To encourage people to behave in ways that are good for society, authorities could use moral appeals, persuasive messages aimed at invoking moral obligations. However, there is some skepticism about doing so, often fueled by concerns about a potential backlash. Evidence about the effectiveness of moral appeals in changing behaviors remains mixed, and little is known about the conditions that influence it. To address this gap, FEB researchers Sylvia Xu, Laetitia Mulder, Floor Rink, Tammo Bijmolt and Marijke Leliveld performed a meta-analysis to assess the overall effect of moral appeals on people’s decisions to change their behavior and tested when moral appeals are most persuasive.

Although moral appeals are widely used across a variety of contexts—such as environmental responsibility, vaccination uptake, and compliance with public rules—evidence regarding their effectiveness in changing behavior remains mixed, with studies reporting positive, null, and even negative effects. Moreover, relatively little is known about the conditions under which moral appeals are more or less effective.

Sylvia Xu, PhD candidate at FEB: ‘Addressing this gap is important for authorities and practitioners who rely on moral messaging to promote prosocial behavior, as understanding when moral appeals are effective—and when they may be less effective—can help improve the design of public campaigns, organizational communication, and policy interventions.’ So together with FEB professors Laetitia Mulder, Floor Rink, Tammo Bijmolt, and Marijke Leliveld, Xu set out to resolve previously inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of moral appeals.

Shaping the effectiveness of moral appeals

In their work, Xu and her co-authors show that moral appeals generally have a small but positive effect on changing behavior across different domains. In addition, the research shows that the effectiveness of moral appeals is context-dependent. More precisely, the researchers propose a framework in which both moral-enhancing and moral-hindering elements can shape the effectiveness of moral appeals. Based on this, they examined three broad categories that may influence effectiveness: content features that enhance recognition of an issue’s moral implications, features that strengthen social motives, and features that threaten people’s sense of autonomy. Using a meta-analytic approach, the researchers found that negative framing (emphasizing moral implications) and the inclusion of social norms (strengthening social motives) enhanced appeal effectiveness, while the use of assertive language (threatening the sense of autonomy) undermined it. Strikingly, they did not find any condition in which the effect of moral appeals was negative.

Unlikely to backfire, but part of a broader package

The study by Xu and co-authors is the first meta-analysis to methodically assess the overall effectiveness of moral appeals. Xu: ‘Our findings suggest that 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 stand-alone solution. Instead, moral appeals may be better understood as one ingredient in a broader package of behavior-change strategies. Also, important to note is that it matters how moral appeals are delivered: practitioners can get more out of moral appeals when aligned social norms are communicated (“most others recycle”), negative framing is used (stressing the moral problems of non-compliance rather than the moral benefits of compliance), and overly assertive (pushy) language that may trigger autonomy threats is avoided.’

Xu is continuing her examination of the responses to moral appeals. Next, she is interested in studying how domains shape these responses, focusing on the differences between polarized contexts (for example, climate policy) and less polarized contexts (for example, tax compliance). Xu: ‘Moralization may amplify identity threat and intergroup conflict in polarized domains, while functioning more as a normative cue in less polarized settings. Understanding these dynamics may help identify how moral appeals can be designed and communicated more effectively in socially and morally complex contexts.’

Questions? Please contact Sylvia Xu.

Xu, S. Y., Mulder, L. B., Rink, F. A., Bijmolt, T. H. A., & Leliveld, M. C. (2026). The Behavioral Impact of Moral Appeals: An Integrated Framework and Meta-Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672261437934