See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/258188461

The Use of Message Framing in the Promotion of Environmentally

Sustainable Behaviors

Article  in  Social Marketing Quarterly · June 2011

DOI: 10.1080/15245004.2011.570859

CITATIONS READS

128 8,463

3 authors, including:

Tania Cheng Jennifer K. Lynes

Carleton University University of Waterloo
2 PUBLICATIONS   131 CITATIONS    39 PUBLICATIONS   1,201 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Successes & failures in social marketing View project

Youth Leading Environmental Change View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Tania Cheng on 03 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Use of Message Framing
in the Promotion of
Environmentally Sustainable
Behaviors
BY TANIA CHENG, DANIELLE KATHRYN WOON, AND JENNIFER K. LYNES

ABSTRACT

The use of message framing, a technique that shapes perceptions of the outcomes
of the promoted behavior, in combination with a specific target audience can sub-
stantially enhance the success of social marketing campaigns. Although the per-
suasive effects of message framing have been widely publicized in the field of
social and cognitive psychology, there is a surprising dearth in the literature
regarding the role of message framing as a strategy within the context of social
marketing to influence environmentally sustainable behaviors. This article pro-
vides an overview of the main principles of message framing, including gain
and loss framing as well as social and physical threat. The most effective combi-
nation of frame and threat may in fact depend on the measure used to assess its
influence on behavior. In particular, the literature suggests that the effect of frame
and threat interaction may be most prominent in changing attitudes toward the
behavior. Four factors should be considered in the use of framing and threat in
message design, including: (1) level of risk involved in uptake of the behaviour,
(2) degree of self-referencing or self-other referencing in the message, (3) level
of experience and knowledge of the target audience and stage of change of the
target audience, and (4) gender of target audience. Thus, proper segmentation
of the population should be carried out before designing messages with frame=
threat factors. Further research on the influence of message framing and the role
of audience segmentation in behavioral change strategies is needed to deepen our
understanding of its effectiveness in designing social marketing campaigns that
focus on environmentally sustainable behaviors.
 THEORY AND REVIEW

Introduction
Research in applying behavioral theories to encourage conservation and
sustainable behaviors such as litter control, increasing recycling participation,
and encouraging energy efficiency has soared in North America over the past
two decades (Bator & Cialdini, 2000; Lehman & Geller, 2004; Pelletier,
Lavergne, & Sharp, 2008). However, despite widespread awareness of and con-
cern for the environment, individuals still seldom engage in environmentally sus-
tainable behaviors, such as reducing consumption, increasing resource efficiency,
purchasing local and=or organic products, or getting involved in community
initiatives (Davis, 1995; Kennedy, Beckley, McFarlane, Nadeau, 2009; Pelletier
& Sharp, 2008). This ‘‘knowledge-action gap’’ is a cross-cultural phenomenon
that has mystified scholars for decades; indeed, hundreds of studies have failed
to definitively explain the discrepancy (Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). To bridge
this gap, we must examine not only the availability of information about environ-
mental problems, but also how it is being communicated (Kennedy et al., 2009;
McKenzie-Mohr, 2000; Neukom & Ashford, 2003). This article examines how
the use of message frame and threat can be more effectively tailored to encourage
environmentally sustainable behaviors.
A technique used in social marketing to shape perceptions and construct
meaning is message framing, which presupposes that the way an audience
responds to a particular message can depend on how the message is composed
and subsequently encoded by the recipient (Davis, 1995; Pelletier & Sharp,
2008). Although the persuasive effects of message framing have been widely pub-
licized in the field of social and cognitive psychology, there is a surprising dearth
in the literature regarding the role of message framing as a strategy within the
context of social marketing. Randolph and Viswanath (2004) have suggested that
using message framing in combination with a specific target audience can sub-
stantially enhance campaign success. The aim of our article is to provide an over-
view of the theoretical and empirical literature on message framing and discuss its
use in social marketing campaigns aimed at environmentally sustainable behavior
change. Developing a greater understanding of the importance of message fram-
ing can lead to more effective communication tools in social marketing campaigns
that focus on sustainable behavior change.

