IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i12p7411-d840959.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When Are Loss Frames More Effective in Climate Change Communication? An Application of Fear Appeal Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Scott T. Armbruster

    (Department of Marketing, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada)

  • Rajesh V. Manchanda

    (Department of Marketing, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada)

  • Ngan Vo

    (Department of Marketing, Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB R3T 5V4, Canada)

Abstract

This study investigated how goal frames (gain, non-loss, loss) either with or without efficacy statements affect consumers’ support for climate-change policy. Addressing the goal-framing literature’s difficulty in establishing a guiding theory with consistent findings, we (1) propose fear appeal theory as an alternative framework to guide goal-framing research; (2) test five fear appeal variables (fear, perceived threat, hope, perceived efficacy, and message processing) as mediators of goal-framing effects on policy support; and (3) highlight four common goal-framing confounds that may partly underlie the literature’s inconsistent findings. Aligning with fear appeal theory, results from a carefully controlled experiment revealed that a more threatening loss frame paired with an efficacy statement produced the strongest pro-policy attitudes and the greatest willingness-to-pay by successfully balancing fear/threat with hope/efficacy and by producing deeper message processing.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott T. Armbruster & Rajesh V. Manchanda & Ngan Vo, 2022. "When Are Loss Frames More Effective in Climate Change Communication? An Application of Fear Appeal Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-16, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7411-:d:840959
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7411/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/12/7411/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Kahneman & Amos Tversky, 2013. "Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision Under Risk," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Leonard C MacLean & William T Ziemba (ed.), HANDBOOK OF THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FINANCIAL DECISION MAKING Part I, chapter 6, pages 99-127, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    2. Svenningsen, Lea S. & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark, 2021. "The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    3. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    4. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    5. Susanne C. Moser, 2016. "Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: what more is there to say?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(3), pages 345-369, May.
    6. Wen Xue & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks & Wendy J. Phillips & Patrick Nunn & Shouying Zhao, 2016. "Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 43-55, July.
    7. Ropret Homar, Aja & Knežević Cvelbar, Ljubica, 2021. "The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.
    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. Shu-Chu Sarrina Li & Huai-Kuan Zeng & Shih-Yu Lo, 2022. "Young Adults’ Intentions toward the Prevention of Microplastic Pollution in Taiwan: Examining Personality and Information Processing in Fear-Appeal Communication," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-15, 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.

    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. Siqi Dai & Kai Chen & Rui Jin, 2022. "The effect of message framing and language intensity on green consumption behavior willingness," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 2432-2452, February.
    2. Lingyun Mi & Jiali Han & Ting Xu & Xuejiao Wang & Lijie Qiao & Tianwen Jia & Xiaoli Gan, 2023. "Evaluating Whether and How Public Health Event Information Frameworks Promote Pro-Environmental Behavior," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-20, February.
    3. Charles Collet & Pascal Gastineau & Benoit Chèze & Pierre-Alexandre Mahieu & Frederic Martinez, 2022. "Combining economics and psychology: Does CO2 framing strengthen pro-environmental behaviors?," Working Papers hal-03321706, HAL.
    4. Alice Wistar & Marissa G. Hall & Maxime Bercholz & Lindsey Smith Taillie, 2022. "Designing Environmental Messages to Discourage Red Meat Consumption: An Online Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-14, March.
    5. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    6. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    7. Gillitzer, Christian & Sinning, Mathias, 2020. "Nudging businesses to pay their taxes: Does timing matter?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 284-300.
    8. Gold, Natalie & List, Christian, 2004. "Framing as Path Dependence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 253-277, October.
    9. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    10. He, Haoran & Wu, Keyu, 2016. "Choice set, relative income, and inequity aversion: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 177-193.
    11. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:6:p:529-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Manel Baucells & Cristina Rata, 2006. "A Survey Study of Factors Influencing Risk-Taking Behavior in Real-World Decisions Under Uncertainty," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(3), pages 163-176, September.
    13. Dorison, Charles A & Lerner, Jennifer S & Heller, Blake H & Rothman, Alexander J & Kawachi, Ichiro I & Wang, Ke & Rees, Vaughan W & Gill, Brian P & Gibbs, Nancy & Ebersole, Charles R & Vally, Zahir & , 2022. "In COVID-19 health messaging, loss framing increases anxiety with little-to-no concomitant benefits : Experimental evidence from 84 countries," Other publications TiSEM 235f67b6-6be5-4061-8693-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Cropanzano, Russell & Paddock, Layne & Rupp, Deborah E. & Bagger, Jessica & Baldwin, Amanda, 2008. "How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 36-51, January.
    15. Yang Li & Dandan Yang & Yingying Liu, 2021. "The Effect of Message Framing on Consumers’ Intentions to Purchase Recycling-Aiding Products in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    16. Wen, Tong & Leung, Xi Y. & Li, Bin & Hu, Lingyan, 2021. "Examining framing effect in travel package purchase: An application of double-entry mental accounting theory," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.
    18. Freling, Traci H. & Vincent, Leslie H. & Henard, David H., 2014. "When not to accentuate the positive: Re-examining valence effects in attribute framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 95-109.
    19. Robison, Lindon J. & Shupp, Robert S. & Myers, Robert J., 2010. "Expected utility paradoxes," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 187-193, April.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:5:y:2010:i:2:p:110-115 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Austin, Chelsea Rae & Bobek, Donna D. & Jackson, Scott, 2021. "Does prospect theory explain ethical decision making? Evidence from tax compliance," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    22. Idris Adjerid & Alessandro Acquisti & George Loewenstein, 2019. "Choice Architecture, Framing, and Cascaded Privacy Choices," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2267-2290, May.

    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:14:y:2022:i:12:p:7411-:d:840959. 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.