Green campaign messages and their effects on purchase intention

Green Campaign Messages and Their Effects

on Purchase Intention

Master’s Thesis

written by Carla Marie Saurer

11368411

Supervisor: Nynke van der Laan

Date: February 2, 2018

Master Communication Science – Persuasive Communication Graduate School of Communication

Abstract

Green marketing is on the rise and marketers are always looking for a more effective way to advertise their products. To date, there has been little evidence provided by empirical research what type of advertising appeal actually drives environmentally friendly purchase intention. Hence, the aim of the current study is to give insight into green marketing messages by analysing the moderated mediation of the interaction between campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss) mediated by perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE) on purchase intention. Substantiating the hypothesis, several theories such as the prospect theory by Kahnemann and Tversky (1984) and/or construal level theory were applied. In the online survey experiment, each of the 161 participants (Mage = 27.95

(SD = 11.39); 57.8% female) were randomly allocated to one of the four different green campaign stimuli; namely an environmental focused/ gain-framed campaign, an individually focused/ gain-framed campaign, an environmentally focused/ loss-framed campaign and an individually focused/ loss-framed campaign. After being exposed to the stimuli, participants’ level of PCE and purchase intention was measured on 7-point Likert scales. The moderation mediation model did not show any significant direct effect of campaign focus, message framing or their interaction on purchase intention. Furthermore, there was no mediating effect of PCE on the interaction effect on purchase intention, but PCE indicated a significant direct effect on purchase intention. Therefore, the current study confirmed only the expected relationship between PCE and purchase intention. The results are further discussed in light of recent literature on green marketing, such as the use of a high-involvement product instead of a low-involvement product, to provide starting points for further empirical research and green marketing practice.

Key words: green marketing, individual focus, message framing, perceived consumer

Introduction

Today’s consumers have started to realise that their purchasing behaviour can cause a huge impact on the environment. Globally, citizens of every nation are concerned with green issues, which has had the positive outcome of shaping consumer lifestyles into becoming more environmental responsible (Suki, 2013). Recent concerns for the consequences of global climate change have sensitised the consumer to safeguard the well-being of future generations. Empirical research on environmental message strategies is growing as green marketing is considered one of the major trends in modern business (Wossen Kassaye, 2001). The term ‘green marketing’ is very broad in its own sense and can be defined as “the analysis of how marketing activities impact on the environment and how the environmental variable can be incorporated into various decisions of corporate marketing” (Chamorro, Rubio, & Miranda, 2009, p. 223). According to Kilbourne (1998), green marketing focuses on ecological sustainability rather than economic efficiency and take intrinsic natural values into consideration.

In practice, green marketing campaigns often focus either on consequences for the individual or the environment. Segev, Fernandes, & Wang (2015) found that purchase

intention was higher when using an individually focused campaign compared to an environmentally focused campaign. Respectively, Phau and Ong (2007) argue that consumers indicate a more positive attitude towards green marketing appeals if they see some concrete individual benefits to the purchase on top of the generic environmental benefits. Additionally, individual benefits can be increased by adding emotional value in the form of moral satisfaction by contributing to the public good. For example, Hartmann and Ibanèz (2006) found that people accept mark-ups on prices of green energy brands because they want to feel better about themselves. In contrast to these prior findings, Laroche, Bergeron, & Barbaro-Forleo’s (2001) results suggest that environmentally focused campaigns lead to a more positive attitude amongst highly environmentally involved consumers. Hence, further

research is needed to clarify whether an individually or an environmentally focused campaign has a higher impact on the purchase intention of the consumer.

Another approach green marketing campaigns started to follow is the implication of message frame strategies which invite the audience to encode and respond to particular messages, depending on how the message is composed (Davis, 1995). According to Segev, Fernandes and Wang (2015), two types of strategies are dominating the field: The gain frame strategy, which emphasises what consumers will gain by buying green products, or the loss frame strategy, which focuses on what the individual might lose if their purchase decision is

not environmentally friendly. Adopted from health communication research, there is scarce evidence of the effectiveness of message framing on attitudinal change and purchase intentions towards environmentally friendly products and behaviours. Morton et al.’s (2010) findings (i.e.) on environmentally friendly behaviours revealed that messages emphasising negative consequences lead to reduced environmental action compared to messages emphasising the positive outcomes.

Furthermore, previous research (White, MacDonnell & Dahl, 2011) found that persuasion can be maximised when the message frame is congruent with the campaign focus. Findings by Davis (1995), for example, indicated that message framing leads to a more environmentally responsible behaviour when emphasising a negative consequence for the individual, such as the violation of the personal quality of life when not recycling. Taking this

finding into consideration, the current study will test for an interaction between an individually versus environmentally focused campaign and message framing to provide additional insights for marketers and researchers alike. Previously, most research on pro-environmental communication strategies focused on conservation behaviours such as recycling and/or energy conservation (White, MacDonnell & Dahl, 2011; Obermiller, 1995) and scarcely used environmentally friendly products to evaluate framing effects on environmentally friendly behaviours (Segev, Fernandes & Wang, 2015). Using an

environmentally friendly consumption product in the current study will, thus, further contribute to empirical research in the field of green marketing communication.

According to Davis (1995), communication strategies such as message framing can change how a problem is perceived and thus alter the level of perceived consumer effectiveness (PCE). PCE refers to an individual’s belief that they can make a difference. The concept is considered an important forecast of sustainable and/or environmentally friendly consumption behaviour (Chang, 2011; Cronin et al., 2011; Gleim et al., 2013) and has not been used in the studies about message framing on purchase intentions (PI) yet. Since it is important to understand how and to what extent different campaign foci moderated by message framing will influence the level of PCE, the concept is added as a mediator between the predictors and their effects on PI. Accordingly, this research will investigate green marketing campaigns by matching different campaign foci (individual vs. environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss) to explore how and to what extent they affect PI. Hence, the following key research questions will be considered:

RQ1: To what extent does campaign focus (individually vs. environmentally

beneficial) and message framing (gain vs. loss) have an effect on PI and how does this

effect change for an interaction between both variables on purchase intention?

