THE EFFECT OF INJUNCTIVE VERSUS
DESCRIPTIVE SOCIAL NORMS UNDER A
GAIN/LOSS FRAMING ON PURCHASING
LOCALLY-GROWN FOOD
by
JUANITA AGUILERA VEGA
University of Groningen
Faculty of Business and Economics
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ... 5
2.1 Intention to purchase locally-grown food as a type of green consumption ... 5
2.2 Influence of social norms on purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption ... 5
2.3 Influence of gain/loss framing on purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption . 6 2.4 Relation between social norms and gain/loss framing on the effect of purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption ... 8
2.5 Conceptual model and hypotheses ... 8
3. METHODOLOGY ... 10
3.1 Research Design... 10
3.2 Sampling strategy and participants ... 10
3.3 Procedure ... 11 3.4 Materials ... 11 3.5 Questionnaire/variables ... 13 3.6 Plan of analysis ... 14 4. RESULTS ... 15 5. DISCUSSION ... 18
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH ... 20
ABSTRACT
This paper examines the effect of injunctive and descriptive social norms, of gain/loss framing, and the effect when both are combined to encourage the purchasing of locally-grown food. A series of statistical analyses, such as ANOVA and ANCOVA were used, results showed that there is a significant effect between social norms and type of framing. A descriptive normative message is more effective on the intention to purchase locally-grown food when it is combined with a loss framed. In contrast, an injunctive normative message is less effective on the intention to purchase locally-grown food when it is combined with a loss framed message.
Key Words: Social norms, message framing, intention to purchase, locally-grown food, pro-environmental behavior.
Research Theme: Follow the norm? How to use normative messages to encourage pro-environmental consumer behavior.
1. INTRODUCTION
Pollution is getting worse every year, resulting in environmental damages, destruction of ecosystems and climate change (Princiotta & Loughlin, 2014). It is generated by different activities such as mechanized agriculture and usage of petroleum-powered vehicles (Pathak & Mandalia, 2011). Plastic pollution, caused by the excessive production and inadequate plastic waste management also affects soil, freshwater and marine environments (Tan, Li & Boljkovac, 2018). This plastic mainly comes from bottles, cartons, food wrappings and plastic straws (Waring, Harris & Mitchell, 2018). In the same way the elongated distances that the food travels before reaching the consumer’s plate also contributes to the environmental pollution (Frumkin, Hess & Vindigni, 2007; Passel, 2013; Pirog &Benjamin 2005). Therefore the current organization of the food supply chain is considerably contributing to the increase of the pollution levels in the environment.
One strategy for reducing the pollution levels of the food supply chain is by changing the way food is distributed, and consumed (Freedman & Bess, 2011). For that purpose, consumers need to take part of the responsibility through the adoption of pro-environmental behaviors such as purchasing locally-grown food (Pimentel, Williamson, Alexander, Gonzalez-Pagan, Kontak & Mulkey, 2008), where food travels shorter distances and less plastic packaging is used. The present study will examine how to encourage this specific type of pro-environmental behavior. More specifically, it will focus on the intention to purchase locally-growing foods, as intentions are regarded as the closest proxy of actual behavior (cf. Ajzen, 1991).
An important determinant that influences pro-environmental behaviors, is social norms (e.g. Biswas & Roy, 2015; Du & Han, 2012; Liu, Wang, Shishime & Fujitsuka, 2012). Social norms in this behavioral context can be referred to as the social pressure to perform a certain behavior or not (Ajzen, 1985). Behaviors are predicted by intentions and those intentions are partly determined by social norms (Ajzen 1991).
information is presented semantically different (Krishnamurthy, Carter & Blair, 2001). Hence pro-environmental behaviors are also influenced by message framing (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006) and this research will study how it impacts the intention to purchase locally-grown foods.
The effects of normative message framing used for persuading consumers into pro-environmental behaviors are usually moderated by whether the act of choosing an environmentally friendly product and the benefits it might bring, or the consequences of not purchasing it (Chang, Zhang & Xie, 2015). This type of framing is known as gain/loss framing, which has been known as a highly viable strategy for enhancing message effectiveness (Jones, Sinclair, & Courneya, 2003; Meyerowitz & Chaiken, 1987; Rothman & Salovey, 1997). In the case of purchasing locally-grown foods, which is the focus of this study, the benefits would be related to the preservation of the environment, which is known to have an impact on the behavior of consumers (Laroche, Bergeron & Barbaro – Foleo, 2001) and the losses related with the increase of pollution levels and contamination.
