences of psychological reactance in the college classroom. Communication Education, 63(3), 192–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2014.918634

17.

Bandura

(2011). Moral disengagement. In Christie

D. J.

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of peace psychology. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp165

18.

Barkan

Ayal

Ariely

(2015). Ethical dissonance, justifications, and moral behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6(12), 157–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.08.001

19.

Bartels

D. M.

Medin

D. L.

(2007). Are morally motivated decision makers insensitive to the consequences of their choices? Psychological Science, 18(1), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01843.x

20.

Baumeister

R. F.

Bratslavsky

Finkenauer

Vohs

K. D.

(2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/e413792005-154

21.

Bazerman

M. H.

Sezer

(2016). Bounded awareness: Implications for ethical decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 136, 95–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2015.11.004

22.

Bem

D. J.

(1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3), 183–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024835

23.

*Betsch

Böhm

Korn

(2013). Inviting free-riders or appealing to prosocial behavior? game-theoretical reflections on communicating herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Health Psychology, 32(9), 978. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031590

24.

*Bhattacharya

Dugar

(2022). Business norm versus norm-nudge as a contract-enforcing mechanism: Evidence from a real marketplace. European Economic Review, 144, Article 104078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104078

25.

Bijmolt

T. H.

Pieters

R. G.

(2001). Meta-analysis in marketing when studies contain multiple measurements. Marketing Letters, 12, 157–169.

26.

Bijmolt

T. H.

Van Heerde

H. J.

Pieters

R. G.

(2005). New empirical generalizations on the determinants of price elasticity. Journal of Marketing Research, 42(2), 141–156. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.42.2.141.62296

27.

*Bilancini

Boncinelli

Capraro

Celadin

Di Paolo

(2020). “Do the right thing” for whom? An experiment on ingroup favouritism, group assorting and moral suasion. Judgment and Decision making, 15(2), 182–192. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/s6wmu

28.

Blair

R. J. R.

(2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(9), 387–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2007.07.003

29.

Blasi

(1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.88.1.1

30.

*Blumenthal

Christian

Slemrod

(2001). Do normative appeals affect tax compliance? Evidence from a controlled experiment in Minnesota. National Tax Journal, 54(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2001.1.06

31.

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Cornelissen

(2022). “How do you know someone’s vegan?” They won’t always tell you: An empirical test of the do-gooder’s dilemma. Appetite, 168, Article 105719. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appet.2021.105719

32.

Borenstein

Cooper

Hedges

Valentine

(2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis, 2, 221–235.

33.

*Bos

Drupp

M. A.

Meya

J. N.

Quaas

M. F.

(2020). Moral suasion and the private provision of public goods: Evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic. Environmental and Resource Economics, 76, 1117–1138. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3611579

34.

*Brañas-Garza

(2007). Promoting helping behavior with framing in dictator games. Journal of Economic Psychology, 28(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2006.10.001

35.

Brehm

S. S.

Brehm

J. W.

(2013). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. Academic Press.

36.

Brown

(2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30(6), 745–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-0992(200011/12)30:6%3C745::aid-ejsp24%3E3.0.co;2-o

37.

Burgoon

Alvaro

Grandpre

Voulodakis

(2002). Revisiting the theory of psychological reactance: Communicating threats to attitudinal freedom. In The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 213-232). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412976046.n12

38.

*Bursztyn

Fiorin

Gottlieb

Kanz

(2019). Moral incentives in credit card debt repayment: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Political Economy, 127(4), 1641–1683. https://doi.org/10.3386/w21611

39.

Butterfield

K. D.

Trevin

L. K.

Weaver

G. R.

(2000). Moral awareness in business organizations: Influences of issue-related and social context factors. Human Relations, 53(7), 981–1018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726700537004

40.

Cacioppo

J. T.

Berntson

G. G.

(1994). Relationship between attitudes and evaluative space: A critical review, with emphasis on the separability of positive and negative substrates. Psychological Bulletin, 115(3), 401. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.115.3.401

41.

