Anger Appeal for Mental Health Equity: Racial Identity-Contingent Effects of Anger Appeal and Efficacy Cue

Anger appeal has been found to be persuasive, yet little is known about how it works differently for in-group vs. out-group audiences. Building on the anger activism model, cognitive functional model, and social identity theory, this study examines how anger appeal and an efficacy cue influence audience responses to messages about mental health inequities and whether these effects vary with racial group identity. In a 2 (anger: high vs. low) × 2 (efficacy: present vs. absent) × 2 (racial identity: in-group vs. out-group) between-subjects online experiment (N = 504), US adults viewed an activism message shared by a racial minority group member addressing racial bias in mental health care. Results showed that a high (vs. low) anger appeal directly increased policy support and indirectly enhanced both policy support and activism intention through message-elicited anger. Also, an efficacy cue independently promoted activism intention. Additionally, a significant three-way interaction emerged: Racially minoritized participants reported the strongest activism intention when a high anger appeal was paired with efficacy information. These findings contribute to the persuasion literature by revealing an identity-based boundary condition of anger appeal and provide practical implications for advocacy messaging in addressing mental health inequities.