People tend to react differently to situations depending on the way the message is framed, either as a loss or as a gain (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). Concerning to pro-environmental behavior message framing, studies have reported mixed results about the most effective way of framing it, focusing on behaviors such as recycling (e.g. Lord, 1994; Loroz, 2007; White, MacDonnell & Dahl, 2011) and energy conservation (Obermiller, 1995), instead of promoting other ways of consumption as, for instance the purchase of locally-grown food. This study addresses this problem by investigating the impact of message framing social norms for effectively influencing the intention of purchasing locally-grown food.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Intention to purchase locally-grown food as a type of green consumption
Nowadays pro environmental behaviors such as green consumption seem to be gaining importance amongst people. It can be defined as “purchasing and consumption behaviors by an individual which are related to environmental and resource problems and are motivated by not only a desire to satisfy an individual's needs but also a concern for the welfare of society in general” (Nguyen, Nguyen & Hoang, 2017, p. 119).
A specific kind of green consumption is the purchase of locally-grown food. It can be regarded as green consumption because it generates less plastic waste and requires shorter food miles, meaning less contamination from shorter transportation distances (Frank & Brock, 2019). This study will focus on this type of behavior because it is known to have a high level of agreement about its importance for helping the environment, so consequently it is easier to be accepted and adopted by people (Lea & Worsley, 2008).
It has been theoretically argued (e.g. Ajzen, 1991) that intentions are assumed to be indications of how much of an effort a person is planning to exert, in order to perform a behavior. It has also been empirically shown that a higher purchase intention lead to a higher real purchase in green consumption like farmers’ market, compared to those who have lower intention to purchase (Brown 2001; Tsai, Lee, Hsieh & Somsong, 2019). Taking this into account, the intention of purchase is an important predictor of pro-environmental behavior like purchasing locally-grown food.
2.2 Influence of social norms on purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption
beliefs of what conducts are morally approved or not by the others (Cialdini, Kallgren & Reno, 1991).This study focuses on these social norms because they have been frequently used to promote behaviors beneficial for the society (e.g. Allcott, 2011;, Cardenas, 2011; Czajkowski, Hanley, Nyborg,2017; Halvorsen 2008; Kallbekken, Westskog, & Mideksa, 2010; Kallgren, Reno & Cialdini, 2000; Schultz, 1999), including a green purchase context (Melnyk, Herpen, Fischer & Trijp, 2013).
People are strongly influenced by injunctive and descriptive norms (e.g., Burger, Bell, Harvey, Johnson, Stewart, Dorian, Swedroe., 2010; Cialdini et al., 1991; Lapinski & Rimal 2005). They influence intentions and behaviors by providing guideline information about adaptive behaviors depending on the situation (Reno, Cialdini, & Kallgren, 1993) and also depending on the person’s motivation (Cialdini et al., 1991). As injunctive norms refer to what is ought to do, these norms are related to prevention because people want to avoid losses or being punished for not complying with the requested behavior (Mykolas, Rasa & Arvydas, 2019). On the other hand, descriptive norms are behaviors adopted by a peer group, those behaviors are seen as referents for achieving certain social goals in specific situations and, therefore, descriptive norms are seen as a way to improve the actual situation by reaching those goals (Melnyk et al., 2013). This research will study the impact of injunctive and descriptive norms on pro-environmental behavior of purchasing locally-grown food.
2.3 Influence of gain/loss framing on purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption
Situations or motivations can affect the extent to which social norms influence intentions and behaviors. These situations and motivations can be presented either as gains or as losses, in that way gain/loss framed messages can influence the consumer purchase choice (Fiedler & Hillenbrand, 2020). Framing a message means making salient a part of it, when the focus is on the positive benefits of conducting a behavior it is considered gain framing, whereas when it focuses on the negative consequences of not pursing that desired behavior it is consider loss framing (Chang et al., 2015).