Capraro

Rand

D. G.

(2018). Do the right thing: Experimental evidence that preferences for moral behavior, rather than equity or efficiency per se, drive human prosociality. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2965067

42.

Carlson

E. N.

(2013). Honestly arrogant or simply misunderstood? Narcissists’ awareness of their narcissism. Self and Identity,12(3), 259–277. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.659427

43.

Carter

E. C.

Schönbrodt

F. D.

Gervais

W. M.

Hilgard

(2019). Correcting for bias in psychology: A comparison of meta-analytic methods. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 115–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847196

44.

*Castro

Scartascini

(2015). Tax compliance and enforcement in the pampas evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 116, 65–82. https://doi.org/10.18235/0011524

45.

*Chan

H. F.

Dulleck

Fooken

Moy

Torgler

(2023). Cash and the hidden economy: Experimental evidence on fighting tax evasion in small business transactions. Journal of Business Ethics, 185(1), 89–114. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3761506

46.

*Chang

Y. Y. C.

(2022). All you can eat or all you can waste? Effects of alternate serving styles and inducements on food waste in buffet restaurants. Current Issues in Tourism, 25(5), 727–744 https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1870939

47.

Chater

Loewenstein

(2023). The i-frame and the s-frame: How focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e147. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X22002023

48.

*Chen

X. P.

Pillutla

M. M.

Yao

(2009). Unintended consequences of cooperation inducing and maintaining mechanisms in public goods dilemmas: Sanctions and moral appeals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430208098783

49.

*Chen

Wei

Meng

(2019). The impact of congruency between moral appeal and social perception on charitable donation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 51(12), 1351. https://doi.org/10.3724/sp.j.1041.2019.01351

50.

*Chirico

Inman

R. P.

Loeffler

MacDonald

Sieg

(2016). An experimental evaluation of notification strategies to increase property tax compliance: free-riding in the city of brotherly love. Tax Policy and the Economy, 30(1), 129–161. https://doi.org/10.1086/685595

51.

Chugh

Kern

M. C.

(2016). A dynamic and cyclical model of bounded ethicality. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2016.07.002

52.

Cialdini

R. B.

Kallgren

C. A.

Reno

R. R.

(1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 201–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60330-5

53.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

54.

Conway

Gawronski

(2013). Deontological and utilitarian inclinations in moral decision making: a process dissociation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 216. https://doi.org/10.1037/e566962012-170

55.

*Dal

Bó, E.

Dal Bó

(2014). “Do the right thing:” The effects of moral suasion on cooperation. Journal of Public Economics, 117, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15559

56.

D’Amore

van Zomeren

Koudenburg

(2024). How perceived polarization predicts attitude moralization (and vice versa): A four-wave longitudinal study during the 2020 US election. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 126(4), 624–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000467

57.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6

58.

DeYoung

C. G.

Peterson

J. B.

Higgins

D. M.

(2002). Higher-order factors of the Big Five predict conformity: Are there neuroses of health? Personality and Individual Differences, 33(4), 533–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00171-4

59.

Dillard

J. P.

Shen

(2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815

60.

*Dolnicar

Juvan

Grün

(2020). Reducing the plate waste of families at hotel buffets—A quasi-experimental field study. Tourism Management, 80, Article 104103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2020.104103

61.

*Dolnicar

Knezevic Cvelbar

Grün

(2019). A sharing-based approach to enticing tourists to behave more environmentally friendly. Journal of Travel Research, 58(2), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/yxuf6

62.

*Dutta-Powell

Cameron

Murray

Powell

Fung

B. J.

(2023). Moral appeals reduce simulated panic buying behaviour. SSRN 4401555. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4401555

63.

Duval

Tweedie

(2000). Trim and fill: a simple funnel-plot–based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56(2), 455–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2000.00455.x

64.

