2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
40
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 60 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 91 publications
4
40
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, comprehensive meta-analytic reviews reveal no robust difference in the persuasive effects of positive vs negative frames. These findings thus caution against a simple generalisations of the results (Nan et al , 2018; Ropret Homar and Knežević Cvelbar, 2021; Xu and Huang, 2020). For example, in the context of charitable advertising, where people must be persuaded to donate for a social cause, results show a slight advantage for positively framed appeals (Chang and Lee, 2009; Das et al , 2008; Xu and Huang, 2020).…”
Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, comprehensive meta-analytic reviews reveal no robust difference in the persuasive effects of positive vs negative frames. These findings thus caution against a simple generalisations of the results (Nan et al , 2018; Ropret Homar and Knežević Cvelbar, 2021; Xu and Huang, 2020). For example, in the context of charitable advertising, where people must be persuaded to donate for a social cause, results show a slight advantage for positively framed appeals (Chang and Lee, 2009; Das et al , 2008; Xu and Huang, 2020).…”
Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…From a cognitive perspective, consumers process negatively framed messages more accurately (Chang et al , 2015; White et al , 2011), while from an emotional perspective, negatively framed messages inspire a sense of anticipated shame and guilt in recipients, fostering the adoption of pro-environmental behaviours (Amatulli et al , 2019; Bilandzic et al , 2017). Others researchers typically turn to prospect theory to explain the positive impact of negative information in terms of unstated but implicit risks that respondents seek to avoid via the proposed environmental behaviour (Ropret Homar and Knežević Cvelbar, 2021).…”
Section: Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A systematic literature review was used to find relevant literature in a transparent, unbiased and rigorous manner (Ropret Homar & Knežević Cvelbar, 2021) to create categories. The scope of the review was to understand the human-nature nexus from an affective, cognitive and intrinsic perspective.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Critically, the effectiveness of environmental impact messages may depend on how the consequences of people's behavior are framed [21]. For example, messages may be more effective when the consequences of environmentally relevant behaviors are framed in terms of losses rather than gains [22][23][24]. In other words, attempts to promote energy conservation may be more successful when they convey that energy-intensive behavior will hurt the environment rather than that energy-saving behavior will help the environment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these findings need to be taken with a grain of salt as they are largely based on selfreport studies examining attitudes and intentions rather than actual energy use behavior (see [25], for a discussion of the validity issues related to such self-report proxies). In fact, a recent review of 61 framing studies in the environmental domain [24] included only seven studies on actual behavior, only one of which [26] included a measure of energy use. Moreover, the one study that examined the effect of loss framing on actual energy use behavior [26] confounded the framing intervention with additional interventions, which makes it impossible to attribute the intervention effect to the loss framing.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%