RQ2: To what extent does PCE mediate the interaction effect between campaign focus

Conceptual framework and hypotheses

Main effects

Campaign Focus (individual versus environmental)

Creating messages that emphasise the consequences of purchasing environmentally friendly products can be ambiguous: On the one hand, they can be focused on consequences for the consumer him/herself. On the other hand, they can be focused on consequences for the society/environment (e.g. reduced pollution) (Langer, 2013). Therefore, the construal level theory (CLT) (Trope & Liberman, 2010) can be considered as a baseline to build the following assumptions on. It describes the relationship between psychological distance (temporal, spatial or social) and the extent to which individuals’ thinking is concrete (e.g. low-level construal) or abstract (e.g. high-level construal). Moreover, Liviatan, Trope, and Liberman’s (2008) basic premise regarding CLT states that an increase in psychological distance leads people to use a greater level of construal when representing information about an object. Taking social distance (i.e. self vs. others) as part of psychological distance (Nan, 2007), previous studies indicate that it increases when an issue is presented more abstract and schematic to the individual. Contrarily, social distance decreases when an issue is presented more concretely and in greater detail to the individual (Nan, 2007; Trope & Liberman, 2013). Hence, appeals that focus on the individual are predisposed to be less distant to the consumer than appeals focusing on the environment since people have a more concrete and detailed knowledge about themselves compared to more distant others (i.e. the environment) (Nan, 2007).

Based on these implications, findings by Pickett-Backer and Ozaki’ (2008) demonstrate that the intention to purchase an environmentally friendly product increases when the communicated benefits are in line with consumer self-interest. In this vein, consumers might relate more to messages that contain benefits for the individual (i.e. themselves) and therefore evaluate them positively compared to advertising messages

containing beneficiary appeals for the ‘others’ (e.g. environment) (Debevec & Romeo, 1992; Fisher, Vandenbosch, & Antia, 2008; Grimmer & Woolley, 2012). For example, Hansla et al. (2008) found that people only pay for environmentally friendly electricity when they perceive that the individual benefits exceed the costs (e.g. financial or additional effort). Therefore, messages benefitting the individual such as financial savings due to reduced energy costs from green appliances might be more effective compared to messages benefitting the environment. Following prior research (White & Peloza, 2009) the effectiveness of individually and environmentally focused appeals are situation-dependent. White and Peloza’s (2009), for example, investigated in five experiments whether other-beneficial appeals generate a more favourable donation support compared to individual beneficial appeals in situations that either heighten or minimise public self-image concern. Their findings demonstrate that ‘other’ focused appeals were more effective when the decision to donate was made in public while individually focused appeals were more effective when the decision was made in private.

Taking these previous findings into consideration, it is expected that the decision to buy an environmentally friendly laundry detergent is made in private and thus it is expected that individually focused appeals will be more effective. Furthermore, since people have more knowledge about themselves and their needs and wants than about the environment, they do encode messages with respect to the self as more relevant than those related to the environment (Grimmer & Wolley, 2012). Therefore, it is expected that

H1: A green campaign focusing on the individual will elicit higher PI than a green

campaign focusing on the environment.

Message Framing (gain versus loss)

Commonly used in persuasive communication research, the prospect theory by Kahnemann and Tversky (1984) is often applied to message framing in particular to gain- and

loss-framed messages. Framing messages in terms of positive consequences (gains) and negative consequences (losses) is considered as an effective way to motivate an environmentally friendly behaviour (Rothman & Salovey, 1997). According to the prospect theory, individuals tend to be seeking when outcomes are perceived as losses, and risk-averse when outcomes are perceived as gains. Therefore, persuasive messages which are gain-framed stress the positive consequences of pursuing an action while loss-gain-framed messages emphasise the negative consequences of not pursuing an action. In this vein, prospect theory suggests that loss-framed messages tend to be more effective when promoting behaviours which involve some level of risks, whereas a gain-framed message appears to be more effective when a behaviour is associated with little risk, or in motivating prevention behaviours (Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015; Chang, Zhang, and Xie, 2014).

Several empirical studies applied gain versus loss message framing, though, most of them were in the field of health communication with topics such as skin cancer prevention (Rothman & Salovey, 1997; Block & Keller, 1995, Gallagher & Updegraff, 2011) or HIV detection (Apanovitch, McCarthy, & Salovey, 2003). With regard to message effectiveness, previous studies produced mixed results. Findings by Gallagher and Updegraff (2011), for example, demonstrated a significant advantage for gain framed messages encouraging disease prevention behaviours such as screening for skin cancer, smoking cessation and physical

activity. In contrast, a study by Apanovitch, McCarthy and Salovey (2003) found that loss framed messages promoting detection behaviours are more effective for people who view disease prevention such as screening tests as risky or uncertain. This implies that prevention behaviours should be encouraged by a gain-framed message whereas detection behaviours are more effectively promoted with a loss-framed message.

In marketing practice, green advertisings often use message framing to emphasise benefits or harmful consequences for both the individual and the environment. Furthermore, prior studies have already applied gain versus loss message framing to environmental

communication, however mainly focused on conservation behaviours such as recycling and/or energy conservation (Loroz, 2007; White, MacDonnell, & Dahl, 2011). Obermiller (1995), for example, found gain-framed messages (compared to loss-framed messages) more effective on conservation behaviours such as water conservation and recycling. These findings are in line with results by Segev, Fernandes, & Wang (2015) which indicated a significant effect of message framing on PI. In contrast, Loroz (2007) as well as White, MacDonnell and Dahl (2011) did not find any significant difference between both message frames on environmentally friendly behaviour. Thus, it is not clear whether message framing influences behavioural intentions and if so, whether a gain-framed message, compared to a loss-framed message, is more effective.

Moreover, no study to date has examined whether message framing affects the purchase behaviour of environmentally friendly, non-durable consumer products. According to Segev, Fernandes, & Wang (2015), purchase behaviours cannot be treated similarly to conservation behaviours since these are more easily accepted due to the general consensus about their contribution to protect the environment. Environmentally friendly purchase behaviours, however, might be regarded as riskier due to the ambiguity associated with the price in relation to the performance and quality of environmentally friendly products (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki, 2008; Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015). Stressing the benefits of adopting a certain behaviour and/or a desired outcome could make people more responsive to gain-framed messages because they are more congruent with actions that could eliminate risk (Millar & Millar, 2000; Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015). Therefore, it can be assumed that pro-environmental behaviours are preventive and thus imply no immediate risk to the message recipient. In this vein, purchasing green products can be regarded as a prevention behaviour which can potentially prevent the degradation of the environment. Therefore, this study expects the following main effect:

H2: A green campaign emphasising the positive consequences of using an

environmentally friendly product will elicit a higher PI than a green campaign containing the negative consequences of not using an environmentally friendly product.