Ebbinghaus

(1964). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology ( Ruger

H. A.

Bussenius

C. E.

, Trans.). Dover. (Original work published 1913)

65.

Egger

Smith

G. D.

Schneider

Minder

(1997). Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315(7109), 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629

66.

*Farrar

Farrar

Hausserman

Rennie

(2024). An investigation of the influence of guilt, awards, and a moral message on tax whistleblowing decisions. Advances in Taxation, 31, 135–163. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1058-749720240000031005

67.

*Fellner

Sausgruber

Traxler

(2013). Testing enforcement strategies in the field: Threat, moral appeal and social information. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 634–660. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1468344

68.

*Ferrari

J. R.

Leippe

M. R.

(1992). Noncompliance with persuasive appeals for a prosocial, altruistic act: Blood donating. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(2), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb01523.x

69.

*Ferraro

P. J.

Price

M. K.

(2013). Using nonpecuniary strategies to influence behavior: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(1), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17189

70.

*Ferraro

P. J.

Miranda

J. J.

Price

M. K.

(2011). The persistence of treatment effects with norm-based policy instruments: Evidence from a randomized environmental policy experiment. American Economic Review, 101(3), 318–322. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.101.3.318

71.

Fox

Monette

(1992). Generalized collinearity diagnostics. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 87(417), 178–183. https://doi.org/10.2307/2290467

72.

Funder

D. C.

Ozer

D. J.

(2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245919847202

73.

*Garrett

Helquist

Smith

S. D.

Tayler

W. B.

(2023). The effects of price transparency and prosocial messaging on patient engagement. SSRN 4648989. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4648989

74.

Gneezy

Kajackaite

Sobel

(2018). Lying aversion and the size of the lie. American Economic Review, 108(2), 419–453. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20161553

75.

Graham

Haidt

Koleva

Motyl

Iyer

Wojcik

S. P.

Ditto

P. H.

(2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130).

76.

Grant

A. M.

Mayer

D. M.

(2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(4), 900. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013770

77.

*Grodeck

Schoenegger

(2023). Demanding the morally demanding: Experimental evidence on the effects of moral arguments and moral demandingness on charitable giving. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 103, 101988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2023.101988

78.

*Haile

Jalil

Tasoff

Vargas Bustamante

(2021). Changing hearts and plates: The effect of animal-advocacy pamphlets on meat consumption. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 668674. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3753878

79.

Haidt

(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

80.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Cengage Learning EMEA.

81.

*Hallsworth

List

J. A.

Metcalfe

R. D.

Vlaev

(2017). The behavioralist as tax collector: Using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. Journal of Public Economics, 148, 14–31. https://doi.org/10.3386/w20007

82.

Hardy

S. A.

Carlo

(2011). Moral identity: What is it, how does it develop, and is it linked to moral action?. Child Development Perspectives, 5(3), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00189.x

83.

*Hasseldine

Hite

James

Toumi

(2007). Persuasive communications: Tax compliance enforcement strategies for sole proprietors. Contemporary Accounting Research, 24(1), 171–194. https://doi.org/10.1506/p207-004l-4205-7nx0

84.

Harmon-Jones

Mills

(2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. In Harmon-Jones

(Ed.), Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed., pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001

85.

*Hendricks

W. W.

Ramthun

R. H.

Chavez

D. J.

(2001). The effects of persuasive message source and content on mountain bicyclists' adherence to trail etiquette guidelines. Journal of Park & Recreation Administration, 19(3), 38–61.

86.

*Hite

P. A.

(1997). An investigation of moral suasion and vertical equity arguments on intended taxpayer noncompliance. Law & Policy, 19(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00019

87.

*Hockett

K. S.

Hall

T. E.

(2007). The effect of moral and fear appeals on park visitors’ beliefs about feeding wildlife. Journal of Interpretation Research, 12(1), 5–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/109258720701200102

88.

