Achieving persuasion or avoiding resistance? Using motivational matching theory to disentangle the benefits of matched messages from the costs of mismatched messages

Persuasive messages are more effective when they are tailored to engage differences in people’s motivations—such as a person’s values or identity. This phenomenon is known as ‘motivational matching’. Yet, studies commonly confound the beneficial effects of matching with the detrimental effects of mismatching. We present a framework to disentangle these effects, and report two experiments, using samples of American adults, that demonstrate how mismatching can actively reduce persuasion. In Study 1 (N = 689), messages promoting volunteerism were substantially less successful to the extent that they contained elements that conflicted with people’s motivations to volunteer. In Study 2 (N = 1101), the detrimental effects of providing politically mismatched messages (e.g. presenting liberal individuals with appeals highlighting conservative values) were greater in magnitude than the benefits of providing politically matched messages (e.g. presenting liberal individuals with appeals highlighting liberal values). We discuss implications for theory and practice, including situations when generic/neutral messaging may outperform matching-based persuasion.