1
It is all in the message
Message framing and the influence of campaign focus on attitude and actual
purchase behaviour of environmentally friendly products.
Name Demi Appel
Student number 11057726 Supervisor Marieke Fransen Assignment Master thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s program Communication Science
Date 27th of June, 2019
2 Abstract
Through an online experiment, this study looked at the effects of message framing (gain vs. loss) and campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour among Dutch adults. The current study aimed to explain the contradicting findings regarding message framing in the context of environmental
communication. The results showed that there were no significant main effects of message framing and campaign focus on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. The hypothesized interaction effect was partly supported for attitude. It was shown that gain-framed (vs. loss) messages led to more positive attitudes, when there is a focus on
environmental (vs. individual) consequences. There was no significant interaction effect between message framing and campaign focus on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. It can be concluded that campaigns focusing on the environment benefit more from a gain (vs. loss) framed message, whereas for campaigns focused on the individual, the framing of a message does not seem to matter. Marketeers thus need to keep their campaign focus in mind in order to decide what message frame should be used.
4 Introduction
Sustainability has become an increasingly important topic on the agenda of both society and companies. Recently several supermarkets in the Netherlands announced that they aim to decrease the amount of packaging used for their products. Albert Heijn, for example, started a campaign in 2018 with the goal to reduce packaging by 25% and make all packaging for their own brand 100% recyclable by 2025 (Nieuws Albert Heijn, 2018). At the same time, Albert Heijn wants to stimulate their customers to be more environmentally friendly by, for example, encouraging them to buy reusable bags for fruits and vegetables. While organisations are becoming more interested in environmentally friendly products, it is still unclear to them how they can best develop an effective message that persuades people to consume these
environmentally friendly products. According to Grimmer and Woolley (2014) little is known about what precisely is perceived to be important in environmental communication, and opinions vary on what will trigger environmentally friendly consumption behaviour.
Environmentally friendly consumption behaviour refers to consumption behaviours that are perceived to have either a nil, minimal or reduced impact on the environment. Examples are recycling, reducing water waste, purchasing environmentally friendly products, and so on (Johnstone & Tan, 2015). In practice we often see that the marketing of environmentally friendly products focuses either on the negative or positive consequences of (not) using an environmentally friendly product (Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015). Practitioners in the field are uncertain about which message strategy works best. This is not strange, seeing that even within the field of communication research there are contradicting findings on the effect of message framing on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. Additionally, findings on message framing from other communication fields (such as health or social marketing) cannot simply be extended to environmental communication. Framing within the field of environmental communication differs from other communication research fields, because the behaviours studied within communication science usually have a more direct impact on the individual (e.g., for health communication: lack of exercise resulting in being overweight). This is not the case for environmental communication, within this area the consequences of the performed behaviour (e.g., recycling or eating less meat) do not show immediately. So, recipients of environmentally friendly communication messages do not have the certainty that they can avoid the negative consequences when performing the desired behaviour. This unique characteristic of message framing within the environmental communication area, asks for further investigation and, consequently, clarification.
5 Message framing can be divided in two dominant strategies, namely gain framing and loss framing (Segev et al., 2015). Studies that focused on message framing within the area of environmental communication found different findings (Lord, 1994; Obermiller, 1995). Lord (1994) found that gain frames elicit more favourable attitudes towards recycling and loss-framed messages (from an acquaintance) were more effective in influencing actual recycling behaviour. Obermiller (1995) found that this effect was dependent on issue salience. It is therefore important to get insight into what kind of message frame is most effective in which context. It is possible that message framing works differently in different situations. Within the marketing of environmentally friendly products, the messages most often focusses either on the consequences for the individual (consumer) or for the environment (Segev et al., 2015). A consequence of purchasing a product for the environment can be the decelerating of climate change and a consequence for the individual can be lowering of costs. In the field of
communication there has been a lot of contradicting findings as to whether it is better to emphasize the consequences for the environment or the individual (campaign focus). Some studies have reported that more positive consumer outcomes are gained when messages express the consequences for the environment instead of individual consequences (Green & Peloza, 2014; Kareklas, Carlson, & Muehling, 2012; Matthes & Wonneberger, 2013), but other studies have reported that it does not matter (Borin, Lindsey-Mullikin, & Krishnan, 2013; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014). Little attempt has been made to examine the interaction of message frames with campaign focus (Loroz, 2007). Taking a look at the literature, an
interaction could be expected since it has been shown that people pay more attention to messages that contain negative consequences for themselves (Segev et al., 2015) while causes that are perceived to be more distant (e.g. climate change) benefit more from a gain-framed message (Nan, 2007).
This research therefore examines whether the previously observed mixed findings for message framing in environmental communication research can be explained based on
campaign focus.This study will provide interesting insights into whether people are willing to purchase an environmentally friendly product by measuring their actual behaviour next to their attitude. According to Gallagher and Updegraff (2012) the fundamental measurement when testing message framing effects should be actual behavioural change, since attitudes and intentions do not automatically lead to actual behavioural change. Since climate change is often perceived as something distant, the actual making of environmentally friendly choices here and now can be rather difficult, even though people do tend to care about the
6 environment (Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, & Whitmarsh, 2007).This makes it interesting to look at these two dependent variables specifically. The type of behaviour that will be studied is the purchase of cotton fruit and vegetable bags over the use of plastic bags. This type of behaviour has an important influence on the environment as it reduces the use of plastic bags, which has carryover effects such as limiting ocean pollution. Being aware of the impact of message frame (gain vs. loss) together with the specifications under which this effect will be enhanced or lessened (individual vs. environmental consequences) on consumer responses, can provide relevant insights for marketeers of environmentally friendly products. Marketeers use a diverse set of message designs in their marketing for environmentally friendly products and try out different methods to get their message across (Loroz, 2007). A more systematic examination of the factors involved could lead to enhanced message effectiveness. The main question that thus will be investigated is as follows: What is the effect of message framing on attitude and purchase behaviour towards environmentally friendly products among Dutch adults, and is this effect moderated by campaign focus?