it can influence behavior in different ways. People are often more motivated to avoid losses than to chase gains, because losses seem greater than gains of the same amount. When an outcome is framed as a loss, people will seek risky options in order to avoid the losses, but when an outcome is framed as a gain, people will tend to avoid committing into risky options, therefore, the acceptance of a risky alternative depends on how that outcome is framed (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
Studies about pro-environmental message framing generally focus on conservation behaviors that prevent the degradation of the environment (e.g. recycling), instead of green consumption (e.g. purchasing locally-grown food) (Segev, Wang & Fernandes, 2015). According to Loroz (2007), the pro-environmental conservation activities are viewed as low-risk behaviors. However, green consumption is different, as it can be perceived as low-riskier compared to conservation behaviors because of the cost of acquiring those products and the uncertainty related to their performance and quality, hence, it is expected that people assume the behavior of purchasing locally-grown food as a risky situation (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki 2008).
2.4 Relation between social norms and gain/loss framing on the effect of purchasing locally-grown food as a type of green consumption
Based on the observation that the accessibility of goals have an impact on the level on which consumers comply to social norms (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), gain/loss framing might affect how the social norms modify behaviors, and the aim of this research is to study the effect of gain/loss framing on injunctive and descriptive norms in modifying the intention to purchase locally-grown food. Social normative message can become more effective when taking into account this type of framing.
People tend to comply with descriptive norms mostly followed by the achievement of social goals, while they usually comply with injunctive norms in order to avoid negative consequences or losses (Cialdini et al. 1990; Melnyk et al., 2013; Mykolas, et al., 2019). In that way, they are relevant to this study, because depending on the type of social norm, people will more easily adopt a green consumption behavior that will either bring a gain or avoid a loss related to the environment.
2.5 Conceptual model and hypotheses
This research will study the relation between the gain/loss framing and descriptive/injunctive norms and their effect on the purchase of locally-grown food. It is known that purchasing locally-grown food has a high level of agreement amongst society for being important in helping the environment (Lea & Worsley, 2008). However, people still choose a regular full-service supermarket as the frequent food purchasing store (e.g. Packaged Facts, 2016; Watson, 2017). According to that, there is a positive injunctive norm towards purchasing locally-grown food, but a negative descriptive norm towards that behavior. When a negative descriptive norm is made salient, people usually report significantly lower intentions to engage in the desired behavior (e.g. eat healthily) even after being exposed to a positive injunctive norm (Staunton, Louis, Smith, Terry, & McDonald, 2014). Therefore this hypothesis is proposed:
individuals who will receive an injunctive normative message in favor of purchasing locally-grown food.
Taking into consideration the effects of the prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979, 1982, 1984), the effect of gain/loss framing depends on how risky is perceived the situation. Normally loss framed messages are more effective when people are involved in risky situations (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). As purchasing locally-grown food can be perceived as riskier compared to other conservation pro-environmental behaviors because of the cost of acquiring those products and the uncertainty related to them, it is expected that people assume the behavior of purchasing locally-grown food as a risk (Pickett-Baker & Ozaki 2008), therefore a loss framed message is expected to work better for engaging in this kind of behavior. Thus this hypothesis is proposed:
Hypothesis 2. Individuals who receive a loss framed message towards the impact of not buying grown food are more likely to have a stronger intention to purchase locally-grown food than individuals who receive a gain framed message towards the impact of buying locally-grown food.
Depending on the type of social norm, people will adopt a green consumption behavior that will either bring a gain or avoid a loss related to the environment. If a descriptive norm is presented, people might consider it a risk to adapt to the desired behavior. However in those kind of situations people will seek for risky behaviors, in that case, if the message is framed as a loss related to the environment, it will have a positive impact towards the desired behavior. In the same way, when an injunctive norm is presented, people might consider it as a cautionary behavior, therefore they will avoid losses, so if the message is framed as a gain related to the environment, it will have a more positive impact towards the desired behavior than an injunctive norm framed as a loss.
food when it is combined with a loss framed message instead of a gain framed message information in favor of purchasing locally-grown food.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
To investigate how social norms and message framing influence the purchasing of locally-grown food, the research consisted of a 2x2 between–subject experimental design. The first independent variable was normative messages, including two levels: injunctive or descriptive. The second independent variable was message framing, including two levels: gain or loss. The dependent variable was the intention to purchase locally-grown food.