Background
Theories of behavior
Many theoretical frameworks have been developed to explain the discrepancy
between knowledge and action, including the theory of reasoned action, the

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 49

THEORY AND REVIEW

theory of planned behavior, the transtheoretical or stages of change model, social

exchange theory, and the value-belief-norm theory (Azjen & Fishbein, 1980;
Chan, 1998; Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002; Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross,
1992; Stern, 2000). Although these theories are by no means exhaustive in
explaining all human behaviors, they have been widely cited and supported as
fundamental concepts in behavioral research. The theory of reasoned action
and the transtheoretical model in particular provide the theoretical foundation
for this study.
Ajzen and Fishbein’s (1980) theory of reasoned action and its extension, the
theory of planned behavior, have been among the most influential attitude–
behavior models in social psychology. The theory of reasoned action suggests that
attitudes do not drive behaviors directly; rather, attitudes influence behavioral
intentions, which in turn shape our actions. Behaviors therefore depend on eva-
luative beliefs about the consequences of the behavior, normative beliefs concern-
ing how others would view the behavior, and one’s motivation to comply with
others’ views (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002). Both the
theory of reasoned action and the theory of planned behavior are predicated on
the notion that intention to perform a behavior, which is a function of attitudes
and norms, is the most accurate prediction of actual behavior (Chan, 1998).
Applied to environmental action, these theories suggest that a positive attitude,
feelings of competence, and a belief that the new behavior is socially acceptable
are factors likely to motivate behavioral change (Nisbet & Gick, 2008).
The transtheoretical or stages of change model of behavior change developed
by Prochaska et al. (1992) suggest that individuals go through different stages of
consciousness when deciding to adopt a given behavior (Pelletier et al., 2008).
Prochaska et al. have broken this process down into five stages: precontemplation,
contemplation, preparation, action, and maintenance. Each of these stages can be
distinguished based on the individual’s current level of intent and their conscious
attitudes toward the behavior (Pelletier et al., 2008; Prochaska et al, 1992). As
people gain more information and skills, they pass through the stages in a linear
fashion, but they may progress at different rates or even relapse into an earlier
stage (Nisbet & Gick, 2008).

Defining environmentally sustainable behavior

Using an intent-oriented definition, Stern (2000) has conceptualized environ-
mentally significant behavior as ‘‘behavior that is undertaken with the intention
to change (normally, to benefit) the environment’’ (p. 408). He has specified dis-
tinct types of environmentally significant behavior, which include environmental

50 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

activism, nonactivist behaviors in the public sphere, and private-sphere environ-

mentalism. Of particular interest in this study is private-sphere environmental-
ism, which refers to ‘‘the purchase, use and disposal of personal and household
products that have environmental impact’’ (Stern, 2000, p. 409). Other terms
for environmentally sustainable behavior found in the literature include ‘‘conser-
vation behavior’’ (Monroe, 2003), ‘‘pro-environmental behavior’’ (Kollmus &
Agyeman, 2002), ‘‘environmentally significant behavior’’ (Stern, 2000), ‘‘environ-
mentally supportive behavior’’ (Kennedy et al., 2009), and ‘‘ecological behavior’’
(Kaiser, Wolfing, & Fuhrer, 1999).
As with human behavior in general, environmentally sustainable behavior is a
function of interacting variables. These factors include pro-environmental atti-
tudes, peer pressure, public visibility, responsibility, and tangible and social out-
come desires (Axelrod & Lehman, 1993; Kaiser & Shimoda, 1999; Kaiser et al.,
1999; Monroe, 2003). Dietz, Stern, and Guagnano (1998) have found that polit-
ical liberalism, postmaterialistic values, and religious socialization are good pre-
dictors of environmental concern. In addition, social norms and altruism
influence environmental behaviors, as modelled by Schwartz’ (1973) norm-
activation theory, which holds that people will perform altruistic behaviors, such
as pro-environmental behaviors, when they are aware of the negative conse-
quences of adverse conditions and ascribe responsibility of those consequences
to the self. A recent meta-analysis of psychosocial determinants of environmental
behavior found that attitudes, behavioral control, and personal moral norms pre-
dict behavioral intention, which according to the theory of reasoned action, is the
strongest predictor of actual behavior (Bamberg & Moser, 2007; Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980).

