Fig. 2.

No evidence that microtargeting by greater (vs. fewer) numbers of covariates increases persuasive impact in Study 1. The left-hand panel shows the average treatment effect of assignment to the microtargeting versus naïve strategy in the experimental phase of Study 1, and the right-hand panel shows the average treatment effect of assignment to the microtargeting versus single-best-message condition. In all cases, effect estimates are presented as percentage points and are estimated using OLS models with robust SEs. We show results for each of the two individual modules, as well as a precision-weighted mean calculated across these two modules. For the U.S. Citizenship Act module, respondents in the microtargeting condition were targeted based on either their partisan affiliation (Profile 1); their age and ideological self-placement (Profile 2); or their age, ideological self-placement, and endorsement of two sets of moral values (the “binding” foundations of authority, loyalty, and sanctity and the “individualizing” foundations of care and fairness; Profile 3). For the UBI module, respondents in the microtargeting condition were targeted based on either their endorsement of these “individualizing” moral foundations (Profile 1); their endorsement of both the “individualizing” and “binding” moral foundations (Profile 2); or their age, gender identity, and endorsement of these two sets of moral foundations (Profile 3). For more information about how these covariate profiles were selected, see Materials and Methods.