3.2 Sampling strategy and participants
3.3 Procedure
The experiment was self-administered. Participants were invited via social media messages that provided an Internet link in which they were randomly assigned by Qualtrics to one of the four experimental conditions. First they were instructed to answer some control questions, then read a short article on the screen, which presented results of a fictitious survey about purchasing locally-grown food and information about the environmental effects of adopting such behavior. Because the study encouraged a pro-environmental behavior using information about the consequences of engaging in it or not, it was important to make people focus on the message and understand it, thus, text was the chosen format because of its effectiveness in communicating knowledge (Süssenbach, Niemeier & Glock, 2013). Subsequently, participants were asked to answer a number of questions about their intention to purchase locally-grown food. Demographic information was also collected at the end of the questionnaire.
3.4 Materials
Message framing and social norms were manipulated in a short article. The first independent variable was social norm (injunctive or descriptive), which was manipulated by making salient an injunctive norm towards purchasing locally-grown food or a descriptive norm against purchasing locally-grown food on a specific conclusion sentence in the article, this manipulation was used based on the studies by Melnyk et al. (2011) and Melnyk et al. (2013). The text in the injunctive norm condition further read:
Your choices about food and the consequences for the whole planet
Various surveys organized by environmental and green movement NGOs, have shown that motivations for purchasing goods may be shifting from pure hedonism to more ethical and green consumption habits. One of those habits was related to the provenience of food, specifically to the consumption of locally-grown food. Results showed that most of the people have a general positive perception towards local production methods and purchasing locally-grown food and think that people should do it.
Results showed that most of the people are still not supporting their local producers by purchasing locally-produced food on a regular base.
The second independent variable was the gain/loss framing. As the expected value associated with the consequences of purchasing locally-grown food cannot be formally determined, probabilities or numbers were not used, instead the gain/loss framed messages were constructed by presenting an outcome that could be perceived as a benefit or a cost in relation to a specific reference point. The validity of this form of framing is supported by demonstrations (Reyna & Brainerd, 1991; Rothman & Salovey, 1997, Tversky & Fox, 1995). The message framing was constructed based on the consequences associated with either purchasing or not locally-grown food. The consequences differed in the desirability of the outcome. In the gain-framed message, the avoidance of undesired environmental outcomes was emphasized, while in the loss-framed message the occurrence of undesirable environmental outcomes was emphasized. The text on the gain framed condition further read:
Motivation to this kind of consumption might be driven by the level of awareness about the environmental consequences on how food is being distributed and consumed nowadays. If people choose to change this and start purchasing more locally-grown food there will be a positive impact on the climate change as it will reduce the pollution levels. On one hand, the transportation distance from the place of production to the point of sale will be shorter, thus there will be less air pollution caused by greenhouse gasses, mainly carbon dioxide. On the other hand, there will be less water and soil contamination caused by plastic pollution, as locally-grown food needs less packaging and generate less plastic waste.
In the loss framed condition, the last three lines read:
As this food distribution model continues, instead of greener options like purchasing locally-grown food, there is an impact on the climate change as the pollution level rises. On one hand, the long transportation distance from the place of production to the point of sale generates air and noise pollution caused by greenhouse gasses, mainly carbon dioxide. On the other hand, there is water and soil contamination caused by plastic pollution as a consequence of inadequate waste management and disposal of after single-use plastics in which most the food products are packaged.
The participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: a salient injunctive norm with a gain framed environmental outcome condition, a salient injunctive norm with a loss framed environmental outcome condition, a salient negative descriptive norm with a gain framed environmental outcome condition and a salient negative descriptive norm with a loss framed environmental outcome condition.
3.5 Questionnaire/variables
The questionnaire started with a criterion item. This following item was rated with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): “I normally purchase the groceries for my household”. If the person answered strongly disagree, disagree, or disagree somewhat, it was redirected to the end of the survey, as he or she might not have the intention to purchase any food at all.
Furthermore, the questionnaire included a control item. More specifically, we asked about past behavior towards buying locally-grown food, as past behavior is a strong predictor for behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Conner and Armitage, 1998). The following item was rated with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): “I normally buy locally-grown food when getting groceries”. The stronger a participant’s past behavior, the more likely it would be that this person will already have an intention of purchasing locally-grown food prior being exposed to the experimental condition.
