CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 34Climate Change Communication and PerceptionDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsClimate Change Policy and Economics

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

Open access
Armbruster, Scott, Manchanda, Rajesh, Vo, Ngan·2022·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su14127411
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su14127411

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • According to fear appeal theories, individuals must believe that they have the capacity to mitigate a threat in order for fear to lead to constructive action; otherwise, fear may result in psychological disengagement or avoidance.

    “According to fear appeal theories, individuals must believe that they have the capacity to mitigate a threat in order for fear to lead to constructive action; otherwise, fear may result in psychological disengagement or avoidance [42].”

    From The power of loss: message framing, climate anxiety, and engagement in personal carbon trading (2025) · cites this paper as [42]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. IPCC. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2021; in press.
  2. Cesario, J.; Corker, K.S.; Jelinek, S. A self-regulatory framework for message framing. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 49, 238-249. [CrossRef] · DOI
  3. Rothman, A.J.; Salovey, P. Shaping Perceptions to Motivate Healthy Behavior: The Role of Message Framing. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 121, 3-19. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  4. Van't Riet, J.; Cox, A.D.; Cox, D.; Zimet, G.D.; De Bruijn, G.J.; Van den Putte, B.; De Vries, H.; Werrij, M.Q.; Ruiter, R.A. Does Perceived Risk Influence the Effects of Message Framing? Revisiting the Link Between Prospect Theory and Message Framing. Health Psychol. Rev. 2016, 10, 447-459.
  5. O'Keefe, D.J.; Jensen, J.D. The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Prevention Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Health Commun. 2007, 12, 623-644. [CrossRef] · DOI
  6. O'Keefe, D.J.; Jensen, J.D. The Relative Persuasiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages for Encouraging Disease Detection Behaviors: A Meta-Analytic Review. J. Commun. 2009, 59, 296-316. [CrossRef] · DOI
  7. Lord, K.R. Motivating Recycling Behavior: A Quasi-Experimental Investigation of Message and Source Strategies. Psychol. Mark. 1994, 11, 341-358. [CrossRef] · DOI
  8. White, K.; MacDonnell, R.; Dahl, D.W. It's the Mind-Set that Matters: The Role of Construal Level and Message Framing in Influencing Consumer Efficacy and Conservation Behaviors. J. Mark. Res. 2011, 48, 472-485. [CrossRef] · DOI
  9. Block, L.G.; Keller, P.A. When to Accentuate the Negative: The Effects of Perceived Efficacy and Message Framing on Intentions to Perform a Health-Related Behavior. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32, 192-203. [CrossRef] · DOI
  10. Meyers-Levy, J.; Maheswaran, D. Exploring Message Framing Outcomes when Systematic, Heuristic, or Both Types of Processing Occur. J. Consum. Psychol. 2004, 14, 159-167.
  11. Bilandzic, H.; Kalch, A.; Soentgen, J. Effects of Goal Framing and Emotions on Perceived Threat and Willingness to Sacrifice for Climate Change. Sci. Commun. 2017, 39, 466-491. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  12. Spence, A.; Pidgeon, N. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010, 20, 656-667. [CrossRef] · DOI
  13. White, K.; Habib, R.; Hardisty, D.J. How to SHIFT Consumer Behaviors to be More Sustainable: A Literature Review and Guiding Framework. J. Mark. 2019, 83, 22-49. [CrossRef] · DOI
  14. Levin, K.; Cashore, B.; Bernstein, S.; Auld, G. Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: Constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 2012, 45, 123-152. [CrossRef] · DOI
  15. Moser, S.C. Reflections on Climate Change Communication Research and Practice in the Second Decade of the 21st Century: What More is There to Say? WIREs Clim. Chang. 2016, 7, 345-369. [CrossRef] · DOI
  16. Feldman, L.; Hart, P.S.; Milosevic, T. Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers' coverage of climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 2015, 26, 481-497. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  17. Feldman, L.; Hart, P.S. Is There Any Hope? How Climate Change News Imagery and Text Influence Audience Emotions and Support for Climate Mitigation Policies. Risk Anal. 2017, 38, 585-602. [CrossRef] · DOI
  18. Nabi, R.L.; Gustafson, A.; Jensen, R. Framing Climate Change: Exploring the Role of Emotion in Gen-erating Advocacy Behavior. Sci. Commun. 2018, 40, 442-468. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  19. Nabi, R.L.; Myrick, J.G. Uplifting Fear Appeals: Considering the Role of Hope in Fear-Based Persuasive Messages. Health Commun. 2017, 34, 463-474. [CrossRef] · DOI
  20. Nabi, R.L. Emotional Flow in Persuasive Health Messages. Health Commun. 2014, 30, 114-124. [CrossRef] · DOI
  21. Lazarus, R.S. Emotions and Adaptation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
  22. Albrecht, G. Chronic Environmental Change: Emerging 'Psychoterratic' Syndromes. In Climate Change and Human Well-Being: Global Challenges and Opportunities; Weissbecker, I., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 43-56.
