No abstract

No abstract

Message matching refers to the design and distribution of persuasive messages such that message features (e.g., the themes emphasized) align with characteristics of the target audience (e.g., their personalities). Motivational message matching is a form of this technique that seeks to enhance persuasion by matching specifically to differences in motivational characteristics (e.g., salient goals, needs, values). Despite widespread use of motivational matching, there is little understanding of how and when to use it. We conducted a preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42019116688; osf.io/rpjdg) systematic review and three-level meta-analysis of 702 experimental studies on motivational matching (synthesizing 5,251 effect sizes from N = 206,482). Studies were inclusive of publications until December 2018, and primarily identified using APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, and Scopus. We evaluate moderation using meta-regressions, and provide bias assessments (sensitivity analyses, funnel plots). Motivational matching increases persuasion by an average of r = .20 (95% CI: .18, .22) as assessed by differences in attitudes, intentions, self-reported behavior, and observed behavior, relative to comparison conditions. This effect is larger than previously observed for other message matching approaches (e.g., message tailoring, message framing) which usually average r < .10. Although motivational matching can effectively improve persuasion, its effects are also marked by meaningful heterogeneity. Notably, motivational matching effects are largest when matching to contextual factors (than to individual differences), when compared to messages that conflict with people’s motivations, and when target characteristics are manipulated rather than assessed. Through this review, we develop and evaluate theoretical propositions that inform the optimization of motivational matching.

We examine how individual differences in self-focused and other-focused orientations are associated with prosocial and antisocial behaviors/attitudes using data from Wave III of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (N = 1,319), Waves 5 (N = 83,975) and 6 (N = 90,350) of the World Values Survey, and an online American sample (N = 572). Across our studies, we find evidence that other-focused orientations are positively associated with prosocial outcomes, and negatively associated with antisocial outcomes. These effects are highly consistent cross-nationally and when using different operationalizations of the constructs. Self-focused orientations positively relate to antisocial outcomes, and this association is consistent cross-nationally, but varies depending on how variables are operationalized. The association between self-focused orientations and prosocial behaviors tends towards a small positive effect; however, this effect is heterogeneous both cross-nationally and across ways of operationalizing the variables. Overall, the effects of other-focused orientations are consistently larger than the effects of self-focused orientations. We also note consistent moderate-to-large positive correlations between measures of self-focused and other-focused orientations, but highly variable small-to-moderate (positive and negative) correlations between various prosocial and antisocial behaviors/attitudes. We conclude that interventions designed to alter rates of prosocial or antisocial behaviors should evaluate effects on both types of behaviors to monitor unintended impacts. Our studies caution that interventions targeting self-focused orientations may be risky of unintended consequences, whereas other-focused orientations may be more optimal intervention targets.

Mask-wearing, social distancing, and vaccination are effective ways to mitigate COVID-19. Yet, many hesitate to enact these behaviors. We created three persuasive messages—framed to promote benefits to 1) oneself, 2) close-others, or 3) distant-others—to determine whether the effectiveness of these messages varied based on personality differences (independent/interdependent self-construal, chronic construal level). In two online experiments (N = 862), we measured individual differences and showed participants one of the three messages. Consistent interactions between interdependent self-construal and message conditions showed that those high (low) in interdependent self-construal responded most positively (negatively) to the self-focused messages promoting mask-wearing, social distancing, and COVID-19 vaccination. No interaction effect was observed for independent self-construal, and inconsistent evidence emerged for construal level. Generally, however, other-focused messages performed either better or equally well to the self-focused messages for most participants and may thus be promising for future public health communication efforts.