Moderating effect

Interaction effect between campaign focus and message framing

While there have been a lot of studies about the persuasiveness of gain- versus loss-framed messages, there is little knowledge on the interaction of these frames with different campaign foci (individual vs. environmental). Nevertheless, in marketing practice, green advertising campaigns often emphasise positive or negative consequences for either the individual or the environment. Since people try to avoid negativity and risks, they pay more attention to messages containing negative consequences for themselves (Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015).

In support of the CLT, Nan (2007) found that the persuasive impact of a gain-framed message becomes stronger when people make judgements for socially distant entities (e.g. others, environment) compared to socially close entities (e.g. the self). Since gain-framed messages contain more positive information by only stating potential problems, individuals are more likely to perceive them as distant and thus, more abstract. Consequently, gain-framed messages require less elaboration and activation of fewer resources to process the message compared to loss-framed messages (Loroz, 2007). Regarding environmentally focused appeals as more abstract, it is assumed that they are most effective when matched with a gain-framed message (Leiserowitz, 2005; Spence & Pidgeon, 2005). In contrast, previous research indicated that loss-framed messages work best by specifying concrete consequences for individuals’ behaviours and are more likely to match concrete mind-sets (Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015). As an example, Spence and Pidgeon (2010) suggest that loss-frames are particularly powerful to demonstrate the severity of climate change when

consequences are attributed to concrete events, such as local (individual) impacts on climate change compared to global impacts on this issue.

Since persuasion was found to be maximised when the message frame is congruent with the campaign focus (White, MacDonnell & Dahl, 2011; Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015) it is expected that there is an interaction effect between both the message framing and campaign focus such that loss-framed messages elicit stronger reactions if paired with consequences for the individual than for the environment, and vice versa for the gain-framed condition:

H3: There will be an interaction effect between campaign focus (individual vs.

environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss). a) A green campaign with a negative consequence focused on the individual will elicit a higher PI compared to a green campaign emphasising a positive consequence for the individual. b) A green campaign with a positive consequence focused on the environment will elicit a higher PI than a green campaign with a negative consequence focused on the environment.

Mediating effect

Perceived Consumer Effectiveness

The concept of PCE was firstly introduced by Kinnear et al. (1974) to measure the extent to which individuals believe that their purchases make a difference on a bigger issue such as reducing environmental pollution. In this vein, it can also be related to social dilemma theory which suggests that the extent to which one believes that they can make a difference towards achieving a goal affects pro-environmental behaviours (Gupta & Odgen, 2009). Indeed, Ellen, Wiener and Cobb-Walgren (1991) argue that if an individual believes that an environmental problem can be solved by a specific activity, then this should strongly influence the individual’s willingness to engage in this activity. Their findings demonstrate that PCE is distinct from the concept of environmental concern, and makes a unique

contribution to environmentally friendly purchase behaviours. In fact, their study found PCE as an effective predictor for only three of six behavioural measures1, namely purchase, recycling and contribution to environmental groups. Environmental concern, in contrast, did relate effectively to all six behavioural measures. Therefore, Ellen, Wiener and Cobb-Walgren (1991) found proof to distinguish between the two predictor variables.

Furthermore, prior studies propose that PCE is a strong predictor of environmentally friendly consumption behaviours (Roberts, 1996; Lee & Holden, 1999). Findings by Gupta and Odgen (2009) demonstrate that an individual’s perceived effectiveness is low when they perceive their contribution as insignificant. Hence, it is necessary to increase the level of PCE to evoke a positive attitude towards a possible purchase which can then be translated into actual PI (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2005).

According to Davis (1995), message framing can change and significantly influence how a problem is perceived and thus alter the level of PCE. Noting that PCE depends on a certain issue or situation, it is formed by introducing concrete or abstract value orientations. Thus, it is possible to adjust the personal belief of an individual (Yeoshin & Chio, 2005). That is, if people believe they have the power to act and that their actions have a positive result, they are more willing to take action (Wesley, Lee, & Kim, 2012). Therefore, communications strategies such as message framing should focus on strengthening PCE when the objective is to encourage individuals to adopt an environmentally friendly behaviour (Van de Velde et al., 2010). Moreover, findings by Van de Velde et al. (2010) demonstrate that PCE is increased when possible solutions to environmental problems are emphasised within a message. Implementing the interaction between campaign focus and message framing on PCE, it is hypothesised that:

1

The six behavioural measures were purchase of env. safe products, recycling, contribution to environmental groups, membership to an env. group, to phone/write public officials and attend public hearings (Ellen, Wiener & Cobb-Walgren, 1991).

H4a: A green campaign emphasising a positive consequence for the environment will

lead to a higher level of PCE compared to a green campaign emphasising a negative consequence for the environment. Contrastingly, a green campaign emphasising a negative consequence for the individual will lead to a higher level of PCE compared to a green campaign emphasising a positive consequence for the individual.

Moreover, prior research (Berger & Corbin, 1992; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2005) indicate that the consumers’ levels of PCE do affect their likelihood to adopt and perform an environmentally friendly behaviour. Indeed, findings by Roberts (1996) showed that consumers who believe that they can make a difference are more likely to purchase environmentally friendly products. Hence, it is known as a significant predictor of environmentally friendly buying behaviours such as the purchase of sustainable products (Kim & Choi, 2005; Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Thus, it is expected that:

H4b: There is a positive relation between PCE and PI.

Emerging from the theory discussed in this part of the research and the conducted hypotheses, the following conceptual model (Figure 1) was constructed:

Figure 1: Conceptual model with hypotheses Campaign focus

(individual vs. environmental) Purchase Intentions (PI)

Message framing (gain vs. loss) Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors Over the Long-Term.”

Journal of Marketing Research 48(3): 472–8
 hase intention Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE) Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors Over the Long-Term.”