Overview of message framing

Effective social marketing draws on a variety of behavioral, persuasion, communi-
cation, social learning, and social influence theories. As a result, the formative
research behind a social marketing campaign includes finding out more about
the needs and wants of the target audience to develop an effective message
(Maibach, 1993). Indeed, sending the ‘‘right message’’ can be critical to the suc-
cess of a campaign. One strategy in message development is message framing,
which refers to the technique of manipulating the receiver’s perceptions of the
outcomes of behaviors in terms of its benefits (gains) or costs (losses) (Rothman
& Salovey, 1997). Despite the finding that messages are a significant contributor
to successful campaigns, limited effort on the part of practitioners has been put
into the creation and placement of messages (Randolph & Viswanath, 2004).

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 51

THEORY AND REVIEW

Tversky and Kahneman (1981) first illustrated the framing effect in the pros-
pect theory of psychology, which describes how people make decisions between
alternatives that involve risk. The outcomes of the decisions can be framed as
either perceived gains (gain frame) or perceived losses (loss frame) in relation
to a particular reference point. For example, the adoption of recycling behavior
can be promoted through a gain frame, such as ‘‘if you recycle, you conserve natu-
ral resources,’’ or a loss frame, such as ‘‘if you do not recycle, the environment will
deteriorate.’’ Both messages advocate the behavior of recycling; however, one
emphasizes the benefits of adopting the behavior whereas the other focuses on
the costs of not adopting the behavior.
According to Tversky and Kahneman’s landmark study (1981), people tend to
be more accepting of risks when a decision is framed in terms of its associated costs,
whereas people tend to be more risk-averse when the same decision is framed in
terms of its associated benefits. For example, when deciding on a hypothetical treat-
ment program framed in terms of losses, participants were more likely to prefer a
program in which 66% of all 600 patients will die over one in which there is a
100% chance that 400 of the 600 patients will die. However, when deciding
between programs framed in terms of gains, participants were more likely to choose
one in which there is a 100% chance that 200 of the 600 patients are saved over one
in which there is a 33% chance that all 600 patients are saved. Thus, in the
loss-frame condition, participants tended to make the riskier choice whereas they
tended to avoid risks in the gain–frame condition (Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).
Framing has since garnered strong interest among scholars in the domain of
health persuasion. For example, Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) and Banks
et al. (1995) have demonstrated that loss-framed messages more effectively per-
suaded women to make breast self-examinations than gain-framed messages.
Conversely, Rothman, Salovey, Carol, Kelli, and Drake (1993) reported that
women exposed to a gain-framed message were more likely to request sunscreen
than those in loss-framed conditions. To explain the discrepancy, Rothman and
Salovey (1997) have suggested that loss-framed messages are more effective for
persuading detection behaviors (e.g., taking a breast examination), which may
be perceived as risky, and gain-framed messages may be more effective for prevent-
ative behaviors (e.g., wearing sunscreen), which are perceived as more cautious.

Message framing in the context of environmentally sustainable behaviors

More recently, the technique of message framing has been explored in the realm
of environmental communications. With environmentally sustainable behaviors,
there are two main types of framing manipulations. Gain=loss frames manipulate