Conceptual framework
As described above, findings on what kind of messages best affect consumer responses to environmentally friendly products, is rather limited (Segev et al., 2015). The current research attempts to provide more insight in order to develop effective persuasive messages going forward. Below, the used variables in this research will be described and hypotheses will be formulated based on theory.
Message framing
Within persuasive communication research, prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) has received a considerable amount of attention. Prospect theory is most often applied to message framing and particularly to gain- and loss-framing. Gain-framed messages emphasize the advantages of complying with the recommended behaviour, while loss-framed messages emphasize the disadvantages of failing to comply with the recommended behaviour (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2009). An example of a gain-framed message could be that the purchase of an environmentally friendly product has a positive impact on the environment, while a loss-framed message could stress that an alternative product has a bad influence on the
environment. According to prospect theory, whether a message is presented as a potential gain or loss influences consumers’ decision making. Positively or negatively framed statements will thus result in different decisions (Tu, Kao, & Yi-Chan, 2013). It is important to note that
7 perceived risk is associated with the recommended behaviour in the message and this may determine the persuasiveness of gain-and loss framing (Van ’t Riet et al., 2016). Prospect theory states that people are more risk-seeking when a potential outcome is considered as a loss and are more risk-averse when a potential outcome is considered as a gain. According to prospect theory, for high-risk actions loss-framed messages are thus more persuasive than gain-frame messages, and for low-risk actions gain-framed messages are more persuasive (Tu et al., 2013). It is therefore also argued by several researchers that gain-framed messages are more persuasive for prevention behaviour (e.g., condom use to prevent pregnancy), seeing that this is a rather low-risk behaviour and that loss-framed messages are more persuasive for detection behaviour (e.g., checking for STDs) because this is a high-risk behaviour (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; Van ’t Riet et al., 2016). According to Loroz (2007) the purchase of an environmentally friendly product can be perceived as a prevention behaviour, seeing that it can contribute to maintaining or even the improvement of the well-being of the environment. The purchase of environmentally friendly products can therefore be perceived as a low-risk behaviour, since there is no immediate risk to the recipient of the message. Based on prospect theory it could be expected that gain-framed messages are more persuasive than loss-framed messages in the case of environmental communication.
Message framing has played a vital role within the field of health communication and social marketing research but has not been examined very thoroughly within environmental communication research (Segev et al., 2015). The results of research that is available on environmental communication have been rather mixed. While Segev et al. (2015) found gain-framed messages to be more effective in eliciting positive attitudes, other researchers within the field found that loss-framed messages are more persuasive because of consumers
tendencies to perceive negative information as more salient and credible (Davis, 1995). Other research showed that the effect of framing is dependent on issue salience. Obermiller (1995) found loss frames to be more effective on low salience issues and gain frames more effective on high salience issues. However, there are also multiple studies that did not find any
significant effects of message framing on environmentally friendly behaviour (Loroz, 2007; White, MacDonnel & Dahl, 2011). Due to these contradicting findings it is still unclear whether a gain-framed message or a loss-framed message is more effective in influencing consumers’ attitudes and consumption behaviour within the context of environmental communication. Therefore, the following research question is posed:
8 RQ1: Is there an effect of message framing (gain vs. loss) on attitude and purchase behaviour towards environmentally friendly products?
Because of these contradicting results regarding the effect of message framing on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, a potential moderating variable will be taken into account within the current study. These contradicting results discussed above, could potentially be fully moderated by campaign focus.
Campaign focus
Within environmental communication, consequences of individuals’ actions can be twofold: the consequences can affect the individual itself but also others. A consequence for the individual could be that an environmentally friendly product benefits your health because it does not contain certain chemicals, while a benefit for the environment could be that the product reduces the environmental impact because it reduces litter. Research regarding environmental communication can be divided in messages directed at consequences for the individual or directed at consequences for the environment (society) (Segev et al., 2015). According to Fisher, van den Bosch and Antia (2008), a message that focusses on the
consequences for the environment can be referred to as ‘other-benefit’ appeals and a message that focusses on the consequences for the individual ‘self-benefit’. Environmental
communication has mainly focused on the consequences for the environment when
purchasing an environmentally friendly product (Banerjee, Gulas & Lyer, 1995). Within the research field it has been debated what kind of message strategy is more effective. There are researchers that claim that focusing on the social consciousness of consumers is enough to affect their purchase behaviour (Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo, 2001; Polonsky, 2011). In contrast, researchers have proposed that individuals respond more positively to environmental communication when they perceive a direct individual benefit of purchasing the environmentally friendly product next to an environmental benefit (Grimmer, 2011). Due to these non-conclusive findings the following research question has been developed:
RQ2: Is there an effect of campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) on attitude and purchase behaviour towards environmentally friendly products?
Interaction effect message strategy
9 conducted in the area of health communication. Within this domain the majority examined behaviours that are directly relevant for the individual (e.g., losing weight by eating healthier or exercise more) rather than for the collective (White et al., 2011). The type of behaviour that will be studied in this research (purchasing environmentally friendly products) is perceived to have more consequences for the collective, which gives this type of behaviour a unique self-control trade-off for individuals. Namely it would, for example, be more convenient for individuals to grab a plastic bag every time they need to buy fruit or vegetables at the
supermarket instead of bringing their own bag every time. However, in the long run bringing your own cotton bag will be better for the well-being of the collective. Thus, individuals (when performing the desired behaviour) must engage in inconvenient behaviour that is more of an effort at first, but in the end will benefit the collective (White et al., 2011). Therefore, for the behaviour that is studied in this research it is not only important to look at losses and gains, but it is also important to consider for whom these losses and gains count; the
individual or the collective. In this study the collective refers to the environment. So, while there have been studies about the effectiveness of message framing in the area of
environmental communication, not much is known about the interaction effect between messages framing and campaign focus (individual vs. environmental). Such examination is however reasonable since environmentally friendly communication frequently focuses on the consequences for individuals or the environment. Construal level theory (CLT) can shed some light into this situation.