Journal of

Marketing Research

48(3): 472–8
 hase intention

Method

Participants

Data was gathered from a mix of a convenience and snowball sample by recruiting participants over social media such as Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn and via email using the profile of the author. Additionally, participants were told to share the survey with their families, friends and/or colleagues. This strategy yields the advantage of saving both time and costs. Using social media channels to spread the survey experiment, the original sample consisted of N = 197 participants of which 36 did not finish the questionnaire and thus had to be removed. Therefore, a total of N = 161 participant took part in the experiment (57.8% female) with an average age of Mage= 27.95 (SD = 11.39). Participants’ age ranged 18 to 70

years. It was assumed that participants aging 18 years or older mostly moved out from their parents’ home and thus, were less influenced in their choice of a non-durable, ordinary product. Furthermore, participants predominantly originated from Germany (54.0 %). The remaining 46% were natives from 17 different countries. Furthermore, 72% graduated from university, with 50.3% finishing with an undergraduate degree and 21.7% with a postgraduate degree. This means that more than two-thirds of the participants had a higher educational level and can thus be expected to have a sufficient level of English language skills and comprehension for the purpose of the study.

Investigating how different appeals in interaction with message framing affect participants’ PI, a 2 (campaign focus: individual vs. environmental appeal) x 2 (message framing: gain- vs. loss-framed message) between-subject design was chosen for the online survey-embedded experiment. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and had to fill in a self-completion web-based questionnaire.

Four different advertisements for an environmentally friendly laundry detergent were developed. Creating a preferably realistic design for the advertisement-baseline, a commercial by Ariel from the “Turn to 30” campaign was taken as an inspiration (Organ, n.d.). The choice of a low-cost, non-durable consumer product had several reasons: According to Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), involvement increases when costs increase. Thus, an inexpensive product such as laundry detergent was chosen to ensure low initial involvement levels. Secondly, young adults (i.e. students, young professionals) were familiar with this product category, due to its ubiquity in everyday life. Thirdly, nondurables such as laundry detergents, are central to eco-friendly consumption behaviours. Therefore, the advertisements were more realistic (Schuhwerk & Hagius, 1995). Lastly, Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) used a similar low involvement product and found an effect of a green appeal (vs. non-green appeal) on PI (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995).

The different appeals were manipulated by differentiating between the positive outcomes of choosing the proposed fictive laundry detergent brand “EcoShine” (gain frame), either for the individual or the environment, and the negative consequences of not choosing “EcoShine” (loss frame), either for the individual or the environment, in the advertisement claim. An overview of the stimuli used in the study is provided in Appendix A.

Measurements

The first factor, campaign focus (individual vs. environmental), is nominal and contains two conditions: The created message is either targeting the individual or the environment. The second factor, message framing, is also nominal and thus also consisting of two conditions: The message is either gain-framed or loss-framed. Both factors were manipulated in the text of the campaigns. The manipulation of campaign focus was based on the work of Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995), who tested two campaigns emphasising consequences for the individual, such as financial savings or losses, and two campaigns emphasising consequences for the environment, such as the acceleration or deceleration of climate change in their study. Moreover, message framing was manipulated similarly to a study by Segev, Fernandes and Wang (2015) by emphasising the positive consequence of choosing the environmentally friendly laundry detergent (gain-framed message) or the negative consequence of not choosing the environmentally friendly laundry detergent (loss-framed message).

For all four conditions, the questionnaire included manipulation checks, ensuring that the participants perceived the ad in the desired manner. Checking whether the manipulation for campaign focus was successful, participants had to indicate their position within two items (“To what extent did the advertisement seem to be beneficial for the environment?”; “To what extent did the advertisement seem to be beneficial for yourself?”) on a 7-point bipolar scale reaching from ‘not very beneficial’ to ‘very ‘beneficial’.

The second independent variable, message framing, was manipulated using the following two statements: “The campaign #thinkaboutit emphasised the positive consequence of using the laundry detergent EcoShine?” and “The campaign #thinkaboutit emphasised the negative consequence of not using the laundry detergent EcoShine?”. On a 7-point Likert scale, participants were asked to indicate to what extent they agree or disagree with them.

Additionally, to measure the credibility of the stimuli material in general, it was asked at what temperature participants usually do their laundry and to what extent they think it is credible to have a clean wash at 30 degrees.

Dependent variables

Purchase Intention

PI was measured using a 7-point Likert scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) similar to the one used in a study by Barber et al. (2012). Four statements, such as “I would consider purchasing this product” or “I intend to try this product”, were used to indicate to what extent the participants were intending to buy the advertised laundry detergent “EcoShine”. The four-item scale was highly internally consistent, with Cronbach’s alpha α =

.91 (M = 4.27,

SD = 1.36).

PCE

PCE was treated as a mediator between the two predictor variables, message framing and GC appeal. Participants’ level of PCE was measured by using a 7-point Likert scale (‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’) with three statements (“When I buy products, I try to consider how my use of them will affect the environment and other consumers.”, “Since one person cannot have any effect upon pollution and natural resource problems, it does not make

any difference what I do”, and “Each consumer’s behaviour can have a positive effect on society by purchasing products sold by socially responsible companies”), based on a study

by Van de Velde et al. (2010). A factor analysis revealed that all three items loaded on the same component respectively. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was low, α =.58 (M = 5.63, SD = 0.94), a fact which will be discussed further in the discussion section.

Control variables

Within this study, several control variables, such as gender, age, attitudes towards the brand and advertisement, were taken into consideration since they correlated with PI and/or PCE (Appendix B).

Scales for attitude towards the ad (Aad) and attitude towards the brand (AB) were both

adopted from a study by Barber et al. (2012). Both concepts were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. For Aad, participants indicated their attitude towards the ad with items such as

“The advertisement catches my attention” or “The advertisement is memorable” (Cronbach’s alpha α = .80). Measuring AB, participants had to express their impression of the brand by

indicating whether the brand was“unlikeable/ likeable”, “bad/ good”,“unfavourable/ favourable”“lacking quality/ superior quality” and “not useful/ useful”(Cronbach’s

alpha α =.93).

Environmental involvement, which was often added as a moderator in previous

research (D’Souza & Taghian, 2005; Grimmer & Woolley, 2014), was used as a control variable. It was measured on an adopted 7-point Likert scale by D’Souza and Taghian (2005), which consisted of the four items including “I am concerned about the environment”, “The condition of the environment affects the quality of my life”, “I am willing to make sacrifices to protect the environment” and “My actions impact on the environment”. However, Cronbach’s alpha indicated that the scale’s consistency was questionable, α = .65.