52 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

the outcomes to emphasize the benefits or costs of the behavior (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1981). The focus of the gains and losses can be on one’s social
environment (social threat) or physical environment (physical threat) (Cheng &
Woon, 2010). Framing and threat interact in different ways to produce
environmental behavior.
Studies on gain and loss framing of messages promoting environmental beha-
vior have produced mixed results; often, it is the interaction of gain=loss framing
with another component of the message that determines behavior. For example,
Obermiller (1995) found that loss frames were more effective for the low salience
issue of energy conservation, whereas gain frames were more effective for the high
salience issue of recycling. Davis (1995) found that loss framing was most per-
suasive when the losses were emphasized on the current generation as opposed
to future generations.
Overall however, loss framing appears to be more effective than gain framing
in the promotion of environmental behavior (Davis, 1995). A study done by
Gonzales, Aronson, Costanzo (1988) tested the effectiveness of message framing
and communication on people who were having home energy audits on their
house against a control group in which the home energy auditors had no specific
training in terms of message framing and communication. In the test group, audi-
tors were trained to provide recommendations to homeowners for potential home
energy retrofits in terms of ‘‘loss’’ rather than ‘‘gain’’ (e.g., money lost through an
inefficient furnace as opposed to potential financial gains from a high-efficiency
furnace). Homeowners in the test group had both a greater likelihood of acting
on the auditors’ recommendations and applying for a special program to finance
retrofits (60% in the test group applied versus 39% in the control group).
Cheng and Woon (2010) found similar results in terms of the effectiveness of
loss-framed messages on lowering adolescents’ intentions to drive. This study
tested the effectiveness of message framing in influencing sustainable behavior
by examining the interaction of frame (gain versus loss) and threat (social versus
physical) in ads discouraging adolescents from the case behavior of personal
vehicle use. Nondrivers and adolescents with low engagement in environmental
behaviors reported lower intentions to drive after viewing a loss-framed ad than
participants who were in the gain–frame conditions (Cheng & Woon, 2010). The
persuasiveness of loss-framed ads is supported by the theory of reasoned action,
which holds that intentions are a good predictor of actual behavior (Ajzen &
Fishbein, 1980; Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002). Loss frames also generated more
negative emotions, such as fear and anger, whereas gain frames generated more
positive emotions, such as joy and contentment. Negative emotions have been

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 53

THEORY AND REVIEW

shown to trigger avoidance behaviors, supporting the effectiveness of loss frames

in discouraging undesirable behaviors (Dienstbier, Hillman, Lehnhoff, Hillman,
& Valkenaar, 1975; Weiner, 1980).
According to Loroz (2006), the impact of gain=loss framing in environmental
communications is contingent on whether the message is self-referencing, where
the message describes how the behavior affects the recipient, or self-other refer-
encing, where the message describes how the behavior affects the recipient as well
as others, such as one’s children or community. Loss frames appear to be more
persuasive in promoting recycling behavior when the message is self-referencing,
while gain frames are more persuasive when the message is self-other referencing
(Loroz, 2006). There are very few studies that have focused on the use of
self-referencing for environmental behavior change. More research needs to be
conducted to gain a greater understanding of the potential impact self-referencing
could have on this type of message framing.
Not all individuals are equally susceptible to framing effects. The level of
experience and knowledge of each individual affects his or her response to a framed
message (Kaczynski, Havitz, & McCarville, 2005). Message involvement and the
level of information processing can also interact with framed messages to influence
attitudes and behaviors (Block & Heller, 1995; Loroz, 2006; Meijnders, Midden,
& Wilke, 2001). Selecting the most effective message frame depends on the target
audience’s stage of behavior change, which is consistent with the transtheoretical
model (Pelletier & Sharp, 2008). Overall however, loss-framed messages do seem
to be more persuasive than gain-framed messages and tend to foster intentions to
adopt the target behavior, which may be explained by the tendency to perceive
negative information as more important, salient, and fear inducing (Davis, 1995).

Type of threat in message framing

The content of messages can be designed to target the recipient of the gains and=
or losses in different ways. Fear appeals, a strategy commonly used in social mar-
keting, have been studied for decades and have been supported by research that
demonstrate the effectiveness of fear arousal in influencing behavioral change
(Donovan & Henley, 1997). Most of the existing research on social and physical
threats relates to health behaviors. For example, Schoenbachler and Whittler
(1996) have demonstrated that social threats, which rely on social disapproval
messages, are more persuasive than physical threats in antidrug use communica-
tions for adolescents. Wiley, Krisjanous, and Hutchings (2002) found that the
youth population tends to relate more favorably to social fear appeals than to
physical fear appeals.