CLT talks about the association between psychological (social) distance (e.g., the self vs. others) and the extent of individuals’ construal level thinking. It is argued that, depending on psychological distance, the same (persuasive) information can be interpreted differently (Trope, Liberman, & Kruglanski, 2000). The closer an event is, the more it will be construed in concrete and detailed features, this is referred to as low level construal. On the contrary, the more distant an event is, the more likely it will be presented in terms of abstract features (Chang, Zhang, & Xie, 2015), this is referred to as high level construal. Förster, Friedman and Liberman (2004) suggested that near future consequences facilitate detailed/concrete thinking, while distant future consequences facilitate more abstract thinking. It is plausible to reason that messages that communicate different temporal consequences stimulate other construal levels among the receivers, since many advertisements for environmentally friendly products emphasize either the present or future consequences of using the product.
10 might represent different levels on construal (Cho, Chun, & Lee, 2018). Labroo and Patrick (2009) found that a positive mood triggers abstract construal (high-level construal) because people then feel able to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. While a negative mood triggers a more concrete construal (low-level construal), because this signals danger and threat. Chang et al. (2015) argued that message framing corresponds with positive and negative mood. They argued that gain-framed messages evoke positive feelings because they focus on benefits and loss-framed messages trigger negative feelings because they focus on the disadvantages. This ultimately leads to different outcomes in construal level. Nan (2007) argued that the effects of message framing could be moderated by construal level (and
psychological distance). She found that the effectiveness of gain-framed messages is stronger when people must judge distant social entities (e.g., the environment) compared to when they must judge close entities (e.g., the self). This is because mental representations of others are less rich than those of the self (Loroz, 2007). Consequently, other-referencing messages tend to be less involving than self-referencing messages, which leads to less cognitive resources to process the message. Research has shown that gain-framed messages require a smaller
amount of elaboration and therefore fewer resources have to be used compared to loss-framed messages (Loroz, 2007). In contrast, it has been shown that loss-framed messages are
particularly powerful regarding concrete communication (e.g., how to recycle) and when the focus was on consequences for the current generation instead of the future generation (Davis, 1995). A match between loss-framing and concrete thinking, and between gain-framing and abstract thinking, will possibly lead to greater processing fluency and understanding (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Lee and Aaker (2004) showed that this information fluency had a positive effect on consumer evaluations (attitude) and their consumption choices (Novemsky, Dhar & Schwarz, 2007). Segev et al. (2015) also found results in the same line, they showed that a self-referencing loss-framed message increased purchase intention compared to an other-referencing loss-framed message. Nan (2007) showed that gain-framed messages were more persuasive when people had to make judgements about socially distant individuals but did however not find loss-framing to work better in judging close identities and thus asked for further investigation on this topic.
Based on the above, an interaction effect between message frame and campaign focus is expected. Explicitly, loss-framed messages focusing on the consequences for the individual (vs. environment) will cause more positive attitudes and environmentally friendly
11 environment (vs. individual) will cause more positive attitudes and purchase behaviour:
H1: A loss (vs. gain) framed message will be more effective when there is a focus on
individual (vs. environmental) consequences, while a gain (vs. loss) framed message is more effective when there is a focus on environmental (vs. individual) consequences.
Based on the theory discussed above and the hypothesis, the following conceptual model (see Figure 1) has been constructed:
Method
Participants and design
The study used a 2 (message frame: gain vs. loss) x 2 (campaign focus: individual vs.
environmental) between-subject design. A convenience sample of Dutch adults participated in an online experiment. Participants were acquired online by a call on the researchers' Facebook page and via WhatsApp. Dutch men and women over the age of eighteen were used for the current research. In total 206 participants started the experiment, of which 23 participants did not completely finish it. These participants were removed from the dataset, which resulted in a total of 183 participants that were used for the analyses. Participants were aged between 18 and 62 (M = 31.87, SD = 12.51). Furthermore, 116 of the participants were female (63.4%) and 67 were male (36.6%), the most frequently occurring level of education was higher vocational education (38.3%) followed closely by scientific education (32.8%).
12 Procedure
Participants were asked to partake in the online study in a quiet environment where they would experience little or no distraction. Before the experiment started, participants were informed about the study and in order to participate they had to actively sign the informed consent. With this their anonymity was guaranteed and the fact that their answers or data would not be shared with third parties unless they would give their explicit permission. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of the four conditions.The between-subjects design brought the advantage that participants could not be influenced by previous
experiences during another treatment (Gravetter & Forzano, 2012). After exposure to the stimulus material, participants received the questionnaire where the variables were measured in the following order: attitude and then purchase behaviour. After this they received the manipulation check questions. The participants were then asked about several demographic characteristics such as their gender, age and educational level. Finally, the participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation, it was also reported that the participants could send an e-mail if they wanted to know anything about the purpose of the research.
Independent variables (stimulus material):
Message framing and campaign focus were both experimentally manipulated. Message framing was manipulated through emphasizing the positive consequences of buying cotton bags (gain-framed message) or negative consequences of not choosing the cotton bag (loss-framed message). Campaign focus was manipulated by distinguishing between the (positive and negative) consequences for the individual and the (positive and negative) consequences for the environment. The consequences for the individual were related to the shelf life of the fruit and vegetables, while the consequences for the environment were focused on plastic waste. This resulted in the following four conditions:
1. Negative individual: ‘By not using cotton bags for fruit and vegetables (but plastic bags) your products will rot sooner because they don’t have the space to breath.’
2. Positive individual: ‘By using cotton bags for fruit and vegetables (instead of plastic bags) you make sure your products stay fresh for a longer period, by giving them the space to breath.’