*Hoover

Johnson

Boghrati

Graham

Dehghani

(2018). Moral framing and charitable donation: Integrating exploratory social media analyses and confirmatory experimentation. Collabra: Psychology, 4(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/xpkeu

89.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

90.

*Ito

Ida

Tanaka

(2018). Moral suasion and economic incentives: Field experimental evidence from energy demand. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 10(1), 240–267. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3129103

91.

Jackson

Bradford

Hough

Myhill

Quinton

Tyler

T. R.

(2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1051–1071. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1994490

92.

Janoff-Bulman

Sheikh

Hepp

(2009). Proscriptive versus prescriptive morality: Two faces of moral regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 521. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013779

93.

Jenkins

Dragojevic

(2013). Explaining the process of resistance to persuasion: A politeness theory-based approach. Communication Research, 40(4), 559–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211420136

94.

Jones

T. M.

(1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: An issue-contingent model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395. https://doi.org/10.2307/258867

95.

Judge

Bouman

Steg

Bolderdijk

J. W.

(2024). Accelerating social tipping points in sustainable behaviors: Insights from a dynamic model of moralized social change. One Earth, 7(5), 759–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2024.04.006

96.

Kahneman

Knetsch

J. L.

Thaler

R. H.

(1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511803475.009

97.

Kajackaite

Gneezy

(2017). Incentives and cheating. Games and Economic Behavior, 102, 433–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geb.2017.01.015

98.

Kalla

J. L.

Levine

A. S.

Broockman

D. E.

(2022). Personalizing moral reframing in interpersonal conversation: A field experiment. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 1239–1243. https://doi.org/10.1086/716094

99.

*Kaplan

J. T.

Vaccaro

Henning

Christov-Moore

(2023). Moral reframing of messages about mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 10140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-37075-3

100.

Kavvouris

Chrysochou

Thøgersen

(2020). “Be Careful What You Say”: The role of psychological reactance on the impact of pro-environmental normative appeals. Journal of Business Research, 113, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.10.018

101.

Koo

T. K.

M. Y.

(2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012

102.

*Koumpias

A. M.

Martínez-Vázquez

(2019). The impact of media campaigns on tax filing: Quasi-experimental evidence from Pakistan. Journal of Asian Economics, 63, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2019.05.002

103.

* Kurz

Donaghue

Walker

(2005). Utilizing a social-ecological framework to promote water and energy conservation: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(6), 1281–1300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02171.x

104.

Kurzban

Leary

M. R.

(2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127(2), 187–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187

105.

* Kusztal

Misiak

Hare

Lee

Jędryczka

(2023). Framing factory farming: Moral messaging and fitness interdependence in the context of human-animal cooperation. Unpublished manuscript.

106.

Lapinski

M. K.

Rimal

R. N.

(2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/15.2.127

107.

Leach

Dhont

(2023). Non-speciesist language conveys moral commitments to animals and evokes do-gooder derogation. Psychology of Human-Animal Intergroup Relations, 2, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5964/phair.9869

108.

Leary

M. R.

(2019). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429497384

109.

* Lee

Seo

Leahey

(2022). Who deserves protection? How naming potential beneficiaries influences COVID-19 vaccine intentions. Socius, 8, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221082422

110.

Leliveld

M. C.

Van Beest

Van Dijk

Tenbrunsel

A. E.

(2009). Understanding the influence of payoff valence in bargaining: A study on fairness accessibility, norms, and behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(3), 505–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.007

111.

Leliveld

M. C.

Van Dijk

Van Beest

(2008). Initial ownership in bargaining: Introducing the giving, splitting, and taking ultimatum bargaining game. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(9), 1214–1225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208318608

112.

* Li

Chen

Wang

Liu

(2022). The influence of message framing on residents’ waste separation willingness—The mediating role of moral identity. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 5812. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105812

113.