54 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

Furthermore, studies on emotional arousal, such as fear, have demon-

strated its significant role in determining behavior. Emotional arousal in
response to a cue leads to avoidance of behaviors that may have aversive con-
sequences (Dienstbier et al., 1975; Weiner, 1980). In other words, the fear of
punishment or disapproval results in the avoidance of behaviors that would
lead to either consequence. Coke, Batson, and McDavis (1978) have suggested
that both cognition and emotional arousal interact to influence behavior.
Baumeister, Vohs, DeWall, and Zhang (2007) have added that emotion
indirectly causes behavior by acting as a feedback system that facilitates the
learning of associations between affect and behavioral responses. A study by
DeMartino, Kumaran, Seymore, and Dolan (2009) provides a neurobiological
explanation to the effectiveness of emotional appeals. They found that subjects’
tendency to be risk-averse when exposed to a gain frame and risk seeking
when exposed to a loss frame was associated with amygdala activation in
the brain.

Type of threat in environmentally sustainable behavior change

In environmental communications, the message is often designed to target the
recipient by highlighting the relationship between the advocated behavior and
the physical environment or by highlighting the physical threat associated with
the behavior. The concept of social and physical threats is derived from similar
threat types used in fear appeals. Whereas the term ‘‘threat’’ typically carries
negative connotations, ‘‘physical threat’’ does not necessarily have unfavorable
consequences, but it simply is any result that emphasizes the physical environ-
ment as the primary beneficiary of the behavior. In contrast, the benefits and=
or costs of behavior that are associated with the self in relation to others are
referred to as ‘‘social threats.’’ Frame and threat factors interact to influence
environmentally sustainable behavior and both should be considered when
designing messages for social marketing campaigns. Cheng and Woon
(2010) found that based on reported driving intentions in a group of adoles-
cents, social loss ads may be more effective for females, which is consistent
with studies that have demonstrated a stronger peer influence on females
(Abernathy, Massad, & Romano-Dwyer, 1995; Bird & Tapp, 2008; Kobus,
2003).
Substantial research is lacking on the use of fear appeals in the promotion of
sustainable behavior. Part of the issue with using fear appeals for sustainable
behavior is the temporal distance of the negative consequences of unsustainable
behavior, which are not often felt by the individual who performs the behavior,

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 55

THEORY AND REVIEW

but by future generations to come (DeVries, Ruiter, & Leegwater, 2002). How-
ever, research supporting the use of social threat in influencing health behaviors
may be applied to promoting environmentally sustainable behaviors. Indeed,
according to Bird and Tapp (2008), adolescents are particularly susceptible to
social pressures because they fear social disapproval; hence, they strive to appear
‘‘cool’’ among their peers. Social threats, then, in the context of a loss-framed
message may be effective in influencing sustainable behaviors, particularly in
the adolescent population.

Discussion
Studies from the literature illustrate the importance of considering framing fac-
tors in the message design for social marketing campaigns. Table 1 provides an
overview of some of the findings from framing studies that focus on communi-
cating environmental messages. While there have been many more studies done

TABLE 1

Overview of Studies Related to the Use of Gain,

Loss, and Threat Framing in the Communication of
Environmental Messages
GAIN FRAMES LOSS FRAMES THREAT (SOCIAL=PHYSICAL)

More effective for high Adolescents with low engagement in
salience issues such as environmental behaviors reported
recycling (Obermiller, lower intentions to drive after
1995) viewing a loss-framed ad than
participants who were in the gain
frame conditions (Cheng & Woon,
2010)
More effective for low salience issues
such as energy conservation
(Obermiller, 1995)
More persuasive when messages
emphasized loss for current
generation (Davis, 1995)
More effective to emphasize money
‘‘lost’’ versus potential for money
saved such as through energy
efficiencies (Gonzales et al., 1988)
More effective in persuading recycling
behavior when message is
self-referencing (Loroz, 2006)
Physical loss and social gain
were more effective on
intentions to drive for a group
of adolescents (Cheng &
Woon, 2010)
Social loss may be more
effective for females who have
a stronger peer influence
(Bird & Tapp, 2008; Cheng &
Woon, 2010)
Long-term effectiveness of
physical loss ads remains
unclear (Hastings et al., 2004)