Then the short article was presented and the dependent variable was measured. The dependent variable was the intention to purchase locally-grown food. It was measured with
General article information Positive injunctive social norm Negative descriptive social norm
Gain framing Condition 1
three items adopted from Ajzen (2001), and rated with a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): "I plan to buy locally-grown food when the opportunity arises," "I am willing to purchase more often locally-grown food," "In the near future I am going to buy locally-grown food” (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0,831).
After the intention items, there were other questions in relation to the manipulation check. For message framing, the manipulation check was based on Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy (1990) study (all on 7-point, Likert-type scales anchored by strongly disagree/strongly agree). Measures of positive framing effectiveness included the following items: “The article contended that purchasing locally-grown food lead to positive consequences for the environment,” “The article stressed the positive results of engaging in purchasing locally-grown food behaviors,” and measures of negative framing effectiveness included: “Information in the article directed attention to the negative consequences of failing to purchase locally-grown food”.
3.6 Plan of analysis
The effects of the two experimental factors (social norm and framing effects) as well as their interaction on the intention to purchase locally-grown food were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA, assuming that the dependent variable can be treated at a continuous level, the two independent variables each consist of two categorical and independent groups, there was independence of observations. The level of agreement on buying locally-grown food when getting groceries (past behavior) was entered as a covariate into the analyses, using a two-way ANCOVA.
framing and control variable p = .591, social norm, message framing and control variable p = .858) as it was fulfilled, the ANCOVA analysis was conducted.
4. RESULTS
Manipulation checks using the Likert scale showed that participants distinguished the two types of framing. For the gain framed manipulation check (Cronbach’s Alpha = .82) the response for participants assigned to the gain framing conditions (M = 5.76, SD = 0.99) differed from the participants assigned to the loss framing conditions (M = 5.30, SD = 1.55). An ANOVA test showed that the difference between these two means was statistically significant (F(1, 128) = 4.09, p = .045), suggesting that participants that were exposed to a gain framed message perceived it to be significantly more positive than those exposed to the loss framed message.
Correspondingly, for the loss framed manipulation check, the response of participants assigned to the gain framing conditions (M = 4.50, SD = 1.57) differed from the participants in the loss framing conditions (M = 5.36, SD = 1.24). The ANOVA test showed that the difference between these two means is statistically significant F(1, 128) = 7.95, p = .006, suggesting that participants that were exposed to a loss framed message perceived it to be significantly more negative than those exposed to the gain framed message.
TABLE 1.
Means and Standard Deviations for Intention to Purchase Locally-Grown Food for the Four Experimental Conditions
Condition
Injunctive Descriptive
Intention to
purchase Gain Loss Gain Loss M 5.82 5.47 5.78 5.80 (SD) 1.00 1.01 0.82 0.92
Regarding Hypothesis 1, participants who received a descriptive normative message against of purchasing locally-grown food did not showed a lower intention (M = 5.79, SD = 0.87) than those who received an injunctive normative message in favor of purchasing locally-grown food (M = 5.65, SD = 1.01). The ANOVA showed that these differences were not significant (F (1, 126) = 0.75, p = .387). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected.
Concerning Hypothesis 2, individuals who received a loss framed message towards the impact of not purchasing locally-grown food (M = 5.64, SD = 0.97) did not have a stronger effect on the intention to purchase locally-grown food than a gained framed message (M = 5.80, SD = 0.91). The ANOVA showed that these differences were not significant (F (1, 126) = 1.03, p = .313), hereby rejecting Hypothesis 2. The ANOVA indicated that the influence of normative messages and gain/loss framing on the intention to purchase locally-grown food was not significant, F (1, 126) = 1.24, p = .268, rejecting Hypothesis 3.
However, once the confounding variable of past behavior towards buying locally-grown food was included in the analysis, there was a statistically significant interaction between social normative framing and gain/loss framing on the intention to purchase locally-grown food, whilst controlling for the past behavior of purchasing locally-locally-grown food, F (1,125) = 3.69, p = .057.