* Lindauer

Mayorga

Greene

Slovic

Västfjäll

Singer

(2020). Comparing the effect of rational and emotional appeals on donation behavior. Judgment and Decision Making, 15(3), 413–420. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500007208

114.

Lipsey

M. W.

Wilson

D. B.

(2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE Publications, Inc.

115.

Little

R. J. A.

Rubin

D. B.

(2019). Statistical analysis with missing data (3rd ed.). Wiley.

116.

* Luttrell

Philipp-Muller

Petty

R. E.

(2019). Challenging moral attitudes with moral messages. Psychological Science, 30(8), 1136–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619854706

117.

Martela

Hankonen

Ryan

R. M.

Vansteenkiste

(2021). Motivating voluntary compliance to behavioural restrictions: Self-determination theory–based checklist of principles for COVID-19 and other emergency communications. European Review of Social Psychology, 32(2), 305–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2020.1857082

118.

* Martichuski

D. K.

Bell

P. A.

(1991). Reward, punishment, privatization, and moral suasion in a common dilemma. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(16), 1356–1369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00475.x

119.

* McGraw

K. M.

Scholz

J. T.

(1991). Appeals to civic virtue versus attention to self-interest: Effects on tax compliance. Law and Society Review, 25(3), 471–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053724

120.

* Meléndez-Jiménez

M. A.

Morales

A. J.

Cosano

J. R.

(2022). Engaging academic staff in the quality assurance system in higher education: A field experiment. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 100, 101923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2022.101923

121.

Mieth

Buchner

Bell

(2021). Moral labels increase cooperation and costly punishment in a Prisoner’s Dilemma game with a punishment option. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 10221. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-89675-6

122.

Miller

C. H.

Lane

L. T.

Deatrick

L. M.

Young

A. M.

Potts

K. A.

(2007). Psychological reactance and promotional health messages: The effects of controlling language, lexical concreteness, and the restoration of freedom. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00297.x

123.

Minson

J. A.

Monin

(2012). Do-gooder derogation: Disparaging morally motivated minorities to defuse anticipated reproach. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611415695

124.

Monin

Norton

M. I.

(2003). Perceptions of a fluid consensus: Uniqueness bias, false consensus, false polarization, and pluralistic ignorance in a water conservation crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 559–567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203029005001

125.

Montano

D. E.

Kasprzyk

(2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. Health behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 70(4), 231.

126.

Moore

(2015). Moral disengagement. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 199–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.018

127.

Moore

Gino

(2015). Approach, ability, aftermath: A psychological process framework of unethical behavior at work. Academy of Management Annals, 9(1), 235–289. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2015.1011522

128.

* Mulder

L. B.

Lokate

(2022). The effect of moral appeals on influenza vaccination uptake and support for a vaccination mandate among health care workers. Social Science & Medicine, 312, Article 115357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115357

129.

Mulder

L. B.

Rink

Jordan

(2020). Constraining temptation: How specific and general rules mitigate the effect of personal gain on unethical behavior. Journal of Economic Psychology, 76, Article 102242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2019.102242

130.

Newman

North-Samardzic

Cohen

(2020). Moral disengagement at work: A review and research agenda. Journal of Business Ethics, 167, 535–570. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04173-0

131.

* Nicoletti

N. P.

Delehanty

(2017, January). When the message is moralized: Elite cues and moral framing. Prepared for the 2017 Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, IL.

132.

* Nolan

J. M.

Schultz

P. W.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

Griskevicius

(2008). Normative social influence is underdetected. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34(7), 913–923. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167208316691

133.

Driessen

(2022, August 18). Cokesnuivers aanspreken op de gevolgen van hun gebruik? Toch maar niet. NRC. https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2022/08/18/cokesnuivers-aanspreken-op-de-gevolgen-van-hun-gebruik-toch-maar-niet-a4139300

134.

