Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 113

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 173 of the 173 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Message framing effects on sustainable consumer behaviour: a systematic review and future research directions for social marketing

Florence, Emma Shaozhen, Fleischman, David, Mulcahy, Rory, Wynder, Monte·2022·Journal of Social Marketing
DOI 10.1108/jsocm-09-2021-0221
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this research is to provide a systematic review of the literature relating to message framing and its effectiveness in persuading consumers to adopt environmentally sustainable behaviour, which is a form of pro-social behaviour. Specifically, this paper focuses on three types of message framing: positive–negative, self–other and abstract–concrete. Design/methodology/approach: This paper reports on a systematic review guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework identifying 108 articles published relating to message framing and environmental sustainability between 2005 and 2020. Descriptive analysis of the data was undertaken in combination with a thematic approach. Findings: The results demonstrate that single frames do not reliably increase sustainable consumer behaviour. Instead, the use of two message frames is more consistently effective. However, there is some disparity in relation to the combined effects of two message frames. The research also identifies that the use of three combined message frames is underexplored in the existing literature. Research limitations/implications: Social marketing and consumer psychology researchers have explored many types of message framing. This study focuses on three common types. Also, the review is limited to valence framing. The authors recognise that visual aspects of message frames also determine the effectiveness of messaging. Another limitation is that only empirical studies published between 2005 and 2020 were reviewed. Originality/value: Past review papers related to the impact of messaging on sustainable consumer behaviour either focus on one type of message framing, such as the positive–negative frame, or did not categorise message framing into different types. The current review focuses on three types of message framing that have been examined separately and in combination in the literature. Based on the findings, this study proposes a synthesised theoretical framework for future research.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1108/jsocm-09-2021-0221

Cites

173 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. 2011, Communications in social marketing
  2. 2020, Marketing Communications
  3. 2001, Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations
  4. 2000, Choices, Values, and Frames
  5. 2008, Social Marketing: Influencing Behaviors for Good

Cited by

See all 113

Metadata

Authors
Florence, E. S., Fleischman, D., Mulcahy, R., & Wynder, M.
Venue
Journal of Social Marketing
Publisher
Emerald
Published
2022-07-25
Volume
12
Issue
4
Pages
623-652
ISSN
2042-6763
DOI
10.1108/jsocm-09-2021-0221
Cited by
113
References
173
Language
en
Licence
www.emerald.com/insight/site-policies (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.