Messages are often tailored to individual differences, as fit is believed to influence behavior. We examine the effects of regulatory fit (i.e., matching promotion/prevention message framing to people’s promotion/prevention orientation) and the priority that individuals attribute to nature values, on the evaluation of climate change messages and donations to pro-environmental charities. We measured participants’ (n = 570) regulatory focus on ensuring positive outcomes (promotion) versus avoiding negative outcomes (prevention), and nature values. Participants evaluated a promotion- or prevention-framed text (highlighting ensuring the welfare of the environment or avoiding its destruction) and were then invited to donate part of their remuneration to pro-environmental or other charities. Participants who prioritized nature values evaluated the promotion-framed text more favorably the stronger their promotion focus was, but only endorsement of nature values predicted donations. This highlights the importance of measuring actual pro-environmental behavior, as positive message evaluations did not result in donations.
AavikT.DobewallH. (2017). Where is the location of “health” in the human values system? Evidence from Estonia. Social Indicators Research, 131(3), 1145–1162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1287-4
3.
AikenL.WestS. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE Publications.
4.
ArieliS.GrantA. M.SagivL. (2014). Convincing yourself to care about others: An intervention for enhancing benevolence values. Journal of Personality, 82(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12029
5.
BaekT. H.ReidL. N. (2013). The interplay of mood and regulatory focus in influencing altruistic behavior. Psychology and Marketing, 30(8), 635–646. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20634
BanajiM. R.HeiphetzL. (2010). Attitudes. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 353–393). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
8.
BardiA.LeeJ. A.Hofmann-TowfighN.SoutarG. (2009). The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016617
9.
BardiA.SchwartzS. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203254602
10.
BaumeisterR. F.VohsK. D.FunderD. C. (2007). Psychology as the science of self-reports and finger movements: Whatever happened to actual behavior?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
11.
BertolottiM.CatellaniP. (2014). Effects of message framing in policy communication on climate change. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(5), 474–486. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2033
12.
BhatnagarN.McKay-NesbittJ. (2016). Pro-environment advertising messages: The role of regulatory focus. International Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 4–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1101225
13.
BoumanT.StegL.KiersH. A. L. (2018). Measuring values in environmental research: A test of an environmental portrait value questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00564
14.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/14805-009
15.
CaoX. (2016). Framing charitable appeals: The effect of message framing and perceived susceptibility to the negative consequences of inaction on donation intention. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 21(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1536
16.
CasaleD.BaumannA. (2015). Who gives to international causes? A sociodemographic analysis of US donors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 44(1), 98–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764013507141
17.
CesarioJ.CorkerK. S.JelinekS. (2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(2), 238–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014
18.
CesarioJ.GrantH.HigginsE. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from feeling right. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388
19.
CesarioJ.HigginsE. T.ScholerA. A. (2008). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 444–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x
20.
ChangC. (2014). Guilt regulation: The relative effects of altruistic versus egoistic appeals for charity advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(3), 211–227.
21.
ChangC.-T.LeeY.-K. (2009). Framing charity advertising: Influences of message framing, image valence, and temporal framing on a charitable appeal1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(12), 2910–2935. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2009.00555.x
22.
ChenM. F. (2016). Impact of fear appeals on pro-environmental behavior and crucial determinants. International Journal of Advertising, 35(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2015.1101908
23.
ClementsJ. M.McCrightA. M.DietzT.Marquart-PyattS. T. (2015). A behavioural measure of environmental decision-making for social surveys. Environmental Sociology, 1(1), 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2015.1020466
24.
ColemanJ. T.Royne (Stafford)M. B.PoundersK. R. (2020). Pride, guilt, and self-regulation in cause-related marketing advertisements. Journal of Advertising, 49(1), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2019.1689871
25.
CroweE.HigginsE. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 117–132. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.2675
26.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2008). Value orientation to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: How to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environment and Behavior, 40(3), 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
27.