56 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

on the relationship between message framing and behavior change in other areas
such as safety and health, there are far fewer studies related to environmental
behavior change. It should be noted that the Table 1 is not meant to act as a
set of rules. But rather it is a guide of some ways in which gain, loss, and threat
can be used in message framing. Furthermore, characteristics of the target audi-
ence are important factors for message frame design.
The most effective combination may in fact depend on the measure used to
assess its influence on behavior. In particular, the literature suggests that the
effect of frame and threat interaction may be most prominent in changing atti-
tudes toward the behavior. For example, Cheng and Woon (2010) demonstrated
that physical loss and social gain ads are more persuasive than physical gain and
social loss ads in reducing the perception of driving as beneficial and important.
Despite the immediate effectiveness of physical loss ads, however, their long-term
impact is unclear, as has been suggested by Hastings, Stead, and Webb (2004).
Loss frames paired with physical threat may actually diminish the personal
responsibility ascribed to the consequences of behavior and the sense of
self-efficacy to make an impact. In spite of support in the literature for
loss-framed ads, gain framing, especially when paired with physical threat, may
be more effective for individuals who are already engaging in environmentally
sustainable behavior (Cheng & Woon, 2010).
The combination of threat and frame design in messaging is highly depen-
dent on the characteristics of the individual in the target audience. Thus, proper
segmentation of the population should be carried out before designing messages
with frame=threat factors. (e.g., based on gender, frequency of participation in the
behavior, level of engagement in environmental behaviors in general and propen-
sity to change). These will result in differing combinations of frame and threat
(Cheng & Woon, 2010; Straughan & Roberts, 1999). For example, Cheng
and Woon found that social loss ads were more effective for females, which is
consistent with studies that have demonstrated a stronger peer influence on
females (Abernathy et al., 1995; Bird & Tapp, 2008; Kobus, 2003). In fact,
according to Cheng and Woon, females tend to hold weaker positive attitudes
toward driving and stronger environmental attitudes than males; thus they may
be more susceptible in general to all messages that call for the reduction of driving
practices and the adoption of environmentally sustainable behaviors. This inter-
action of framing with driving frequency and level of environmental behavior is
consistent with the transtheoretical model, which suggests that the most
effective approach may depend on the stages of change of the target audience
(Prochaska et al., 1992).

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 57

THEORY AND REVIEW

Overall, the literature suggests several factors that should be considered in the
use of framing and threat in message design. These include:

& The level of risk involved in uptake of the behavior. The health persuasion literature
suggests that individuals are more accepting of risks if message is loss framed and that
gain-framed messages are more effective for preventative behaviors (Rothman &
Salovey; 1997).
& Degree of self-referencing or self-other referencing in the message. There appears to
be a link between the use of message framing and the degree to which the message is
self-referencing or self-other referencing. Loroz (2006) illustrated a positive relation-
ship between self-referencing and gain-framed messages and between self-other
referencing and loss-framed messages for recycling behaviours; however, more
research on this is needed.
& Level of experience and knowledge of the target audience and stage of change of the
target audience. Message involvement and the level of information processing can
interact with framed messages to influence attitudes and behaviors. Selecting the
most effective message frame depends on the target audience’s stage of behavior
change. For example, gain frames may be more effective for those who are already
engaging in other environmentally sustainable behaviors (Block & Heller, 1995;
Cheng & Woon, 2010; Loroz, 2006; Kaczynski et al., 2005; Meijnders et al.,
2001; Pelletier & Sharp, 2008).
& Gender of target audience. The impact of loss-gain framing depends on the gender of
the message recipient. For example, social loss ads have a tendency to be more per-
suasive to female audiences – and female adolescent audiences in particular (Cheng &
Woon, 2010; Straughan & Roberts, 1999).

Conclusion
This article sought to explore some ways in which message framing can be applied
to environmentally sustainable behaviors to enhance the effectiveness of social
marketing campaigns. To date, there is a lack of research exploring the effects
of message framing on environmentally sustainable behavior. Given the urgency
of the environmental crisis and the well-documented knowledge-action gap,
research on how to effectively encourage environmental behaviors is becoming
increasingly pertinent.
This article opens up several avenues for research and real-world applications.
Further research on the influence of message framing and the role of audience
segmentation in behavioral change strategies will enhance and strengthen current
practices in social marketing. In particular future research should include: the

58 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

effects of social and physical threats in environmental communications, and the

role of market segmentation in predicting effective interventions.
A review of the literature affirms the applicability of strategies in health beha-
vior interventions on environmentally sustainable behaviors. Furthermore, this
research suggests that message framing and threat, when used appropriately in
social marketing campaigns, can have an important effect on the desired environ-
mentally sustainable behavior change.