3. Negative environment: ‘By not using cotton bags for fruit and vegetables (but plastic bags) you cause plastic waste that is harmful for the environment’
4. Positive environment: ‘By using cotton bag for fruit and vegetables (instead of plastic bags) you contribute to a better environment by diminishing plastic waste’
13 Pre-test
To check whether the stimulus material used in the experiment was manipulated correctly, a pre-test was conducted. In the pre-test participants saw all four posters and after each poster received two questions, namely the manipulation check for message framing and campaign focus. Participants had to respond to the following question: ‘The poster emphasized…’ followed by a 7-point bipolar scale: …(1) what would be gained if you choose the cotton bag and … (7) what would be lost if you do not choose the cotton bag. The manipulation check for campaign focus also consisted of a similar scale. Participants had to respond to the following question: ‘The poster emphasized…’ succeeded by a 7-point bipolar scale: … (1) the consequences for me as an individual … (7) the consequences for the environment as a whole. The scales were based on the study of Asbeek-Brusse, Fransen, and Smit (2017).
Sixteen respondents with an average age of 25.44 years (SD = 8.86) participated in this pre-test. Of the sixteen respondents, seven were male and nine were female. To check whether the posters were perceived as they were intended (loss vs. gain and individual vs. environmental), two paired samples t-tests were conducted. The results from the pre-test showed that the manipulation of message frame had succeeded. A paired samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference in whether the participants perceived the poster to communicate positive (M = 1.31, SD = 0.79) or negative consequences (M = 6.69, SD = 0.79), t (15) = -9.64, p < .001, d = 4.68 (1=gain and 7=loss). The results from the pre-test also showed that the manipulation of campaign focus had succeeded. A paired sample t-test showed that there was a significant difference in whether the participants perceived the poster to communicate consequences for the individual (M = 1.72, SD = 1.03) or the environment (M = 6.50, SD = 1.00), t (15) = 11.43, p < .001, d = 2.91 (1=individual and 7=environment). The stimulus material can be viewed in Appendix 2.
Attitude
The participants were asked to evaluate what they thought about the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables. Attitude was measured using a four-item seven-point semantic differential scales (e.g., Bad — Good; Dislike — Like) derived from the study of Batra and Ray (1986). The full scale can be found in Appendix 3. The four items were averaged into one attitude measure (α = 0.93; M = 5.77, SD = 1.18).
14 Environmentally friendly consumption behaviour
Environmentally friendly consumption behaviour was measured using two questions. Firstly, participants were asked how many bags they wanted to buy. In this section it appeared as if they could actually purchase the bags right there and then. Participants could choose to purchase any number of bags from 0 to 10 bags. Another measurement for environmentally friendly consumption behaviour was the option to receive more information about the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables. It is possible that people do not like the idea of buying the products right there and then, even though they are interested. Therefore, people were informed that if they were interested in the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables, they could click a button and receive more information. Afterwards the participants were debriefed that it was not actually possible to purchase the product via the researcher, but they did get the option to receive more information if they were interested. This is a low-threshold way of measuring environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. For the second measurement of environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, only the participants that did not want to buy the product in the previous question were relevant. This is because all other participants already indicated that they wanted to purchase the product. So, in order to form the second measurement of environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, all participants that reported other answers than ‘zero cotton bags for fruit and vegetables’ in the previous question, were filtered out. This resulted in 44 participants that were used for the tests.
Control variables
Gender, age and level of education served as control variables. These variables were
measured by asking for age by means of an open question at the end of the questionnaire; for gender, participants could choose between male and female and for level of education participants could choose between the options: no education, primary education, primary vocational education , lower secondary education (VMBO, VBO, Mavo), senior secondary vocational education (MBO), higher secondary education (Havo, VWO), higher vocational education (HBO), scientific education (WO).
Results
Randomization check
To check whether the randomization was successful and thus whether any control variables should be included in the analyses, a chi-square test was performed for gender and level of education. A variance analysis was performed for the variable age. As expected, it was
15 showed by the chi-square test that gender (χ2 (2) = 0.52; p = .915) differed significantly
between the four conditions. The results for level of education revealed that 12 cells (50%) had an expected count lower than five. Due to this a Fisher’s Exact test was conducted as an alternative, the results showed no statistically significant difference between the four
conditions for level of education (p = .235, two tailed). The variance analysis for age also showed that the four groups did not differ significantly (F (3, 165) = 0.56, p = .643). This means that the participants were equally distributed to the four conditions, which means that the randomization was successful.
Manipulation check
In the actual experiment the same manipulation check as in the pre-test was used. To check whether the manipulations for message framing and campaign focus worked, two independent samples t-tests were used. The results showed that the manipulation of message framing had succeeded. An independent samples t-test showed that there was asignificant difference in whether the participants perceived the poster to communicate positive (M = 2.14, SD = 1.46) or negative consequences (M = 5.04, SD = 2.31) on a scale from 1 (gain) to 7 (loss), t (181) = -10.12; p < .001, 95% CI [-3.47, -2.34], d = 1.65.The results showed that the manipulation of campaign focus had also succeeded. An independent samples t-test showed that there was a significant difference in whether the participants perceived the poster to communicate
consequences for the individual or the environment, between individual (M = 3.00, SD = 2.17) and environment (M = 5.95, SD = 1.18) on a scale from 1 (individual) to 7 (environmental), t (181) = -11.41; p < .001, 95% CI [-3.45, -2.44], d = 1.61.
Research questions and hypothesis testing
For research question one it was investigated whether message framing had an effect on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. Research question two investigated whether campaign focus had an effect on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. For hypothesis one, it was expected that a loss (vs. gain) framed message will be more effective when there is a focus on individual (vs. environmental) consequences, while a gain (vs. loss) framed message is more effective when there is a focus on environmental (vs. individual) consequences. For these research questions and the
hypothesis a two-way analysis of variance was used, with message framing (gain vs. loss) and campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) as independent variables of which the joint and separate effect had to be investigated on the dependent variables ‘attitude’ and
16 ‘environmentally friendly consumption behaviour’.
