Inspired by this paper (psyarxiv.com/9yqs8/) when covering traditional ethical theory in my class, we discussed what different frameworks might suggest for how to convince someone to do the right thing (e.g., WEAR A MASK!). One insight I had was: utilitarianism won't work. 🧵
A utilitarian moral message (like the one used in that paper) is essentially "think of the consequences for everyone if you don't do this!" but... people have to have an understanding of the consequences for that to be effective, but there's so much misinformation. :(
For the study in the paper (it's a pre-print) they found a modest effect for duty-based deontological messaging ("it is our responsibility to protect people) re: intention to share the message. But we also covered OTHER ethical frameworks in my class...
Many of us thought that moral messaging framed around ethics of care (e.g., "think about the people you love") would be most effective. And that in some cultures (but probably not in the U.S.) a community-based Ubuntu-inspired message might work, too.
And this isn't to say that misinformation can't impact the persuasiveness of these messages too (e.g., "I don't need to do that to protect people because it's not real") but I do think that there's something to be said for an appeal to duty or care rather than consequences.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
