{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02418682235195997, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.741573033707865, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluations of Self-Focused Versus Other-Focused Arguments for Social Distancing: An Extension of Moral Matching Effects

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.