Research question 1
The analysis showed no significant effect of message framing on attitude, F (3, 179) = 1.00; p = .318. This means that participants did not differ on their attitudes towards the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables based on receiving a gain- (M = 5.81, SD = 0.13) or loss-framed message (M = 5.63, SD = 0.13). Next to that, there was no a significant effect of message framing found on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, F (1, 179) = 0.01; p = .910. Participants did not differ in their environmentally friendly consumption behaviour based on receiving a gain- (M = 2.53, SD = 0.26) or loss-framed message (M = 2.57, SD = 0.26). Additionally, there was not a significant effect of message framing on the second measure for environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, F (3, 40) = 2.54; p = .119. Participants did not differ in their environmentally friendly consumption behaviour based on receiving a gain- (M = 0.29, SD = 0.09) or loss-framed message (M = 0.10, SD = 0.09). This means that message framing does influence attitude and environmentally friendly
consumption behaviour.
Research question 2
The analysis showed no significant effect of campaign focus on attitude, F (3, 179) = 0.16; p = .694. This means that participants did not differ on their attitudes towards the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables, based on receiving messages focusing on the individual consequences (M = 5.68, SD = 0.12) or the environment consequences (M = 5.75, SD = 0.12). Next to that, no significant effect of campaign focus was found on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, F (1, 179) = 0.04; p = .838. Participants did not differ in their environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, based on receiving messages focusing on the individual consequences (M = 2.59, SD = 0.26) or the environment consequences (M = 2.52, SD = 0.26). Additionally, there was not a significant effect of campaign focus on the second measure for environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, F (3, 40) = 0.47; p = .496. Participants did not differ in their environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, based on receiving messages focusing on the individual consequences (M = 0.15, SD = 0.08) or the
environmental consequences (M = 0.23, SD = 0.09). This means that it cannot be concluded that campaign focus influences attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. There is no difference as to whether the consequences presented in the message are for the individual or for the environment.
17 Hypothesis 1
To check the hypothesis that a loss (vs. gain) framed message will be more effective when there is a focus on individual (vs. environmental) consequences, while a gain (vs. loss) framed message is more effective when there is a focus on environmental (vs. individual)
consequences, an univariate ANOVA was conducted with message framing (gain vs. loss) and campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) as independent variables, and attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour as dependent variables. A small significant interaction effect between message framing and campaign focus was found for attitude towards the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables, F (3, 179) = 4.05; p = .046, η2 = 0.02.
Simple main effects analysis showed that gain-framed messages led to more positive attitudes than loss-framed messages when the consequences were focused on the environment, though message framing had no effect when the consequences were focused on the individual (vs. environment). So while there was no significant difference between messages focused on the consequences for the individual (M = 5.77, SD = 1.06) and the environment (M = 5.48, SD = 1.51) on attitude (F (1, 179) = 0.51, p = .475) for loss framed messages, gain-framed
messages do lead to more positive attitudes when there is a focus on environmental (M = 6.03, SD = 1.01) (vs. individual (M = 5.59, SD = 1.29) consequences (F (1, 179) = 4.52, p = .035). A visual representation of the differences in means can be found in Figure 2.
18 The ANOVA also showed that there was no significant interaction effect between message framing and campaign focus on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour, F (1, 179) = 0.15; p = .703. The second measurement of environmentally friendly consumption
behaviour also did not reach significance, F (3, 40) = 0.58; p = .450.
This means that hypothesis one can be partly confirmed: a gain (vs. loss) framed message leads to more positive attitudes when there is a focus on environmental (vs. individual) consequences. The hypothesized interaction effect for environmentally friendly consumption behaviour was not found, so that part of the hypothesis cannot be confirmed.
Conclusion and discussion
Within this study an attempt was made to explain the contradicting findings regarding
message framing in the context of environmental communication (Davis, 1995; Loroz, 2007; Segev et al., 2015; White et al., 2011). By means of an online experiment it was studied what the direct effect of message framing (gain vs. loss) and campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) was on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour among Dutch adults, as was the interaction effect. The decision for both these factors arose from studying appeals within the environmental marketing. The use of both message framing (gain and loss-framing) appeals as the campaign focus (individual and environmental) varies in practice. The current study attempted to provide a more systematic examination of both factors, which may lead to improved message effectiveness in practice.
Both research questions of the conceptual model (see Figure 1) did not reach significance. Considering the first research question within the conceptual model (see Figure 1), it can be concluded that there is no direct effect of message framing on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. There were no significant findings regarding the influence of message framing (gain vs. loss) on both attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. Previous findings on this topic have been very divergent. There are researchers who found results in favour of loss-framing (Davis, 1995) and others were in favour of gain-framing (Segev et al., 2015), while it also has been found that there is no significant effect of message framing on attitude and environmentally friendly consumption behaviour (Loroz, 2007; White et al., 2011). The second research question within the conceptual model (see Figure 1), also did not show a significant effect. There were no significant findings regarding
19 the direct influence of campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) on attitude and
environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. Researchers showed mixed results regarding campaign focus. Laroche et al. (2001) and Polonsky (2011) both found that focussing on environmental consequences were most effective in affecting individuals’ purchase behaviour, while Grimmer (2011) found that individuals respond more positively to environmental communication when they perceive a direct individual benefit of purchasing the environmentally friendly product next to an environmental benefit. The insignificant findings regarding these research questions attribute to the relevance of this study. As was argued; people’s reactions are not solely based on whether the message is placed in a positive or a negative frame, it is also dependent on the campaign focus that is used in the message.
