It's the Mind-Set that Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors

Abstract

across three studies, this research elucidates when loss-versus gainframed messages are most effective in influencing consumer recycling by examining the moderating role of whether a more concrete or abstract mind-set is activated. First, in a field study, the authors demonstrate that loss frames are more efficacious when paired with low-level, concrete mind-sets, whereas gain frames are more effective when paired with high-level, abstract mind-sets. this is an important, substantive finding that persisted over a significant time span. in addition, in two additional laboratory studies, they find further evidence for this matching hypothesis, in which a pairing of loss-(gain-) framed messages that activates more concrete (abstract) mind-sets leads to enhanced processing fluency, increased efficacy, and, as a result, more positive recycling intentions. the findings have implications for marketers, consumers, and society as a whole.

Temporal Consequences, Message Framing, and Consideration of Future Consequences: Persuasion Effects on Adult Fruit Intake Intention and Resolve

“…For instance, De Bruijn and colleagues (2016) found that short-term consequences only changed intentions toward hearing loss prevention when combined with lossframed information. Similar effects were obtained for recycling intentions in adults (White, MacDonnell, & Dahl, 2011) and fruit intake intentions in undergraduate students (Hing Lo et al, 2012). In contrast, other research either has failed to detect an interaction between message frame and temporal context (Bernstein et al, 2016;Nan et al, 2015) or has found opposite results (Gerend & Cullen, 2008).…”

“…That is, framing effects only occur in adolescents when losses are described in short-term outcomes (De Bruijn et al, 2016). For adults (as per the present study) lossframed (vs. gain-framed) messages can be combined with shortterm (vs. long-term) consequences to be persuasive (White et al, 2011), whereas evidence from young adult undergraduate students is mixed (Bernstein et al, 2016;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Nan et al, 2015). More research in diverse age groups is therefore needed to better understand message framing and temporal context effects.…”

“…In three other CFC studies (Orbell & Hagger, 2006;Orbell & Kyriakaki, 2008;Orbell, Perugini, & Rakow, 2004), temporal context was combined with both positive and negative consequences of action (i.e., applying sunscreen prevents skin cancer later in life but also takes time, takes effort, and costs money now), so omitting the tenets of message framing theory (in which gains of actions are compared with losses of inaction). Other studies on message frame and temporal context have not incorporated CFC dispositions (Bernstein et al, 2016;De Bruijn et al, 2016;Gerend & Cullen, 2008;Hing Lo et al, 2012;Nan et al, 2015;White et al, 2011).…”

“…Specifically, research has shown that loss-framed messages are more persuasive for high-CFC individuals (O'Connor et al, 2009) and when combined with short-term outcomes (De Bruijn et al, 2016;White et al, 2011). However, when these research findings are combined, it may suggest that high-CFC individuals should be more effectively persuaded when loss-framed messages (O'Connor et al, 2009) are combined with short-term outcomes (De Bruijn et al, 2016;White et al, 2011), an idea that runs counter to theoretical ideas (Strathman et al, 1994). Rather than hypothesizing, we formulated a research question about this three-way interaction, a strategy that has some precedent in research on CFC and the effectiveness of persuasive health-related messages (Kim & Nan, 2015) and in temporal framing research (Kim & Nan, 2016).…”

Apportioning energy consumption in the workplace: a review of issues in using metering data to motivate staff to save energy

“…Monitoring and apportionment of energy consumption enable the setting of goals for reduced consumption, which can have an important motivational effect on individuals and groups (Davis 1995;White, MacDonnell, and Dahl 2011). Goal setting promotes action by directing people's attention and effort towards the goal; through energising people to try to achieve the goal; through encouraging persistence in behaviours that work towards the goal and by making salient and encouraging the discovery of new goal-relevant information and strategies (Locke and Latham 2002).…”