Table 2 provides a summary of the descriptive statistics for the ANCOVA for each of the four conditions. When a negative descriptive norm message is combined with a gain framed message, participants reported lower intentions to purchase locally-grown food (M= 5.70, SE = 0.15) than when a positive injunctive norm was combined with a gain framed message (M = 5.88, SE = 0.15). In the same way, when a negative descriptive norm message was combined with a loss framed message, participants reported higher intentions to purchase locally-grown food (M = 5.83, SE = 0.15) than when a positive injunctive norm was combined as a loss framed message (M= 5.45, SE= 0.15). Herby Hypothesis 3 was supported.
TABLE 2.
Adjusted Means and Standard Errors for Intention to Purchase Locally-Grown Food for the Four Experimental Conditions
Condition
Injunctive Descriptive Intention to
purchase Gain Loss Gain Loss
Madj 5.88 5.45 5.70 5.83
(SE) 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
FIGURE 3.
Estimated means for Intention to purchase locally-grown food
5. DISCUSSION
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of social norms (injunctive versus descriptive), and message framing (gain versus loss) on the intention to purchase locally-grown food, as well as the effect of gain/loss framed messages combined with social norms on the intention to purchase locally-grown food. Despite the fact that there were not significant effects of social norms nor message framing when presented alone; it was found that the influence of a social norm on the intention of purchase locally-grown food (after controlling for past behavior of buying locally-grown food) depends on the gain/loss framing accompanying the message. Equivalently, the influence of a gain/loss framing (after controlling for past behavior of buying locally-grown food) depends on whether the message is combined either with an injunctive or descriptive norm.
extent that information is perceived as salient on under a specific context, on an individual level or collective level (Cialdini et al., 1990).
The results also showed that loss framed messages were not more effective on the intention to purchase locally-grown food than gain framed messages, hereby rejecting Hypothesis 2. The results might have differed from the expected based on the study by Lord (1994), because in his research the loss framed messages came from a personal acquaintance. After including the covariate of past behavior into the analysis, considering that it is a strong predictor for behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Conner and Armitage, 1998), the experiment showed an interesting disordinal interaction between social norms and message framing, for the reason that the effect of social norms was opposite depending on which type of message framing was combined with (Lubin, 1961). When a negative descriptive norm message was combined with a gain framed message, participants reported lower intentions to purchase locally-grown food than when a positive injunctive norm was combined with a gain framed message, whereas when a negative descriptive norm message was combined with a loss framed message, participants reported significantly higher intentions to purchase locally-grown food than when a positive injunctive norm was combined with a loss framed message, these results support Hypothesis 3.
The main effects studied in Hypotheses 1 and 2 were mainly overridden by the interaction effect studied in Hypothesis 3. This may be due to the fact that a descriptive norm is related to the achievement of goals, and since it requires to change the current status, it might seem as a risk (Melnyk et al., 2013), in those kind of situations, messages framed as a loss related to the environment, tend to have a positive impact towards the desired behavior (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). In contrast, if an injunctive norm is presented, people might consider it as a cautionary behavior to avoid negative consequences, keeping their current status (Cialdini et al., 1990), hence if the message is framed as a gain related to the environment, it tend to have a more positive impact towards the desired behavior than an injunctive norm framed as a loss (Rothman & Salovey, 1997).
purchasing locally-grown food was taken into consideration. For the marketing context, these results can work as a guideline on how to present information to possible customers, as their perception differ from people who normally buy or had bought in the past this kind of products (locally-grown food).
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
This study is not without limitations, one of them concerns the assessment of intentions rather than actual behavior, since behavioral intentions in favor of the environment are widely accepted, it may be biased by social desirability (Kormos & Gifford, 2014). Moreover environmental concern is usually not translated into real pro-environmental behavior because of psychological barriers to achieve behavioral change (Gifford, 2011). Nevertheless, most of the studies still rely on the intention, as it is still accepted as the best available predictor of behavior (Ajzen, 1991; Kim & Han, 2010).
Another limitation of this study was that a manipulation check was not conducted for social norms. A negative descriptive norm, against a pro-environmental behavior, was used, therefore, it would have been useful to understand if respondents perceived it correctly. It is recommended to consider this for future research. In addition, it is also suggested to include a pilot test to rely on real numbers. In the message framing for pro-environmental behavior the level of control for formal probabilities and expected values associated with each response option was not possible to apply, which could might have undermined any systematic test of the Prospect Theory's predictions, which supports the gain/loss framing (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
REFERENCES
Ajzen I. 1985. From Intentions to Actions: A Theory of Planned Behavior. Berlin: SSSP Springer Series in Social Psychology.
Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50:179–211.
Ajzen, I. 2001. Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1): 27-58.
Allcott, H. 2011. Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics. 95(5) : 1982–2095.
Biswas, A. & Roy, M., 2015. Green products: An exploratory study on the consumer behaviour in emerging economies of the east. Journal of Cleaner Production, 87: 463-468. Brown, A. 2001. Counting farmers markets. Geographical review, 91(4):655-674.
Burger, J., Bell, H., Harvey, K., Johnson, J., Stewart, C., Dorian, K., Swedroe, M. 2010. Nutritious or delicious? The effect of descriptive norm information on food choice. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 29 : 228–242.
Cardenas, J. 2011. Social norms and behavior in the local commons as seen through the lens of field experiments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48(3) : 451-485.
Chang, H., Zhang, L., Xie, G-X. 2015. Message framing in green advertising: the effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. International journal of advertising, 34(1):158-176.
Cheng, T., D. Woon, & J. Lynes. 2011. The Use of Message Framing in the Promotion of Environmentally Sustainable Behaviors. Social Marketing Quarterly, 17(2):48–62.
Cialdini, R., & Goldstein, N. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55(1):591-621.
Cialdini, R., Reno, R. & Kallgren, C. 1990. A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6) : 1015-1026.
Cialdini, R., Kallgren, C. & Reno, R. 1991. A Focus Theory of Normative Conduct: A Theoretical Refinement and Reevaluation of the Role of Norms in Human Behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 24: 201-234.
Dardis, F. & Shen, F2008. The Influence of Evidence Type and Product Involvement on Message-Framing Effects in Advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 7(3):222–38. Du, X. & Han, Y. 2012. Study on purchasing behavior of sustainable apparel based on structural equation model. Journal of Beijing Institute of Clothing Technology, 32 : 57-73.
Fiedler, S., Hillenbrand, A. 2020. Gain-loss framing in interdependent choice. Games and economic behavior.
Frank, P., Brock, C. 2019. “Green cannibalism” or an “organic inside job”? Empirical insights into the rivalry of ethical grocery types. Psychology & marketing, 36(6):597-617. Freedman, D., & Bess, K. 2001. Food Systems Change and the Environment: Local and Global Connections. American Journal of Community Psychology, 47:397–409.
Frumkin, H., Hess, J., & Vindigni, S. 2007. Peak petroleum and public health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298(14):1688–1690.
Gifford, R. 2011. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist, 66: 290–302.
Halvorsen, B. 2008. Effects of norms and opportunity cost of time on household recycling. Land Economics, 84(3) : 501-516.
Jones, L., Sinclair, R. & Courneya, K. 2003. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1) : 179– 196.
Kallgren, C., Reno, R. & Cialdini, R. 2000. A focus theory of normative conduct: When norms do and do not affect behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(8) : 1002-1012.
Kallbekken, S., Westskog, H. & Mideksa, T. 2010. Appeals to social norms as policy instruments to address consumption externalities. Journal of Socio-Economics, 39(4) : 447-454.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47: 263-291.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1982. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 247: 160-173.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1984. Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39: 341-350.
modification of the theory of planned behaviour. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. 18 (8): 997–1014.
Kormos, C. & Gifford, R. 2014. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40: 359–371. Krishnamurthy, P., Carter, P., & Blair, E. 2001. Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2) : 382-399.
Lapinski, M. & Rimal, R. 2005. An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15 : 127-147.
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.
Lea, E., & Worsley, A. 2008. Australian consumers’ food-related environmental beliefs and behaviours. Appetite, 50(2), 207-214.
Liu, X., Wang, C., Shishime, T., & Fujitsuka, T. 2012. Sustainable consumption: Green purchasing behaviours of urban residents in china. Sustainable Development, 20(4) : 293-308.
Lord, K. 1994. Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4): 341-358
Loroz, P. 2007. The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24(11): 1001-1023.
Lubin, A. 1961. The interpretation of significant interaction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21(4): 807–817.
Maheswaran, D., & J. Meyers-Levy. 1990. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, (3):361-367.