  23. Massaro, D.W.; Petty, R.E.; Cacioppo, J.T. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. Am. J. Psychol. 1988, 101, 155. [CrossRef] · DOI
  24. Kim, S.-B.; Kim, D.-Y. The Effects of Message Framing and Source Credibility on Green Messages in Hotels. Cornell Hosp. Q. 2013, 55, 64-75. [CrossRef] · DOI
  25. Newman, C.L.; Howlett, E.; Burton, S.; Kozup, J.C.; Tangari, A.H. The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. Int. J. Advert. 2012, 31, 511-527. [CrossRef] · DOI
  26. Van de Velde, L.; Verbeke, W.; Popp, M.; Van Huylenbroeck, G. The Importance of Message Framing for Providing Information About Sustainability and Environmental Aspects of Energy. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 5541-5549. [CrossRef] · DOI
  27. Davis, J.J. The Effects of Message Framing on Response to Environmental Communications. J. Mass Commun. Q. 1995, 72, 285-299. [CrossRef] · DOI
  28. Loroz, P.S. The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychol. Mark. 2007, 24, 1001-1023. [CrossRef] · DOI
  29. Xu, J. The Impact of Locus of Control and Controlling Language on Psychological Reactance and Ad Effectiveness in Health Communication. Health Commun. 2016, 32, 1463-1471. [CrossRef] · DOI
  30. Brehm, J.W. A Theory of Psychological Reactance; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1966.
  31. Steindl, C.; Jonas, E.; Sittenthaler, S.; Traut-Mattausch, E.; Greenberg, J. Understanding Psycho-logical Reactance: New Develop- ments and Findings. Z. Für Psychol. 2015, 223, 205-214. [CrossRef] · DOI
  32. Whitmarsh, L.; Corner, A. Tools for a new climate conversation: A mixed-methods study of language for public engagement across the political spectrum. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 42, 122-135. [CrossRef] · DOI
  33. Chadwick, A.E. Toward a Theory of Persuasive Hope: Effects of Cognitive Appraisals, Hope Appeals, and Hope in the Context of Climate Change. Health Commun. 2015, 30, 598-611. [CrossRef] · DOI
  34. Van Der Linden, S. Determinants and Measurement of Climate Change Risk Perception, Worry, and Concern. In Oxford Encyclopedia of Climate Change Communication;
  35. Nisbet, M.C., Ho, S.S., Markowitz, E., O'Neill, S., Schäfer, M.S., Thaker, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
  36. Leiserowitz, A. Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Clim. Chang. 2006, 77, 45-72. [CrossRef] · DOI
  37. Roberto, A.J.; Goodall, C.E.; Witte, K. Raising the Alarm and Calming Fears: Perceived Threat and Efficacy During Risk and Crisis. In Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; pp. 285-301. [CrossRef] · DOI
  38. Lee, A.Y.; Aaker, J.L. Bringing the Frame into Focus: The Influence of Regulatory Fit on Processing Fluency and Persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 205-218. [CrossRef] · DOI
  39. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
  40. Hartmann, P.; Apaolaza, V.; D'souza, C.; Barrutia, J.M.; Echebarria, C. Barrutia, and Carmen Echebarria Environmental Threat Appeals in Green Advertising: The Role of Fear Arousal and Coping Efficacy. Int. J. Advert. 2014, 33, 741-765. [CrossRef] · DOI
  41. Xue, W.; Hine, D.W.; Marks, A.D.G.; Phillips, W.J.; Nunn, P.; Zhao, S. Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Clim. Chang. 2016, 137, 43-55. [CrossRef] · DOI
  42. Homar, A.R.; Cvelbar, L.K. The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 183, 106950. [CrossRef] · DOI · Paper page
  43. Svenningsen, L.S.; Thorsen, B.J. The Effect of Gain-loss Framing on Climate Policy Preferences. Ecol. Econ. 2021, 185, 107009. [CrossRef] · DOI
  44. Bertolotti, M.; Catellani, P. Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 2014, 44, 474-486. [CrossRef] · DOI
  45. Shen, L. Antecedents to Psychological Reactance: The Impact of Threat, Message Frame, and Choice. Health Commun. 2015, 30, 975-985. [CrossRef] · DOI
  46. Sakellari, M. Cinematic climate change, a promising perspective on climate change communication. Public Underst. Sci. 2014, 24, 827-841. [CrossRef] · DOI
  47. Steg, L., de Groot, J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Oxford, UK, 2012; pp. 273-282. [CrossRef] · DOI
  48. van der Linden, S.; Maibach, E.; Leiserowitz, A. Exposure to Scientific Consensus Does Not Cause Psychological Reactance. Environ. Commun. 2019, 1-8. [CrossRef] · DOI
  49. Lee, J.A.; Murnighan, J.K. The Empathy-Prospect Model and the Choice to Help1. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2001, 31, 816-839.
  50. CrossRef · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Armbruster, S., Manchanda, R., & Vo, N.
Affiliations
University of Manitoba (CA)
Corresponding author
Vo, Ngan
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2022-06-17
Volume
14
Issue
12
Pages
7411
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su14127411
OpenAlex
W4283155773
Cited by
34
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2
FWCI
6.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
F. Ross Johnson Professorship in Marketing
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Climate Change Policy and Economics
Keywords
climate change communication, loss framing, gain framing, goal framing, threat perception, perceived efficacy, hope, message processing, climate policy support, willingness to pay

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