Env.focused/ gain-framed Ind.focused/ gain-framed Env.focused/ loss-framed Ind.focused/ loss-framed Total M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Age 30.4 15.6 26.0 6.0 27.5 10.6 27.8 11.0 28.0 11.4 Gendera 1.61 0.49 1.67 0.48 1.58 0.50 1.45 0.50 1.58 0.50 Environmental Involvement 5.77 0.78 5.76 0.87 5.75 0.83 5.87 0.87 5.79 0.83 Credibility to wash at 30 degrees 5.39 1.41 5.08 1.53 5.28 1.53 5.76 0.88 5.37 1.38 Attitude towards the ad 4.33 1.11 4.47 1.16 4.46 1.24 4.43 1.31 4.92 1.19 Attitude towards the brand 4.99 1.09 5.26 0.79 4.93 1.25 4.61 1.30 4.95 1.14

Note. N = 161. a1 = Male, 2 = Female.

Procedure

Questionnaire

The questionnaire (Appendix D) consisted of three parts, which were displayed in a particular order. Participants were invited via social media to take part in the experiment. After agreed consent, participants were asked to answer questions related to their demographic characteristics such as age and/or nationality. A filter question at the beginning of the online questionnaire ensured that participants were at least 18 years old.

In the second part, participants were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions and had to look at the stimulus for at least 10 seconds before continuing. Afterwards, they

were asked to answer questions related to their PIs, attitude towards the ad and brand, PCE, the perceived effectiveness of the message and their environmental involvement. The last part focused on the manipulation checks to see whether the manipulation did work. In the end, participants were debriefed by shortly explaining the actual purpose of the study. The entire questionnaire took approximately five minutes.

Analysis and Results

Manipulation Checks

Both manipulation checks were tested using a one-way ANOVA. Participants did not perceive the advertisement as more environmentally focused in the environmental campaign focus condition (M = 4.99, SD = 1.33) compared to the individual campaign focus condition (M = 4.97, SD = 1.25); F (1,159) = .01, p = .945. Besides, participants did not perceive the advertisement as more individually focused in the individual campaign focus condition (M = 4.48, SD = 1.42) compared to the environmental campaign focus condition (M = 4.26, SD = 1.37); F (1,159) = .99, p = .322.

For message framing, participants stated that they did not perceive significantly more positive consequences in the gain condition (M = 4.89, SD = 1.41) than in the loss condition (M = 4.65, SD = 1.41); F (1,159) = 1.10, p =.261. Similarly, in the loss condition, participants did not perceive more negative consequences (M = 3.78, SD = 1.61) compared to the gain condition (M = 3.61, SD = 1.59); F (1, 159) = .43; p = .513. These results demonstrate that the manipulations were not successful.

Randomization Check

Investigating whether the randomization was successful, a randomization check was conducted. As expected, the chi-square test showed that neither gender (

𝑥

conditions. Additionally, a one-way ANOVA indicated that age was successfully randomized, F (3, 156) = 1.11, p = .371. Therefore, participants were evenly distributed and the

randomization over the four conditions can be considered successful.

Hypotheses

All hypotheses were tested with PROCESS by Hayes (2018) using model 8 with 1,000 bootstrap samples to estimate the bias corrected bootstrap confidence intervals (BCBCI). This method allowed to run one analysis to test all four hypotheses (N = 161). Therefore, campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss) were included as predictor variables, PCE as mediator and PI as dependent measure (Appendix C, table 5).

With regard to the first hypothesis, which stated that a green campaign focusing on the individual will elicit higher PI compared to a green campaign focusing on the environment, results indicated no statistically significant main effect between an individually focused campaign compared to an environmentally focused campaign on PI, b = .11, SE = 0.30, p = .7243, 95% BCBCI [-0.49, 0.70]). This means, that participants in the individually

focused condition did not statistically significantly differ from participants in the environmentally condition on their intention to purchase “EcoShine”. Therefore, H1 was not supported.

Similarly, hypothesis two, which predicted that a green campaign emphasising the benefits of using an environmentally friendly product would elicit higher PI compared to a green campaign containing the consequences of this behaviour, did not find support. The mediation analysis revealed no statistical significant direct effect between a gain framed message and a loss framed message on PI, b = 0.24, SE = 0.31, p = .4275, 95% BCBCI [-0.36, 0.85]). Hence, H2 was not supported.

Hypothesis three predicted an interaction effect between campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss), such that a green campaign with a

negative consequence for the individual is expected to lead to higher PI compared to a green campaign with a benefit for the individual. In contrast, a green campaign with a benefit for the environment was expected to lead to higher PI compared to a green campaign with a negative consequence for the environment.

Nevertheless, the expected interaction between campaign focus and message framing did not show any statistical significance on PI, b = -.10, SE = .43, p = .8135, 95% BCBCI [-0.94, 0.74]). Thus, H3a and H3b were rejected.

Hypothesis four predicted that PCE would mediate the relationship between the interaction of campaign focus and message framing on PI. The mediation analysis did not find a significant indirect effect between the interaction on PI (indirect effect = -.02, SE = 0.06, 95% BCBCI [-0.14, 0.11]; direct effect= -.01, SE = 0.30, p = .9854,

95% BCBCI [-0.60, 0.59]). In line with these results, H4a was rejected. However, there was a significant direct effect of PCE on PI (b = .24, p < .05, 95% BCBCI [0.02, 0.47]). This means, the higher the level of PCE, the more likely participants have the intention to purchase an environmental product (Figure 2). Therefore, H4b was supported.

Figure 2: Conceptual model with coefficients

Note. N = 161. * p < .05. a1 = environmental, 0 = individual. b1 = gain, 0 = loss. Campaign focusa

(individual vs. environmental) .11 Purchase Intentions (PI)

Perceived Consumer Effectiveness (PCE) Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors Over the Long-Term.”

Journal of Marketing Research 48(3): 472–8
 hase intention Message framing (gain vs. loss) Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors Over the Long-Term.”

Journal of

Marketing Research

48(3): 472–8
 hase intention

Discussion & Limitations

This study aimed to examine the effects of campaign focus on PI, the moderating role of message framing and the mediating role of PCE. However, none of the hypotheses was supported by the result of the analysis.

