Evaluations of Self-Focused Versus Other-Focused Arguments for Social Distancing: An Extension of Moral Matching Effects

Abstract

The coronavirus pandemic has raised pressing questions about effective public health communication. Prior research has shown a persuasive advantage of arguments emphasizing a behavior’s benefits for others’ health compared to benefits for the recipients. We suggest that other-focused (vs. self-focused) messages function more as moral arguments and should thus be especially persuasive to people who moralize public health. Across three studies, people perceived other-focused (vs. self-focused) appeals for social distancing more as moral arguments. Further, evaluations of these messages’ persuasiveness were moderated by how much the recipient already moralized public health. Other-focused arguments tended to be perceived as more persuasive than self-focused arguments primarily among people who saw public health as a moral issue, which had corresponding effects on social distancing intentions. These findings provide critical insight to health communicators and underscore the importance of understanding that a message’s impact can depend on audience characteristics.