About the Authors

Tania Cheng, B.E.S. (Environment & Resource Studies), is a recent graduate
of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. She is currently involved with
the International Tobacco Control Policy Evaluation Project, an international
research collaboration evaluating the effectiveness of tobacco policies based in
the Department of Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Her academic
interests include social psychology, behavioral change, social entrepreneurship,
and social marketing.

Danielle Kathryn Woon, B.E.S. (Environment & Resource Studies), is a

recent graduate of the University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Danielle has
been involved with coordinating the University’s environmental sustainability
student service and has been a facilitator of student leadership workshops. She
is currently coordinating a national leadership development conference focused
on connecting and supporting young Canadian leaders across the country.

Jennifer K. Lynes, B.Comm (Marketing), M.E.S. (Environment & Resource

Studies), Ph.D. (Environmental Planning), is an associate professor with the
School of Environment, Enterprise & Development at the University of
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. She teaches courses on social marketing, green
marketing, and public sector marketing. Her current research uses social
marketing as a base from which to explore ways to encourage environmentally
sustainable behavior. She has worked on several projects that focus on youth
engagement, including the Canadian-based ‘‘Reduce the Juice’’ program.

References
Abernathy, T. J., Massad, L., & Romano-Dwyer, L. (1995). The relationship between smoking and
self-esteem. Adolescence, 30(120), 899–907.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 59

THEORY AND REVIEW

Axelrod, L. J., & Lehman, D. R. (1993). Responding to environmental concerns: What factors
guide individual action? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 149–159.
Bamberg, S., & Moser, G. (2007). Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new
meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmen-
tal Psychology, 27, 14–25.

Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J., Moyer, A., Beauvais, J., & Epel, E. (1995). The
effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178–184.
Bator, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). The application of persuasion theory to the development of
effective proenvironmental public service announcements. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 527–541.
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., DeWall, C. N., & Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes beha-
vior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 11, 167–203.
Bird, S., & Tapp, A. (2008). Social marketing and the meaning of cool. Social Marketing Quarterly,
14(1), 18–29.
Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived
efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Market-
ing Research, 32, 192–203.
Chan, M. K. (1998). Predicting unethical behavior: A comparison of the theory of reasoned action
and the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 17, 1825–1834.
Cheng, T., & Woon, D. (2010). Message Frame and Threat in the Social Marketing of Sustainable
Behaviour for Youth. Unpublished honors thesis, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Coke, J. S., Batson, C. D., & McDavis, K. (1978). Empathic mediation of helping: A two-stage
model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 752–766.

Davis, J. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications.

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 285–299.
De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational
decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.
DeVries, N., Ruiter, R., & Leegwater, Y. (2002). Fear appeals in persuasive communication. In
G. Bartels & W. Nelissen (Eds.), Marketing for sustainability: Towards transnational policy-making
(pp. 96–104). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.
Dienstbier, R. A., Hillman, D., Lehnhoff, J., Hillman, J., & Valkenaar, M. C. (1975). An
emotion-attribution approach to moral behavior: Interfacing cognitive and avoidance theories of
moral development. Psychological Review, 82, 299–315.

Dietz, T., Stern, P. C., & Guagnano, G. A. (1998). Social structure and social psychological bases
on environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 30, 450–471.
Donovan, R. J., & Henley, N. (1997). Negative outcomes, threats and threat appeals: Widening the
conceptual framework for the study of fear and other emotions in social marketing communications.
Social Marketing Quarterly, 4(1), 56–67.

