As a moral emotion, guilt can serve as a mechanism in social influence. However, literature showed that the effects of guilt appeals were mixed. This indicates that scholars scarcely understand the conditions under which guilt appeals work effectively. Drawing from Moral Foundation Theory (Graham et al., 2013), this study investigated the moderating role of moral foundations in guilt appeals. I argued that the match between the transgression focus of a guilt appeal and an endorsed moral foundation would increase the intensity of perceived guilt and reduce psychological reactance, thereby leading to a more positive attitude and stronger behavioral intention. A single factorial (care/harm guilt appeal vs. purity/degradation guilt appeal vs. liberty/oppression guilt appeal vs. control message) between-subject experiment was conducted to test the moral matching effect in the context of reducing children's consumption of sugary drinks. Results showed that care-focused guilt appeal elicited more guilt and less psychological reactance than purity-focused and liberty-focused guilt appeals. More importantly, the purity foundation mitigated the negative effect of purity-focused guilt appeal on psychological reactance, particularly on anger. The explanations for the findings, theoretical and practical implications, limitations of the study, and future research directions were discussed.
Read