Considering the first part of the hypothesised model (figure 1), none of the expected effects was confirmed. Neither campaign focus nor message framing had a significant direct effect on PI, nor did their interaction significantly affect the outcome variable. These findings contradict to previous research (Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015) who applied a similar model and found a significant relation between different green appeals and PI. A possible explanation for these results is that both manipulations were not successful. Participants did not perceive any benefits by buying the environmentally friendly laundry-detergent; either for themselves or for the environment. Similarly, participants did not perceive any negative consequences for themselves or the environment by not purchasing “EcoShine”. One reason for this misunderstanding could be that the campaigns all had the same baseline: They promoted the environmentally friendly washing detergent with the brand name “EcoShine” in green coloured letters and a bunch of clothes forming an iceberg. According to a report by Terrachoice (2010), environmental imagery such as the use of the colour green are dominant environmental cues. Therefore, the underlying environmental friendliness of the product could have biased responses to all four manipulation check items. Nevertheless, concentrating on the environmental friendliness of the product and only communicating the different conditions in the subheadings was done on purpose since the aim of this study was to research variation in green appeals and not differentiating between green and non-green appeals. Therefore, the large focus on the environmental friendliness of the product might have dominated the difference in effect of campaign focus and message framing between the four

conditions. This might have led to the possibility that participants perceived the campaigns to be homogenous rather than dissimilar.

Another explanation for the insignificant results for the manipulation of campaign focus (environmental vs. individual), could be referred to the correlation between the individual beneficial and the environmental beneficial condition (Appendix B, Table 4), which points to the conclusion that participants might have believed that purchasing “EcoShine” is good for themselves and equally good for the environment. Therefore, they did not distinguish significantly between both appeals. Moreover, there is also the possibility that the manipulation was effective but the manipulation check items of the current research were not suitable to detect it. Future research could therefore use more precise manipulation check scales for both manipulations such as implementing an opposite scale from ‘environmentally focused’ to ‘individually focused’. Moreover, the item formulation could have put more emphasis on individual appeal such as “The campaign stressed the effects of my purchase of EcoShine on me” (Loroz, 2007). Hence, the environmental focus of the product could have been moderated by putting more emphasis on the individual appeal and thus distinguish it more clearly from the environmental appeal. Future research could include a pilot study testing the manipulation or the manipulation check scales measuring it.

Considering the manipulation of the moderating variable, it was done in line with other manipulations of studies on gain versus loss framing (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007; Rothman et al., 2006; Segev, Fernandes, & Wang, 2015). Nevertheless, previous findings (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007; Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012) within health communication indicated little, insignificant difference between gain- and loss-framed messages on attitude and intention with a very weak advantage for gain-framed messages. Since little research has been done on message framing for environmental communication strategies, and the results are inconsistent, there is more empirical research needed to draw a conclusion.

Even though it is possible that the stimuli were not sufficiently powerful by themselves to distinguish between the four conditions, it should be noted that the campaigns employed were found to be realistic in terms of getting a clean wash at a temperature of 30 degrees. Furthermore, participants indicated a positive attitude towards the brand as well as towards the campaigns in general. Hence, the campaign stimuli implied were not particularly different from those to which the participants would usually be exposed.

The lack of significant effects in the first part of the model could be also explained by the choice of using a low-involvement product. Contrarily, a high-involvement product would have yielded different results perhaps because participants elaborate more on high involvement products such as a washing machine in forming their attitude and PIs (Petty, Cacioppo, & Schumann, 1983). Hence, the difference in appeals might have become more relevant. This has been demonstrated by Segev, Fernandes and Wang (2015) who - similarly to this study - employed four different conditions of appeals but chose an environmentally friendly washing machine as the product in their campaign stimuli. Using this high-involvement product, their results indicated significant direct effects between campaign focus (individual vs. environmental) and message framing (gain vs. loss). Contrary, another study (Schuhwerk & Lefkoff-Hagius, 1995) did find significance using a washing detergent and thus a low-involvement product, as well. Nevertheless, their research distinguished between environmental and non-environmental appeals which yielded a stronger contrast between the appeals. In line with the current study, Grimmer and Woolley (2014) used a low-involvement product (i.e. water bottle) and did not find any significant direct effect between a green appeal focusing the individual versus a green appeal focusing the environment. The current study, however, used a low-involvement product mainly because of the average age (27 years) of participants. It was assumed that young adults were more familiar with the purchase of a low-involvement product such as washing detergent compared to a high-low-involvement product such as a washing machine.

Nevertheless, the contradicting results demonstrate that there is a need of more research on environmental appeals taking different types of products into consideration as the difference in product involvement could relate to the effect of environmental appeals. In this vein, future research should include product involvement as a moderator by presenting campaigns with different levels of involvement and thus yield important findings considering the product type choice.

Hypothesis three stated an interaction effect between message framing and campaign focus, hence the interaction between different environmental appeals. Contrary to results by Segev, Fernandes, and Wang (2015) who applied a similar interaction, results did not yield a significant interaction effect on PI. This lack of significance could be a consequence of the unsuccessful manipulation of both, campaign focus and message framing. Since both did not show a direct effect on PI, there was little possibility that their interaction yield different and/or significant results.

The second part of the hypothesized model is concerning the mediating variable PCE. It was expected that there would be a mediation of PCE in the relationship between the interaction effect of campaign focus and message framing on PI. However, the analysis only partly showed significant results. Hypothesis four was not supported, since the interaction between campaign focus and message framing on PCE was not significant. This can be explained by a lack of significance of the interaction effect on PI, as there was no effect to begin the mediation with, as well. In line with the findings of the first part of the hypothesized model, the necessity to imply communication strategies such as message framing to increase the level of PCE (Van de Velde et al., 2010) was lacking.

Therefore, the level of PCE was not affected by the different green appeals.