De GrootJ. I. M.StegL. (2010). Relationships between value orientations, self-determined motivational types and pro-environmental behavioural intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 30(4), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.04.002
DijkstraA.RothmanA.PietersmaS. (2011). The persuasive effects of framing messages on fruit and vegetable consumption according to regulatory focus theory. Psychology and Health, 26(8), 1036–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.526715
ErlandssonA.NilssonA.VästfjällD. (2018). Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 30(4), 444–474. https://doi.org/10.1080/10495142.2018.1452828
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA. G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
34.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167215607842
FurrR. M. (2009). Personality psychology as a truly behavioural science. European Journal of Personality, 23(5), 369–401. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.724
37.
GormanC. A.MeriacJ. P.OverstreetB. L.ApodacaS.McIntyreA. L.ParkP.GodbeyJ. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005
38.
GouveiaV. V.MilfontT. L.GuerraV. M. (2014). Functional theory of human values: Testing its content and structure hypotheses. Personality and Individual Differences, 60, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2013.12.012
39.
GrahamT.AbrahamseW. (2017). Communicating the climate impacts of meat consumption: The effect of values and message framing. Global Environmental Change, 44, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.03.004
40.
GreenspanI.HandyF.Katz-GerroT. (2012). Environmental philanthropy: Is it similar to other types of environmental behavior?Organization & Environment, 25(2), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1086026612449339
41.
HartmannP.ApaolazaV.D’souzaC.BarrutiaJ. M.EchebarriaC. (2014). Environmental threat appeals in green advertising: The role of fear arousal and coping efficacy. International Journal of Advertising, 33(4), 741–765. https://doi.org/10.2501/IJA-33-4-741-765
42.
HelmigB.JegersM.LapsleyI. (2004). Challenges in managing nonprofit organizations: A research overview. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 15(2), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:volu.0000033176.34018.75
HerzigerA.BerkesselJ. B.SteinnesK. K. (2020). Wean off green: On the (in)effectiveness of biospheric appeals for consumption curtailment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69, 10145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101415
45.
HerzigerA.HoelzlE. (2017). Underestimated habits: Hypothetical choice design in consumer research. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2(3), 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/694585
HigginsE. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
HigginsE. T. (2008). Culture and personality: Variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 608–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.x
51.
HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S.HarlowR. E.IdsonL. C.AydukO. N.TaylorA. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27
52.
HigginsE. T.RoneyC. J.CroweE.HymesC. (1994). Ideal versus ought predilections for approach and avoidance distinct self-regulatory systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(2), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.2.276
53.
HigginsT.TykocinskiO. (1992). Self-discrepancies and biographical memory: Personality and cognition at the level of psychological situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(5), 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292185002
54.
IdsonL. C.LibermanN.HigginsE. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1402
55.
IgoeJ. (2010). The spectacle of nature in the global economy of appearances: Anthropological engagements with the spectacular mediations of transnational conservation. Critique of Anthropology, 30(4), 375–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308275x10372468
56.
IngelhartR. (1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press.
57.
Katz-GerroT.GreenspanI.HandyF.LeeH. Y. (2017). The relationship between value types and environmental behaviour in four countries: Universalism, benevolence, conformity and biospheric values revisited. Environmental Values, 26(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117x14847335385599
58.
KellerP. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1086/504141
59.
KormosC.GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
60.
KungF. Y. H.ScholerA. A. (2018). Message framing influences perceptions of feedback (in)directness. Social Cognition, 36(6), 626–670. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2018.36.6.626
61.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.205
62.
LeeA. Y.AakerJ. L.GardnerW. L. (2000). The pleasures and pains of distinct self-construals: The role of interdependence in regulatory focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(6), 1122–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.6.1122
63.
LeeA. Y.HigginsE. T. (2009). The persuasive power of regulatory fit. In WänkeM. (Ed.), The social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 319–333). Psychology Press.
64.
LeeJ. A.BardiA.GerransP.SneddonJ.van HerkH.EversU.SchwartzS. (2022). Are value–behavior relations stronger than previously thought? It depends on value importance. European Journal of Personality, 36(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211002965
LeeJ. A.SneddonJ. N.DalyT. M.SchwartzS. H.SoutarG. N.LouviereJ. J. (2019). Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best-worst scaling approach. Assessment, 26(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116683799
LouviereJ. J.FlynnT. N.MarleyA. A. J. (2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.