The interaction effect within the hypothesized model (see Figure 1) was however indeed partly significant. A significant interaction effect between message framing and campaign focus was found on attitude towards the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables. After inspection of the simple main effects, it was shown that this interaction effect was only significant for gain-framing, specifically in that a gain (vs. loss) framed message leads to a more positive attitude when there is a focus on environmental (vs. individual) consequences. The hypothesis that a loss framed message (vs. gain) leads to a more positive attitude when there is a focus on the individual (vs. environmental) consequences was thus not supported. Due to this, the interaction effect cannot be fully supported for attitude. The insignificant finding for the intended interaction between loss-framing and focusing on the individual consequences could have to do with the kind of consequence that was communicated in this particular condition within the study. It is possible that the participants did not perceive the communicated consequence as a severe consequence, as the negative individual consequence within this study was that your products will rot sooner in a plastic bag. It was asked whether people perceived this threat to be relevant to them or the environment, but not to what extent they perceived the threat to be severe. It is possible that the participants did not find the
communicated loss to be that important, causing the intended influence not to be exerted. Other studies that did find significant results regarding these variables used messages that communicated financial consequences (Segev et al., 2015), which potentially outweighs the consequences communicated in the current study. For future research, perceived relevance could thus be taken into consideration as a possible moderator.
20 message framing and campaign focus on environmentally friendly consumption behaviour. The insignificant finding regarding consumption behaviour could be explained based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour, this theory proposes that intention is the most direct
determinant of behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Intention is in return influenced by three factors: (1) attitude; the general evaluation of the behaviour, (2) subjective norm; expectations about what other people think of certain behaviour and the social pressure they experience to comply with it and (3) perceived behavioural control; the perceived difficulty to perform the behaviour. As explained in the Theory of Planned Behaviour, there are several other factors that precede actual behavioural change. It is thus possible that even though someone’s attitude is positive, other variables in the Theory of Planned Behaviour are not, which causes actual behavioural change to be left out. Future research could focus on this, by taking the Theory of Planned Behaviour as a framework/ starting point for their design of the study. Additionally, the insignificant finding regarding consumption behaviour could also have to do with the way this variable was measured. Participants were asked whether they wanted to purchase the product right there and then, even though they did not know from whom they were purchasing the product. This could have resulted in the reluctance of participants to purchase more bags for fruit and vegetables. It is possible that when the participants could have purchased the product from a familiar brand, they would have been more willing to purchase the product. According to Gotlieb and Sarel (1991) a credible source results in higher purchase intention. For future research it would therefore be interesting to study whether source credibility has an influence on participants willingness to purchase the product. What is also important to keep in mind for future research, is that in the current study participants could not report whether they already used cotton bags for fruit and vegetables (or a similar product). It is possible that there were participants that were already in the possession of such products, which resulted in them not wanting to purchase the product. On the other hand, it could be argued that the
participants were equally distributed to the conditions by means of the random assignment, making this potential confounding variable irrelevant. But this variable was not measured as a potential confounding variable, which made it impossible to check for this. The insignificant results regarding consumption behaviour could be due to this. It could also potentially explain why participants attitudes were rather positive, but their consumption behaviour was not. This should therefore be kept in mind when looking at the results. Future research should thus take this into consideration when designing the questionnaire.
21 (CLT). This theory states that depending on psychological distance, the same (persuasive) information can be interpreted differently. Stating that the closer an event is, the more it will be construed in concrete and detailed features (low level construal), while the more distant an event is, the more likely it will be presented in terms of abstract features (high level construal) (Chang et al., 2015). Lee and Aaker (2004) showed that a match between loss-framing and concrete thinking, and between gain-framing and abstract thinking led to greater processing fluency and understanding. Their research also showed that this information fluency had a positive effect on consumers’ evaluations (attitude) and Novemsky et al. (2007) showed that this had a positive effect on consumers consumption choices. The current study contradicts these notions and the findings of Segev et al. (2015), but are however in line with Lu et al. (2018) and Nan (2007). Lu et al. (2018) and Nan (2007) both found significant interaction effects between gain-framing and other-referencing on attitude and behavioural intention, and no significant interaction effect between loss-framing and self-referencing. In contrast Segev et al. (2015) did find a significant interaction effect between loss-framing and self-referencing on attitude and purchase intention, but they did not find a significant interaction effect for gain-framing and other-referencing on attitude and purchase intention. Even though their result was not significant for gain-framing and other-referencing, it did follow the predicted direction and further investigation was requested by Segev et al. (2015). The current study adhered to this request and did show a significant interaction effect between gain-framing and other-referencing. The reason the current study did find a significant result and the study of Segev et al. (2015) did not, could have to do with the type of products used in the studies. The current study used cotton bags for fruit and vegetables, a newly introduced product, while Segev et al. (2015) used laundry detergent, an already existing product category. For this product most people already have particular preferences for brands. It is possible that cotton bags for fruit and vegetables therefore were evaluated more positively in this condition, as it is likely that the participants had no prior existing attitudes towards this new type of product and no explicit brand name was named. This however lays beyond the scope of this research and can only be confirmed if future research should follow the currently used research design and add an extra variable: product category (existing vs. new).
Theoretical implications
As has been outlined above the current study contributes to the scientific literature in several ways. Firstly, these findings contribute to the current research on message framing in the context of environmental communication. Even though, environmental advertising has
22 increased tremendously, only a few studies have specifically looked at gain-framing and loss-framing in affecting consumers’ attitudes and actual consumption behaviour. The current study provides better understanding of message framing in environmental communication by clarifying the influence through another variable. This study thus highlights the importance of the right fit between message framing and campaign focus in order to promote positive attitudes with environmental communication. Secondly the current study partly supports the CLT, but also shows that the theory needs to be refined. Together with other studies, the current study found no support for the notion of CLT that loss-framing works best with close social entities (Lu et al., 2018; Nan, 2007). Further examination is thus needed in this area to investigate whether CLT needs some adjustments or additions. According to a meta-analysis of Soderberg et al. (2015) on CLT, there has not been much examinations of boundary conditions of the effects of psychological distance. The existing research on CLT has been concerned with displaying how psychological distance influences the extent of individuals’ construal thinking, but it has not been thoroughly researched when, for whom, and/or whether this relation holds. So more empirical research is needed in this area which can redefine and contribute to the theory.
