Which message works best? Experimental evidence on disaster appeals

Abstract

This article evaluates the efficacy of argumentative strategies in promoting collective action against existential threats through two studies involving 200 participants (236 recruited; 36 excluded due to incomplete responses or failed attention checks). The first study (N=118) contrasts emotional with rational arguments, revealing a statistically significant difference in their effectiveness (t(117) = 2.34, p = 0.032), with emotional appeals demonstrating a stronger persuasive impact. The second study (N=118) assesses the influence of social comparisons and financial incentives, where no significant difference was found between the two strategies (t(117) = -1.24, p = 0.11), suggesting that their relative effectiveness may depend on specific contextual factors. Overall, the findings emphasize the critical role of emotional appeals and the conditional impact of financial incentives in motivating action against existential risks.