Harnessing Anger to Persuade: The Moderating Roles of Retributive Efficacy and Prior Attitudes

Abstract

ABSTRACT Given unresolved questions about the conditions under which anger appeals persuade, this investigation examined whether an anger appeal is more persuasive if it includes efficacy content emphasizing retribution. It also examined whether effects hinge on initial attitudes toward the advocated issue – here, regulation of soda marketing to improve children’s health. Findings from this 3 (offense component: high, low, none) × 3 (efficacy component: retributive, non-retributive, none) between-subjects experiment (N=1,244) indicated a high offense component unintentionally generated anger toward the message source among counterattitudinal individuals but, intriguingly, also boosted their behavioral intentions. Exposure to any efficacy cues increased policy support. Although the offense and efficacy components did not interact, post hoc analyses revealed the expected pattern whereby message-intended anger more strongly predicted policy support at higher levels of retributive efficacy beliefs. These findings suggest promising new directions to revisit predictions made by extant theories of anger appeals.