Practical implications
With this study an initial attempt was made to study the effectiveness of two commonly used strategies, being message framing and campaign focus, and apply these to advertisements of environmentally friendly products. Seeing that advertising is an important information source for potential consumers of environmentally friendly products, the current study provides practical insight for marketeers of environmentally friendly products. Due to a more systematic examination of both message framing and campaign focus in the current study, substantiated advice can be given to marketeers. Firstly, marketeers should always keep in mind for whom their product has the most consequences when considering their marketing strategy. When the focus lies on the consequences for the environment, marketeers should communicate potential gains (vs. loss) when trying to positively influence consumers
attitudes. Campaigns focused on the consequences for the individual seem less susceptible to changes in positive or negative tone. So, when advertising an environmentally friendly product, marketeers’ considerations about framing should be based on the fit between message framing and campaign focus. As this study showed: it is all in the message.
23 References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211.
Banerjee, S., Gulas, C., & Lyer, E. (1995). Shades of green: A multidimensional analysis of environmental advertising. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 21–31.
Batra, R., & Ray, M. (1986). Affective responses mediating acceptance of advertising. Journal of Consumer Research, 13(2), 234-249.
Borin, N., Lindsey-Mullikin, J., & Krishnan, R. (2013). An analysis of consumer reactions to green strategies. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 22(2), 118-128.
Brusse, E., Fransen, M., & Smit, E. (2017). Framing in entertainment-education: Effects on processes of narrative persuasion. Health Communication, 32(12), 1501-1509.
Chang, H., Zhang, L., & Xie, G. (2015). Message framing in green advertising: The effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. International Journal of
Advertising,34(1), 158-176.
Cho, J., Chun, J., & Lee, M. (2018). Impacts of message framing and social distance in health campaign for promoting regular physical exercise. Journal of Health Communication, 23(9), 824-835.
Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72 (2), 285–299.
Fisher, R., Van den Bosch, M., & Antia, K. (2008). An empathy‐helping perspective on consumers’ responses to fund‐raising appeals. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 519-531.
Förster, J., Friedman, R., & Liberman, N. (2004). Temporal construal affects on abstract and concrete thinking: Consequences for insight and creative cognition. Journal of Personality
24 and Social Psychology, 87(2), 177–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.177
Gallagher, K., & Updegraff, M. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes,
intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101-116.
Gotlieb, J., & Sarel, D. (1991). Comparative advertising effectiveness: The role of involvement and source credibility. Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 38-45.
Gravetter, F, K., & Forzano, L.B. (2012). Research methods for behavioural sciences. Belmong, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Green, T., & Peloza, J. (2014). Finding the right shade of green: The effect of advertising appeal type on environmentally friendly consumption. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 128-141.
Grimmer, M., & Woolley, M. (2014). Green marketing messages and consumers' purchase intentions: Promoting personal versus environmental benefits. Journal of Marketing Communications, 20(4), 231-250.
Johnstone, M., & Tan, L. (2015). Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 132(2), 311-328.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2012). The role of regulatory focus and selfview in "green" advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 25-39.
Labroo, A., & Patrick, V. (2009). Psychological distancing: why happiness helps you see the big picture. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 800-809.
Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro-Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18(6),
25 503-520.
Lee, A., Aaker, J., & Devine, Patricia. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 86(2), 205-218.
Lee, Jung, & Lee, Jae-Nam. (2013). How purchase intention consummates purchase
behaviour: The stochastic nature of product valuation in electronic commerce. Behaviour & Information Technology, 34(1), 1-34.
Lord, K. (1994). Motivating recycling behaviour: A quasi experimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychology and Marketing, 11(4), 341-358.
Lorenzoni, Nicholson-Cole, & Whitmarsh. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3), 445-459.
Loroz, P. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology and Marketing, 24(11), 1001-1023.
Matthes, J., & Wonneberger, A. (2014). The sceptical green consumer revisited: Testing the relationship between green consumerism and scepticism toward advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(2), 115-127.
Nan, Xiaoli. (2007). Social distance, framing, and judgment: A construal level perspective. Human Communication Research,33(4), 489-514.
Nieuws Albert Heijn. (2018). Samen naar minder verpakkingen en meer recycling. Retrieved from https://nieuws.ah.nl/samen-naar-minder-verpakkingen-en-meer-recycling/
Obermiller, C. (1995). The baby is sick/ the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals. Journal of Advertising,24(2), 55-70.
26 O'Keefe, D., & Jensen, J. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain‐framed and loss‐Framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviours: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 296-316.
Polonsky, M. (2011). Transformative green marketing: Impediments and opportunities. Journal of Business Research,64(12), 1311-1319.
Segev, S., Fernandes, J., & Wang, W. (2015). The effects of gain versus loss message framing and point of reference on consumer responses to green advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36(1), 35-51.
Soderberg, C., Callahan, S., Kochersberger, A., Amit, E., Ledgerwood, A., & Albarracín, D. (2015). The effects of psychological distance on abstraction: two meta
analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 141(3), 525–548.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Kruglanski, Arie W. (2000). Temporal construal and time-dependent changes in preference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(6), 876-889.
Tu, Jui-Che, Kao, Tsai-Feng, & Tu, Yi-Chan. (2013). Influences of framing effect and green message on advertising effect. Social Behavior and Personality, 41(7), 1083-1098.
