The Double-Edged Sword of Moral Appeals in Food Waste Communication

People who view food-wasting behaviour as immoral tend to waste less. This observation raises the question of whether appealing to moral values can shift how individuals think about food waste and how willing they are to address it. The present preregistered experiment (N = 1006) tested this possibility by examining whether persuasive video messages grounded in the Morality-as-Cooperation framework influence psychological responses to food waste. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of seven value-based appeals: highlighting Family, Group, Reciprocity, Heroism, Deference, Fairness, or Property concerns; or one of two control conditions. Each moral message was presented in both positive and negative framing and delivered by one of two actors.Outcomes included judgments of the wrongness of food wasting, intentions to reduce waste, support for policy measures, and willingness to learn more or engage in related actions. Preregistered analyses showed no overall effects of the moral messages. However, mediation analyses showed a consistent pattern of opposing effects. Across outcomes, moral appeals were associated with lower perceived message relevance, which in turn predicted weaker moral concern, policy support, and behavioural intentions. At the same time, when controlling for perceived relevance, several moral messages—particularly those grounded in Family, Deference, Heroism, and Property concerns—exerted positive direct effects on outcomes.Overall, the findings show that moral appeals in food waste communication can be a double-edged sword. Moral messages have the potential to motivate stronger responses, but only when people find them personally relevant. When they do not, the same appeals may undermine their own effectiveness. This emphasizes perceived relevance as a key ingredient in successful moral communication about food waste.