Willingness to use moral reframing: Support comes from perceived effectiveness, opposition comes from integrity concerns

Abstract

Moral reframing is a communication technique that involves persuading an audience to support an issue they typically oppose on ideological grounds by appealing to concepts and values that align with their moral concerns. Overall, previous research has found that moral reframing can encourage attitude change more so than non-reframed messages. One pending question, though, is whether people would or would not use this technique in the first place (e.g., because it requires embracing values that one might not endorse). This online study (N = 249) tested the willingness of US-based liberals to use a message appealing to conservative values (morally reframed), vs. one appealing to liberal values (not morally reframed), to persuade a hypothetical conservative audience to be more pro-environmental. Reasons behind message choice and feelings about both messages were measured. Results showed that most participants chose to use the morally reframed message (73%). This choice was justified by the message’s perceived effectiveness, while rejecting it was justified by the need to feel true to one’s own beliefs and values. However, regardless of actual message choice, participants overall reported more positive and less negative integrity feelings for the message that was not morally reframed.