Hypothesis 4B, which stated that there was a positive relation between PCE and PI, however, did show a significant direct effect of PCE on PI. Consistent with previous studies (Kim & Choi, 2005; Gleim et al., 2013; Ellen et al., 1991), which also included PCE as a

mediator between different types of appeals and behavioural intention, this result implies that PCE could be seen as a strong predictor of environmentally friendly consumption behaviours. Therefore, the higher the level of PCE, the more likely participants purchase “EcoShine”. Regarding to marketing practice, it would be interesting to see what type of message is necessary to increase the level of PCE and thus, increase PI. Obermiller (1995) found an increase in PCE when using a gain framed message on conservation behaviours. Since this study found neither a significant effect of campaign focus, nor message framing, nor their interaction on PCE, more research is needed to draw a conclusion. Otherwise, since the interaction between campaign focus and message framing did not make participants believe stronger in their personal ability to make a difference, the concept might be strongly inherent to a person and thus difficult to change in the short term (Vermeir & Verbeke, 2006). Thus, future research could conduct a panel study which involves several exposures to the stimuli material to strengthen participants belief on their ability to make a change.

Nevertheless, it should be noted that propositions regarding PCE in this study might be violated to a certain extent by the poor Cronbach’s alpha of the scale measuring PCE. Thus, the effect of PCE on PI in this study is characterised by a low reliability, which should be kept in mind. One reason for the low reliability of the PCE measure could be the missing of one item. Since the original scale by Van de Velde et al. (2010) consisted of four items, this study included only three items. Another reason for the low reliability could have been the relatively small sample size of this study. Compared to the study by Van de Velde et al. (2010), which indicated an acceptable reliability with a Cronbach’s alpha α = 0.72 with 260 participants, this study had only 161 participants and thus stated less statistical power. For future research, however, the use of a more reliable scale to measure PCE is highly recommended to make a more reliable conclusion regarding the significant direct effect of PCE on PI. Therefore, it is difficult to make a certain proposition regarding the relationship between PCE and PI in this study.

Since green marketing and/ or environmental responsible consumerism is becoming more popular (Suki, 2013), the current study indicates that further empirical research is needed. Specifically, the choice of communication strategy in green marketing seems important to effectively target the consumers. Therefore, it should be substantiated with empirical research. This study provides information on communication strategies in green marketing and discovered that campaign focus and message framing did not influence PI. Based on this result of the study, green appeals do not have specifically targeted different consumer values. Therefore, marketers do not have to distinguish campaign focus or message framing to promote environmentally friendly products. This, however, does not display clarity on how to more effectively target consumers on environmentally friendly consumption. Nevertheless, the interpretation of the results need to be handled carefully due to several reasons. Firstly, even though data indicated that participants had a positive attitude towards the campaigns and believed in the functionality of washing at 30 degrees, the stimuli were still created solely for this experiment. Furthermore, a timer on the stimuli question ensured that participants looked at the stimuli for at least ten seconds. Both implications lead to a compromised external as well as ecological validity, because in a natural environment, the consumers might perhaps observe a marketing message for a shorter time, but eventually be confronted with the campaign more often. Further research could instruct participants to imagine being in a supermarket and seeing the campaign there, for example, or conduct a field study in a supermarket with similar stimuli material to increase the external validity.

Conclusion

Concluding, the current study suggests that neither campaign focus, nor message framing, nor their interaction have a significant effect on both PCE and PI. Therefore, the study demonstrated the difficulties to choose an effective communication strategy in green marketing. Since environmental communication strategies have been given little attention so

far and previous research produced contradicting results, further empirical research on this topic is needed. Moreover, it would be interesting to replicate the current study using a different, more reliable scale to measure PCE as it strongly predicted PI. Therefore, even though the hypothesised effects were not supported, new starting points from the results of this study can be drawn.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The Theory of Planned Behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179-211.

Apanovitch, A. M., McCarthy, D., & Salovey, P. (2003). Using Message Framing to Motivate HIV Testing Among Low-Income, Ethnic Minority Women. Health

Psychology, 22(1), 60-67. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.60

Barber, N., Kuo, P. J., Bishop, M., & Goodman Jr, R. (2012). Measuring psychographics to assess purchase intention and willingness to pay. Journal of consumer

marketing, 29(4), 280-292. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363761211237353

Berger, I. E., & Corbin, R. M. (1992). Perceived Consumer Effectiveness and Faith in Others as Moderators of Environmentally Responsible Behaviors. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 79-89.

Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior. Journal of marketing research, 192-203.

Chamorro, A., Rubio, S., & Miranda, F. (2009). Characteristics of research on green marketing. Business Strategy and the Environment, 18, 223–239.

doi:10.1002/bse.v18:4

Chang, C. (2011). Feeling Ambivalent About Going Green. Journal of Advertising, 40(4), 19-32.doi: 10.2753/JOA0091-3367400402

Cronin, J. J., Smith, J. S., Gleim, M. R., Ramirez, E., & Martinez, J. D. (2011). Green marketing strategies: an examination of stakeholders and the opportunities they present. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(1), 158-174. doi: 10.1007/s11747-010-0227-0

Davis, J. J. (1995). The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72(2), 285-299. D’souza, C., & Taghian, M. (2005). Green advertising effects on attitude and choice of

advertising themes. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 17(3), 51-66. Ellen, P. S., Wiener, J. L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The Role of Perceived Consumer

Effectiveness in Motivating Environmentally Conscious Behaviors. Journal of public policy & marketing, 102-117.

Fisher, R. J., Vandenbosch, M., & Antia, K. D. (2008). An Empathy-Helping Perspective on Consumers' Responses to Fund-Raising Appeals. Journal of Consumer

Research, 35(3), 519-531.DOI: 10.1086/586909

Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2011). Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review. Annals of behavioral

medicine, 43(1), 101-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin, J. J. (2013). Against the Green: A Multi-method Examination of the Barriers to Green Consumption. Journal of

Retailing, 89(1), 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2012.10.001

Gupta, S., & Ogden, D. T. (2009). To buy or not to buy? A social dilemma perspective on green buying. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 26(6), 376-391. doi:

10.1108/07363760910988201

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.

Hansla, A., Gamble, A., Juliusson, A., & Gärling, T. (2008). Psychological determinants of attitude towards and willingness to pay for green electricity. Energy policy, 36(2), 768-774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.10.027

Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza Ibáñez, V. (2006). Green value added. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 24(7), 673-680.

Hayes, A.F. (2018). PROCESS for SPSS (Version 3.0) [Computer software]. Andrew F. Hayes. Available from http://www.processmacro.org/download.html

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, Values, and Frames. American psychologist, 39(4), 341-350.

Kilbourne, W. E. (1998). Green Marketing: A Theoretical Perspective. Journal of Marketing Management, 14(6), 641-655.