Page

M. J.

McKenzie

J. E.

Bossuyt

P. M.

Boutron

Hoffmann

T. C.

Mulrow

C. D.

Shamseer

Tetzlaff

J. M.

Akl

E. A.

Brennan

S. E.

Chou

Glanville

Grimshaw

J. M.

Hróbjartsson

Lalu

M. M.

Loder

E. W.

Mayo-Wilson

McDonald

, . . . Moher

(2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71

135.

Peng

Bijmolt

T. H.

Völckner

Zhao

(2023). A meta-analysis of brand extension success: The effects of parent brand equity and extension fit. Journal of Marketing, 87(6), 906–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429231164654

136.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

137.

Pornpitakpan

(2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x

138.

* Pruckner

G. J.

Sausgruber

(2013). Honesty on the streets: A field study on newspaper purchasing. Journal of the European Economic Association, 11(3), 661–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12016

139.

* Qi

Roe

B. E.

(2017), Foodservice composting crowds out consumer food waste reduction behavior in a dining experiment. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 99, 1159–1171. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aax050

140.

Quick

B. L.

Stephenson

M. T.

(2007). Further evidence that psychological reactance can be modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions. Communication Research, 34(3), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650207300427

141.

Rest

J. R.

(1986). Moral development: Advances in research and theory. Praeger.

142.

* Romaniuc

(2016). What makes law to change behavior? An experimental study. Review of Law & Economics, 12(2), 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1515/rle-2015-0045

143.

Rosenthal

(1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86(3), 638. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.86.3.638

144.

Rothman

K. J.

(1990). No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology, 1(1), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001648-199001000-00010

145.

Seemann

E. A.

Buboltz

W. C.

Thomas

Soper

Wilkinson

(2005). Normal personality variables and their relationship to psychological reactance. Individual Differences Research, 3(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.65030/idr.03007

146.

Schein

Gray

(2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868317698288

147.

* Schlüter

Vollan

(2015). Flowers and an honour box: Evidence on framing effects. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 57, 186–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2014.10.002

148.

Schmitt

D. R.

(1964). The invocation of moral obligation. Sociometry, 27(3), 299–310. https://doi.org/10.2307/2785620

149.

Schmidt

Bijmolt

T. H.

(2020). Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 48, 499–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-019-00666-6

150.

Schwartz

M. S.

(2016). Ethical decision-making theory: An integrated approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 139, 755–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2886-8

151.

Schwarzer

Carpenter

J. R.

Rücker

(2015). Meta-analysis with R (Vol. 4784). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21416-0

152.

Schwitzgebel

Cokelet

Singer

(2020). Do ethics classes influence student behavior? Case study: Teaching the ethics of eating meat. Cognition, 203, Article 104397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104397

153.

Shadish

W. R.

Cook

T. D.

Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.

154.

Sheeran

(2002). Intention–behavior relations: A conceptual and empirical review. European Review of Social Psychology, 12(1), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/14792772143000003

155.

Simonsohn

Nelson

L. D.

Simmons

J. P.

(2014). P-curve and effect size: Correcting for publication bias using only significant results. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9(6), 666–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691614553988

156.

Singhapakdi

Vitell

S. J.

Lee

D. J.

Nisius

A. M.

G. B.

(2013). The influence of love of money and religiosity on ethical decision-making in marketing. Journal of Business Ethics, 114(1), 183–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1334-2

157.

Sinnott-Armstrong

(2015). Consequentialism. In Zalta

E. N.

(Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2015 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

158.

Skitka

L. J.

Bauman

C. W.

Lytle

B. L.

(2009). Limits on legitimacy: moral and religious convictions as constraints on deference to authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(4), 567. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015998

159.

Skitka

L. J.

Bauman

C. W.

Sargis

E. G.

(2005). Moral conviction: Another contributor to attitude strength or something more?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(6), 895. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.895

160.

Stanley

T. D.

(2017). Limitations of PET-PEESE and other meta-analysis methods. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(5), 581–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693062

161.

Stanley

T. D.

Doucouliagos

(2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1095

162.