Van ’t Riet, Jonathan, Cox, Anthony D., Cox, Dena, Zimet, Gregory D., De Bruijn, Gert-Jan, Van Den Putte, Bas, . . . Ruiter, Robert A. C. (2016). Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? Revisiting the link between prospect theory and message
framing. Health Psychology Review, 10(4), 447-459.
White, K., Macdonnell, Rhiannon, & Dahl, Darren W. (2011). It's the mind-set that matters the role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research: JMR,48(3), 472-485.
27 Appendix
Appendix 1. Fact sheet, informed consent and debriefing 1.1 Factsheet
Beste deelnemer,
Hierbij willen ik u uitnodigen om deel te nemen aan een onderzoek dat wordt uitgevoerd onder verantwoordelijkheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam. Voordat het onderzoek begint, is het belangrijk dat u op de hoogte bent van de procedure die in dit onderzoek wordt gevolgd. Lees daarom onderstaande tekst zorgvuldig door.
Het onderzoek verloopt als volgt: u krijgt een poster te zien en vervolgens worden hier vragen over gesteld. Aan dit onderzoek kunnen uitsluitend deelnemers van 18 jaar of ouder
meewerken. Het invullen van de online vragenlijst zal ongeveer 10 minuten in beslag nemen.
Ik wil u verzoeken de vragenlijst op een rustige plek in te vullen en storende elementen zoals de televisie niet te gebruiken tijdens het invullen van deze vragenlijst, zodat u zich zo goed mogelijk kunt concentreren.
Omdat dit onderzoek wordt uitgevoerd onder de verantwoordelijkheid van de Universiteit van Amsterdam, heeft u de garantie dat:
1) Uw anonimiteit is gewaarborgd en dat uw antwoorden of gegevens onder geen enkele voorwaarde aan derden worden verstrekt, tenzij u hiervoor van tevoren uitdrukkelijke toestemming hebt verleend.
2) U zonder opgaaf van redenen kunt weigeren mee te doen aan het onderzoek of u deelname voortijdig kunt afbreken. Ook kunt u achteraf (binnen 24 uur na deelname) uw toestemming intrekken voor het gebruik van uw antwoorden of gegevens voor het onderzoek.
Voor meer informatie over dit onderzoek en de uitnodiging tot deelname kunt u te allen tijde contact opnemen met Demi Appel (demiappel@live.nl). Hiermee hoop ik u voldoende te hebben geïnformeerd en dank ik u bij voorbaat hartelijk voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek dat voor mij van grote waarde is.
28 Instemming tot deelname:
Ik verklaar hierbij op voor mij duidelijke wijze te zijn ingelicht over de aard en methode van het onderzoek, zoals uiteengezet op de vorige pagina.
Ik stem geheel vrijwillig in met deelname aan dit onderzoek. Ik behoud daarbij het recht deze instemming weer in te trekken zonder dat ik daarvoor een reden hoef op te geven. Ik besef dat ik op elk moment mag stoppen met het onderzoek.
Als mijn onderzoeksresultaten gebruikt worden in wetenschappelijke publicaties, of op een andere manier openbaar worden gemaakt, dan zal dit volledig geanonimiseerd gebeuren. Mijn persoonsgegevens worden niet door derden ingezien zonder mijn uitdrukkelijke toestemming.
Als ik meer informatie over het onderzoek wil, nu of in de toekomst, dan kan ik me wenden tot Demi Appel (demiappel@live.nl). Voor eventuele klachten over dit onderzoek kan ik me wenden tot het lid van de Commissie Ethiek namens ASCoR, per adres: ASCoR secretariaat, Commissie Ethiek, Universiteit van Amsterdam,Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018 WV Amsterdam; 020-525 3680; ascor-secr-fmg@uva.nl.
Vink het vakje aan wanneer je bovenstaande begrepen hebt en akkoord gaat.
Ik begrijp de bovenstaande tekst en ga akkoord met deelname aan het onderzoek
1.3 Debriefing
Bedankt voor uw deelname aan dit onderzoek. Voor het onderzoek is gebruik gemaakt van een fictieve vraag met als doel inzichten te verwerven in consumentengedrag op het gebied van duurzaamheid. Helaas is het dus niet mogelijk om daadwerkelijk de katoenenzakjes aan te schaffen via mij. Wel zijn er gelukkig genoeg websites en winkels waar de katoenen zakjes te koop zijn. Zo verkopen zowel Albert Heijn en Lidl de zakjes en u kunt bij interesse mij een mail sturen via demiappel@live.nl. Ik kan u verschillende sites aanraden waar de
katoenenzakjes gekocht kunnen worden. Nogmaals hartelijk dank voor uw deelname aan het onderzoek. Vergeet niet op het onderstaande pijltje te drukken, zodat alle gegevens
29 Appendix 2. Stimulus material
30 Appendix 3. Measurement independent variables
Product attitude:
What do you think about this cotton bag for fruits and vegetables? 1. Bad — Good
2. Dislike — Like
3. Unpleasant — Pleasant 4. Unfavorable — Favorable
Environmentally friendly consumption behaviour (Lee &Lee, 2013): 1. Do you want to buy the cotton bags for fruit and vegetables?
0 Not buy 0 Buy
2. How many cotton bags for fruit and vegetables do you want to buy? - 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
3. Indien u de zakjes niet direct wil aanschaffen maar wel geïnteresseerd bent en meer informatie wil ontvangen, klik dan op de onderstaande knop.
0 Ik ontvang graag meer informatie over de katoenen zakjes voor groenten en fruit.
Measurement sex: What is your sex?
o Male o Female Measurement age: What is your age?
31 ___________________
Measurement educational level: What is your highest level of education? o No education
o Primary education
o Lower vocational education
o Lower secondary education (VMBO, VBO, Mavo) o Secondary vocational education (MBO)
o Higher secondary education (Havo, VWO) o Higher professional education (HBO) o Scientific education (WO)