Melnyk, V., van Herpen van, E., Fisher, A., van Trijp, H. 2011. To think or not to think: the effect of cognitive deliberation on the influence of injunctive versus descriptive social norms. Psychology & Marketing, 28(7):709-729.
Melnyk, V., van Herpen van, E., Fisher, A., van Trijp, H. 2013. Regulatory fit effects for injunctive versus descriptive social norms: evidence from the promotion of sustainable products. Marketing letters, 24(2):191-203.
Mykolas, S., Rasa, P., & Arvydas, K. 2019. The effects of descriptive imagery and appeals on emotions and intentions related to pro-environmental behavior. Sustainability, 11(19). Packaged facts, 2016. Natural and Organic Foods and Beverages in the U.S.
Pickett-Baker, J. & Ozaki, R. 2008. Pro‐environmental products: marketing influence on consumer purchase decision. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 25(5) : 281-293.
Nguyen, H., Nguyen, C., Hoang, T. 2019. Green consumption: closing the intention-behavior gap. Sustainable development, 27(1):118-129.
Obermiller, C. 1995. The baby is sick/the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals. Journal of Advertising, 24(2) : 55-70.
Passel, S. 2013. Food miles to assess sustainability: A revision. Sustainable Development, 21(1):1-17.
Pathak, C. & Mandalia, H. 2011. Impact of Environmental Pollution on Human Future. World Journal of Environmental Pollution (WJEP), 1(2):08-10.
Pimentel, D., Williamson, S., Alexander, C. E., Gonzalez-Pagan, O., Kontak, C., & Mulkey, S. E. 2008. Reducing energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecology, 36(4):459–471. Pirog, R., & Benjamin, A. 2005. Calculating food miles for a multiple ingredient food product. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture: 147.
Princiotta, F., & Loughlin, D. 2014. Global climate change: The quantifiable sustainability challenge. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 64(9): 979-994
Ratcliff, CL., Jensen, JD., Scherr, CL., Krakow, M., Crossley, K. 2019. Loss/gain framing, dose, and reactance: a message experiment. Risk analysis: an official publication of the society for risk analysis, 39(12):2640-2652.
Reno, R., Cialdini, R. & Kallgren, C. 1993. The transsituational influence of social norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64 : 104–112.
Reyna, V & Brainerd, C. 1991. Fuzzy-trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4:249-262. Roscoe, J.T. 1975. Fundamental Research Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. (2nd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rothman, A., & Salovey, P. 1997. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The ro le of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1): 3-19.
Rothman, A., Bartels, R., Wlaschin, J. & Salovey, P. 2006. The strategic use of gain- and
Schultz, P. 1999. Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experi ment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1) : 25-36.
Segev, S., Wang, W., Fernandes, J. 2015. The effects of gain versus loss message framing and point of reference on consumer responses to green advertising. Journal of current issues and research in advertising, 36(1):35-51.
Sekaran, U., 2000. Research Method for Business (3rd Ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Sevillano, V., Olivos. P. 2019. Social behavior and environment: the influence of social norms on environmental behavior. Papeles del psicólogo, 40(3):182-189.
Staunton, M., Louis, W., Smith, J., Terry, D. & McDonald, R. 2014. How negative descriptive norms for healthy eating undermine the effects of positive injunctive norms. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44(4) : 319-330.
Süssenbach P, Niemeier, S., & Glock, S. 2013. Effects of and attention to graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Psychology & Health, 28(10): 1192–206.
Tan, Q., Li, J. & Boljkovac, C. 2018. Responding to China’s Waste Import Ban through a New, Innovative, Cooperative Mechanism. Environmental Science & Technology, 52: 7595-7597.
Tsai, B., Lee, K., Hsieh, C., Somsong, P. 2019. Determinants of actual purchase behavior in farmers’ markets. Sustainability, 11(19).
Turner, J. 1991. Mapping social psychology series. Social influence. Thomson Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.
Tversky, A. & Fox, C. 1995. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review, 102: 269-283.
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211:453-458.
Watson, 2017. Chanel Fragmentation. Food Navigator USA.
Waring, R., Harris, R., & Mitchell, S. 2018. Plastic contamination of the food chain: A threat to human health? Maturitas, 115:64-68.
White, K., R. MacDonnell & D. W. Dahl. 2011. It’s the Mindset That Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors Over the Long-Term. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3): 472–85.