Staunton

T. V.

Alvaro

E. M.

Rosenberg

B. D.

(2022). A case for directives: Strategies for enhancing clarity while mitigating reactance. Current Psychology, 41, 611–621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00588-0

163.

Sterne

J. A. C.

White

I. R.

Carlin

J. B.

Spratt

Royston

Kenward

M. G.

Carpenter

J. R.

(2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. BMJ, 338, b2393. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2393

164.

Streiner

D. L.

Norman

G. R.

(2011). Correction for multiple testing: Is there a resolution?. Chest,140(1), 16–18. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.11-0523

165.

Thaler

R. H.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2009). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin.

166.

* Tinkler

J. E.

Clay-Warner

Alinor

(2018). Communicating about affirmative consent: How the threat of punishment affects policy support and gender stereotypes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(21), 3344–3366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260518798356

167.

* Torgler

(2003). Beyond punishment: A tax compliance experiment with taxpayers in Costa Rica. Revista de Análisis Económico, 18(1), 27–56.

168.

* Torgler

(2004). Moral suasion: An alternative tax policy strategy? Evidence from a controlled field experiment in Switzerland. Economics of Governance, 5(3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847207203.00012

169.

* Torgler

(2013). A field experiment in moral suasion and tax compliance focusing on underdeclaration and overdeduction. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 69(4), 393–411. https://doi.org/10.1628/001522113x675647

170.

Trafimow

(1999). Mapping perfect and imperfect duties onto hierarchically and partially restrictive trait dimensions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(6), 687–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006004

171.

* Tsikas

S. A.

(2023). Bringing tax avoiders to light: moral framing and shaming in a public goods experiment. Behavioural Public Policy, 7(3), 557–580. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2021.9

172.

Turner

Rains

(2021). Guilt appeals in persuasive communication: A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 72(4), 684–700. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2021.1953094

173.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57(1), 375–400. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038

174.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07

175.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.

176.

* Tyler

T. R.

Orwin

Schurer

(1982). Defensive denial and high cost prosocial behavior. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 3(4), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0304_4

177.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Pizarro

D. A.

Tannenbaum

Ditto

P. H.

(2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 479–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1930297500004022.

178.

Van Bavel

J. J.

Packer

D. J.

Cunningham

W. A.

(2012). The neural substrates of in-group bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation. Psychological Science, 23(11), 1332–1339. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612442939

179.

Van Kleef

G. A.

Wanders

Stamkou

Homan

A. C.

(2015). The social dynamics of breaking the rules: Antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.013

180.

Viechtbauer

(2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03

181.

* Vitro

(2023). Changing vaccine hesitant attitudes of parents using moral persuasion [Doctoral dissertation, Loyola University Chicago].

182.

Vonasch

A. J.

Reynolds

Winegard

B. M.

Baumeister

R. F.

(2018). Death before dishonor: Incurring costs to protect moral reputation. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(5), 604–613. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720271

183.

* Wang

Deng

Zhao

Liu

Wang

(2021). Effect and mechanism of monetary incentives and moral suasion on residential peak-hour electricity usage. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 169, 120792. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120792

184.

* Wang

(2023). A randomized experiment on the effects of moral appeals on US parents’ intentions to vaccinate their 5e11-year-old children against COVID-19. Journal of Health Research, 37(5), 289–296. https://doi.org/10.56808/2586-940x.1022

185.

Webb

T. L.

Sheeran

(2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249

186.

Wheeler

M. A.

Laham

S. M.

(2016). What we talk about when we talk about morality: Deontological, consequentialist, and emotive language use in justifications across foundation-specific moral violations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(9), 1206–1216. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216653374

187.

* White

MacDonnell

Dahl

D. W.

(2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472

188.

White

I. R.

Royston

Wood

A. M.

(2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067

189.

Witte

Allen

(2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591–615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506

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.

0.06 MB

0.00 MB