60 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

 THEORY AND REVIEW

Gonzales, M., Aronson, E., & Costanzo, M. (1988). Using social cognition and persuasion to pro-
mote energy conservation: A quasi experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1049–1066.
Hastings, G., Stead, M., & Webb, J. (2004). Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical
reasons for concern. Psychology & Marketing, 21, 961–986.
Kaczynski, A. T., Havitz, M. E., & McCarville, R. E. (2005). Altering perceptions through repo-
sitioning: An exercise in framing. Leisure Sciences, 27, 241–261.
Kaiser, F. G., & Shimoda, T. A. (1999). Responsibility as a predictor of ecological behavior. Journal
of Environmental Psychology, 19, 243–253.

Kaiser, F. G., Wolfing, S., & Fuhrer, U. (1999). Environmental attitude and ecological behavior.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 1–19.

Kennedy, E. H., Beckley, T. M., McFarlane, B. L., & Nadeau, S. (2009). Why we don’t ‘‘walk the
talk’’: Understanding the environmental values=behavior gap in Canada. Human Ecology Review,
16, 151–160.

Kobus, K. (2003). Peers and adolescent smoking. Addiction, 98(1), 37–55.

Kolandai-Matchett, K. (2009). Mediated communication of ‘sustainable consumption’ in the alter-
native media: A case study exploring a message framing strategy. International Journal of Consumer
Studies, 33, 113–125.
Kollmus, A., & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental Education Research, 8, 239–260.
Lehman, P. K., & Geller, E. S. (2004). Behavior analysis and environmental protection: Accom-
plishments and potential for more. Behavior and Social Issues, 13, 13–32.

Loroz, P. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasion
appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 1001–1023.

Maibach, E. (1993). Social marketing for the environment: Using information campaigns to pro-
mote environmental awareness and behavior change. Health Promotion International, 8, 209–224.
McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to
community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 543–554.
Meijnders, A. L., Midden, C. J. H., & Wilke, H. A. M. (2001). Communications about environ-
mental risks and risk-reducing behavior: The impact of fear on information processing. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 754–777.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination
attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500–510.
Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology
Review, 10, 113–125.
Neukom, J., & Ashford, L. (2003). Changing youth behavior through social marketing: Program
experiences and research findings from Cameroon, Madagascar, and Rwanda. Washington, DC:
Population Reference Bureau.

SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011 61

 THEORY AND REVIEW

Nisbet, E. K. L., & Gick, M. L. (2008). Can health psychology help the planet? Applying theory
and models of health behaviour to environmental actions. Canadian Psychology, 49, 296–303.
Obermiller, C. (1995). The baby is sick=the baby is well: A test of environmental communication
appeals. Journal of Advertising, 24, 55–70.
Pelletier, L. G., Lavergne, K. J., & Sharp, E. C. (2008). Environmental psychology and sustainabil-
ity: Comments on topics important for our future. Canadian Psychology, 49, 304–308.
Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E. (2008). Persuasive communication and proenvironmental behaviours:
How message tailoring and message framing can improve the integration of behaviours through
self-determined motivation. Canadian Psychology, 49, 210–217.
Prochaska, J. O., DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. (1992). In search of how people change:
Applications to addictive behaviors. American Psychologist, 47, 1102–1114.
Randolph, W., & Viswanath, K. (2004). Lessons learned from public health mass media campaigns:
Marketing health in a crowded media world. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 419–437.

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role
of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Carol, A., Kelli, K., & Drake, M. C. (1993). The influence of message
framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29,
408–433.

Schoenbachler, D. D., & Whittler, T. E. (1996). Adolescent processing of social and physical threat
communications. Journal of Advertising, 25(4), 37–54.
Schwartz, S. H. (1973). Normative explanations of helping behavior: A critique, proposal, and
empirical test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 9, 349–364.
Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of
Social Issues, 56, 407–424.
Straughan, R. D., & Roberts, J. A. (1999). Environmental segmentation alternatives: A look at
green consumer behavior in the new millennium. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16, 558–575.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211(4481), 453–458.

Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution) – emotion – action model of motivated behavior: An

analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 39, 186–200.
Wiley, J. B., Krisjanous, J., & Hutchings, S. (2002, December). An experimental evaluation of physi-
cal and social fear appeals on youths’ intentions to drive safely. Paper presented at the Australia and
New Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Melbourne, Australia.

62 SMQ | Volume XVII | No. 2 | Summer 2011

View publication stats