IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i19p7948-d419625.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Celebrities’ Green Messages on Twitter Influence Public Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions to Mitigate Climate Change

Author

Listed:
  • Sejung Park

    (Tim Russert Department of Communication, John Carroll University, University Heights, OH 44118, USA)

Abstract

This research adds to the growing body of literature on the role of celebrities as emergent spokespersons in climate advocacy using Twitter. This study investigates the effects of framing of celebrities’ messages (emotional framing and framing of celebrity involvement) on public attitudes and behaviors to address climate change. A sequential mediation process is examined with structural equation modeling. In addition, this study assesses the role of parasocial relationship (PSR) with celebrities as predictors and moderators of the impact of framing of celebrity involvement. The results indicate that fear appeals were more effective than hope appeals in driving participation in activism, but emotional framing did not affect any other variables. Framing of celebrity involvement appeals using first-person pronouns led to more positive attitudes, but had no effect on behaviors. In addition, PSR was a strong positive predictor of attitudes and behaviors.

Suggested Citation

  • Sejung Park, 2020. "How Celebrities’ Green Messages on Twitter Influence Public Attitudes and Behavioral Intentions to Mitigate Climate Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(19), pages 1-22, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7948-:d:419625
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7948/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/19/7948/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul M. Kellstedt & Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2008. "Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(1), pages 113-126, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Evangelia Ktisti & Leonidas Hatzithomas & Christina Boutsouki, 2022. "Green Advertising on Social Media: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Nicole H. O’Donnell & Jeanine P. D. Guidry, 2022. "Beyond Personal Responsibility: Analyzing How Attributing Responsibility for Environmental Protection Can Hinder Action," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-15, October.
    3. Manel Jiménez-Morales & Marta Lopera-Mármol, 2022. "Greening and Celebrification: The New Dimension of Celebrities through Green Production Advocacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-13, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhihui Wang & Liangzhen Nie & Eila Jeronen & Lihua Xu & Meiai Chen, 2023. "Understanding the Environmentally Sustainable Behavior of Chinese University Students as Tourists: An Integrative Framework," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-17, February.
    2. Veysel Yilmaz & Pınar Guleç & Erkan Ari, 2023. "Impact of climate change information of university students in Turkey on responsibility and environmental behavior through awareness and perceived risk," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(7), pages 7281-7297, July.
    3. József Kádár & Martina Pilloni & Tareq Abu Hamed, 2023. "A Survey of Renewable Energy, Climate Change, and Policy Awareness in Israel: The Long Path for Citizen Participation in the National Renewable Energy Transition," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(5), pages 1-16, February.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0209013 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    6. Bryan Hochstein & Willy Bolander & Ronald Goldsmith & Christopher R. Plouffe, 2019. "Adapting influence approaches to informed consumers in high-involvement purchases: are salespeople really doomed?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 118-137, January.
    7. Najam uz Zehra Gardezi & Brent S. Steel & Angela Lavado, 2020. "The Impact of Efficacy, Values, and Knowledge on Public Preferences Concerning Food–Water–Energy Policy Tradeoffs," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Luzzati, Tommaso & Tucci, Ilaria & Guarnieri, Pietro, 2022. "Information overload and environmental degradation: Learning from H.A. Simon and W. Wenders," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 202(C).
    9. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    10. Moon-Hyun Kim & Tae-Hyoung Tommy Gim, 2021. "Spatial Characteristics of the Diffusion of Residential Solar Photovoltaics in Urban Areas: A Case of Seoul, South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Yixin Chen & Xinchuan Liu, 2021. "How Do Environmental News and the Under the Dome Documentary Influence Air-Pollution Knowledge and Risk Perception Among Beijing Residents?," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(2), pages 21582440211, May.
    12. Mortoja, Md. Golam & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2022. "Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(C).
    13. Liverani, Andrea, 2009. "Climate change and individual behavior : considerations for policy," Policy Research Working Paper Series 5058, The World Bank.
    14. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    15. Meredith T. Niles & Margaret Brown & Robyn Dynes, 2016. "Farmer’s intended and actual adoption of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(2), pages 277-295, March.
    16. Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes & Katherine M. Crosman, 2019. "Efficacy, Action, and Support for Reducing Climate Change Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(4), pages 805-828, April.
    17. Artjoms Ivlevs, 2019. "Adverse Welfare Shocks and Pro‐Environmental Behavior: Evidence from the Global Economic Crisis," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 65(2), pages 293-311, June.
    18. Byoung Joon Kim & Seoyong Kim & Youngcheoul Kang & Sohee Kim, 2022. "Searching for the New Behavioral Model in Energy Transition Age: Analyzing the Forward and Reverse Causal Relationships between Belief, Attitude, and Behavior in Nuclear Policy across Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-24, June.
    19. Rebecca Romsdahl & Lorilie Atkinson & Jeannie Schultz, 2013. "Planning for climate change across the US Great Plains: concerns and insights from government decision-makers," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 3(1), pages 1-14, March.
    20. Katherine M. Crosman & Ann Bostrom & Adam L. Hayes, 2019. "Efficacy Foundations for Risk Communication: How People Think About Reducing the Risks of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2329-2347, October.
    21. Kelli Archie, 2014. "Mountain communities and climate change adaptation: barriers to planning and hurdles to implementation in the Southern Rocky Mountain Region of North America," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 569-587, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:19:p:7948-:d:419625. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.