Kim, Y., & Choi, S. M. (2005). Antecedents of Green Purchase Behavior: An Examination of Collectivism, Environmental Concern, and PCE. ACR North American Advances, 32, 592-599.

Langer, A. (2013).” I” Lose,“Others” Gain–Message Framing and Beneficial Appeals in Ads Promoting Green Consumption. InRosengren, S., Dahlén, M., & Okazaki, S. (Eds.), Advances in Advertising Research (Vol. IV) (pp. 223-232). Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.

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), 503-520. https://doi.org/10.1108/ EUM0000000006155

Leiserowitz, A. A. (2005). American Risk Perceptions: Is Climate Change Dangerous?. Risk analysis, 25(6), 1433-1442. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6261.2005.00690.x

Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal Similarity as a Social Distance Dimension: Implications for Perception of Others’ Actions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(5), 1256–1269. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.04.007

Loroz, P. S. (2007). The Interaction of Message Frames and Reference Points in Prosocial Persuasive Appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24(11), 1001-1023.

Mainieri, T., Barnett, E. G., Valdero, T. R., Unipan, J. B., & Oskamp, S. (1997). Green Buying: The Influence of Environmental Concern on Consumer Behavior. The Journal of social psychology, 137(2), 189-204.

Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting Safe Driving Behaviors: The Influence of Message Framing and Issue Involvement. Journal of applied social psychology, 30(4), 853-866.

Morton, T. A., Rabinovich, A., Marshall, D., & Bretschneider, P. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 103-109.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013

Nan, X. (2007). Social Distance, Framing, and Judgment: A Construal Level

Perspective. Human Communication Research, 33(4), 489-514. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2007.00309.x

Obermiller, C. (1995). The Baby Is Sick/The Baby Is Well: A Test of Environmental Communication Appeals. Journal of advertising, 24(2), 55-70.

O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic review. Journal of health communication, 12(7), 623-644.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198

Organ, M. (n.d.). Ariel ‘Do a Good Turn’ Campaign: “Turn to 30” Commercial. Causemarketing.com. Retrieved from: https://causemarketing.com/commercial-gallery/ariel-good-turn-campaign-turn-30/

Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and Peripheral Routes to Advertising Effectiveness: The Moderating Role of Involvement. Journal of consumer research, 10(2), 135-146. https://doi.org/10.1086/208954

Phau, I., & Ong, D. (2007). An investigation of the effects of environmental claims in

promotional messages for clothing brands. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 25(7), 772-788.

Pickett-Baker, J., & Ozaki, R. (2008). Pro-environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of consumer marketing, 25(5), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.1108/07363760810890516

Roberts, J. A. (1996). Green Consumers in the 1990s: Profile and Implications for Advertising. Journal of business research, 36(3), 217-231.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00150-6

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychological bulletin, 121(1), 3.

Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The Strategic Use of Gain‐ and Loss‐Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice. Journal of communication, 56(s1). doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x Schuhwerk, M. E., & Lefkoff-Hagius, R. (1995). Green or non-green? Does Type of Appeal

Matter When Advertising a Green Product?. Journal of advertising, 24(2), 45-54. 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. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2014.912600

Spence, A., & Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002

Suki, N. M. (2013). Green Awareness Effects On Consumer’s Purchasing Decision: Some Insights from Malaysia. International Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies, 9(2).

TerraChoice (2010). The sins of greenwashing home and family edition: A report on environmental claims made in the North American consumer market. Retrieved January 15, 2018, from www.sinsofgreenwashing.org.

Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-Level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440.

Van de Velde, L., Verbeke, W., Popp, M., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38(10), 5541-5549.

Vermeir, I., & Verbeke, W. (2006). Sustainable food consumption: Exploring the consumer “attitude–behavioral intention” gap. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental ethics, 19(2), 169-194.

White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-Benefit versus Other-Benefit Marketing Appeals: Their Effectiveness in Generating Charitable Support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124. White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. 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, 48(3), 472-485.

Wossen Kassaye, W. (2001). Green dilemma. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(6), 444-455.

Appendix

A. Stimuli material

Environmentally focused / gain-framed

Environmentally focused / loss-framed

Individually focused / loss-framed

B. Correlations

Table 3 represents a summary of correlations between the key variables. As expected from previous studies (Barber et al., 2012), the Pearson correlation analysis indicated that there was a strong significant positive correlation between PI and Aad (r = .54, p < .001), as

the theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 1991), this correlation indicates that the three variables are interdependent. Therefore, Aad and AB were added as covariates in the main

analysis.

Additionally, Pearson’s correlation analysis indicated a significant, strong positive correlation between PCE and EI (r = .52, p < .001). Hence, EI was added to the main analysis as a covariate as well.

Table 3. Summary of correlations between age, PCE, PI, Aad, AB and EI.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. M SD 1. Age 28.0 11.4 2. PCE -.059 .136 5.63 0.94 3. PI -.095 .106 .172* 4.27 1.36 4. Aad .010 .112 .187* .535** 4.92 1.19 5. AB -.283** .132 .111 .605** .518** 4.95 1.14 6. EI .071 .129 .515** .154 .132 .048 5.79 0.83

Note. N = 161, *p < .05, **p < .001. a1 = Male, 2 = Female.

Table 4. Summary of correlations between manipulation check items.

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. To what extent did the ad seemed beneficial for the environment?

2. To what extent did the ad seem to be beneficial for yourself?

.51 **

3. The campaign #thinkaboutit

emphasized the positive consequences of using the laundry detergent EcoShine.

.35** .38**

4. The campaign #thinkaboutit

emphasized the negative consequences of using the laundry detergent EcoShine.

.18* .14 .279**

C. PROCESS results table.

Table 5. PROCESS mediation moderation analysis predicting PI.

DV Purchase Intention b SE t p 95% BCBCI

Constant 2.75 0.67 4.08 .000 [1.41; 4.08]

IV Campaign focusa 0.11 0.30 0.35 .7243 [-0.49; 0.70]

Mediator PCE 0.24 0.11 2.17 .0319 [0.22; 0.47]

Moderator Message framingb 0.24 0.31 0.80 .4275 [-0.36; 0.85] Interaction campaign focus X

message framing

- 0.10 0.43 - 0.24 .8135 [-0.94; 0.74]

Note. aIndividual = 0, Environmental = 1. bLoss = 0, Gain = 1.