Cited by 304Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentSocial and Intergroup PsychologyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

Feinberg, Matthew, Willer, Robb·2019·Social and Personality Psychology Compass

Abstract

The political landscape in the US and many other countries is characterized by policy impasses and animosity between rival political groups. Research finds that these divisions are fueled in part by disparate moral concerns and convictions that undermine communication and understanding between liberals and conservatives. This “moral empathy gap” is particularly evident in the moral underpinnings of the political arguments members of each side employ when trying to persuade one another. Both liberals and conservatives typically craft arguments based on their own moral convictions rather than the convictions of the people they target for persuasion. As a result, these moral arguments tend to be unpersuasive, even offensive, to their recipients. The technique of moral reframing —whereby a position an individual would not normally support is framed in a way that is consistent with that individual's moral values—can be an effective means for political communication and persuasion. Over the last decade, studies of moral reframing have shown its effectiveness across a wide range of polarized topics, including views of economic inequality, environmental protection, same‐sex marriage, and major party candidates for the US presidency. In this article, we review the moral reframing literature, examining potential mediators and moderators of the effect, and discuss important questions that remain unanswered about this phenomenon.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/spc3.12501

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several messaging approaches may be effective, including emphasizing the benefits to the recipient, focusing on protecting others, aligning with the recipient's moral values, appealing to social consensus or scientific norms, and/or highlighting social group approval.

    “Several messaging approaches may be effective, including emphasizing the benefits to the recipient 146 , focusing on protecting others (for example, 'wash your hands to protect your parents and grandparents' 147 ), aligning with the recipient's moral values 148 , appealing to social consensus or scientific norms 149-151 and/or highlighting social group approval 152,153 .”
  • Moral reframing that engages a given audience's moral perspective is a well-documented effective strategy.

    “This directly contradicts a well-documented effective strategy of moral reframing that engages a given audience's (rather than the speaker's) moral perspective (Feinberg & Willer, 2019).”

    From How to study democratic backsliding (2024) · cites this paper as Feinberg & Willer, 2019

  • Framing environmental issues in terms of conservative values such as purity, sanctity, commerce or patriotism might lead conservatives to express more support for pro-environmental legislation.

    “framing environmental issues in terms of conservative values such as purity, sanctity, commerce or patriotism might lead conservatives to express more support for pro-environmental legislation275–279.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 80 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Feinberg, Matthew
Venue
Social and Personality Psychology Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12
Volume
13
Issue
12
ISSN
1751-9004 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996728347
Cited by
302
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 47 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 11
FWCI
10.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Social and Personality Psychology Compass (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
moral reframing, political polarization, persuasion, political communication, liberals and conservatives, moral argument, moral values, economic inequality, environmental protection, same-sex marriage, presidential candidates

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review