69.
LudolphR.SchulzP. J. (2015). Does regulatory fit lead to more effective health communication? A systematic review. Social Science & Medicine, 128, 142–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.01.021
MarshallN. A.ThiaultL.BeedenA.BeedenR.BenhamC.CurnockM. I.DiedrichA.GurneyG. G.JonesL.MarshallP. A.NakamuraN.PertP. (2019). Our environmental value orientations influence how we respond to climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 938. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00938
MogilnerC.AakerJ. L.PenningtonG. L. (2008). Time will tell: The distant appeal of promotion and imminent appeal of prevention: Table 1. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(5), 670–681. https://doi.org/10.1086/521901
74.
MolinarioE.KruglanskiA. W.BonaiutoF.BonnesM.CiceroL.FornaraF.ScopellitiM.AdmiraalJ.BeringerA.DedeurwaerdereT.DeGrootW.HiedanpääJ.KnightsP.KnippenbergL.OvdendenC.Polajnar HorvatK.PopaF.Porras-GomezC.SmrekarA. . . ., BonaiutoM. (2020). Motivations to act for the protection of nature biodiversity and the environment: A matter of “significance”. Environment and Behavior, 52(10), 1133–1163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916518824376
75.
MoralesA. C.AmirO.LeeL. (2017). Keeping it real in experimental research—understanding when, where, and how to enhance realism and measure consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(2), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx048
MortonT. A.RabinovichA.MarshallD.BretschneiderP. (2011). The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change, 21, 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013
78.
MotykaS.GrewalD.PuccinelliN. M.RoggeveenA. L.AvnetT.DaryantoA.de RuyterK.WetzelsM. (2014). Regulatory fit: A meta-analytic synthesis. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 24(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2013.11.004
79.
MukherjeeS.SrinivasanN.ManjalyJ. A. (2014). Global processing fosters donations toward charity appeals framed in an approach orientation. Cognitive Processing, 15, 391–396. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10339-014-0602-8
80.
NabiR. L.GustafsonA.JensenR. (2018). Framing climate change: Exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40(4), 442–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019
81.
NabiR. L.WalterN.OshidaryN.EndacottC. G.Love-NicholsJ.LewZ. J.AuneA. (2020). Can emotions capture the elusive gain-loss framing effect? A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 47(8), 1107–1130. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650219861256
82.
NeumayrM.HandyF. (2019). Charitable giving: What influences donors’ choice among different causes?VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 30(4), 783–799. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9843-3
83.
NielsenK. S.ClaytonS.SternP. C.DietzT.CapstickS.WhitmarshL. (2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624
84.
O’KeefeD. J. (2013). The relative persuasiveness of different forms of arguments-from-consequences: A review and integration. Annals of the International Communication Association, 36(1), 109–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2013.11679128
PettyR. E.WheelerS. C.BizerG. Y. (2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In MaioG. R.OlsonJ. M. (Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133–162). Erlbaum.
87.
PonizovskiyV.ArdagM.GrigoryanL.BoydR.DobewallH.HoltzP. (2020). Development and validation of the personal values dictionary: A theory-driven tool for investigating references to basic human values in text. European Journal of Personality, 34(5), 885–902. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.2294
88.
RatneshwarS.ChaikenS. (1991). Comprehension’s role in persuasion: The case of its moderating effect on the persuasive impact of source cues. Journal of Consumer Research, 18(1), 52–62. https://doi.org/10.1086/209240
89.
RoccasS.SagivL.NavonM. (2017). Methodological issues in studying personal values. In RoccasS.SagivL. (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 15–50). Springer.
90.
RokeachM. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
91.
SassenbergK.SchollA. (2013). If I can do it my way. . .the influence of regulatory focus on job-related values and job attraction. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.09.003
92.
SchusterC.PinkowskiL.FischerD. (2019). Intra-individual value change in adulthood: A systematic literature review of longitudinal studies assessing Schwartz’s value orientations. Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 227(1), 42–52. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000355
93.
SchwartzS. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6
SchwartzS. H. (2015). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In SanderD.BroschT. (Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology (pp. 63–84). Oxford University Press.
96.
SchwartzS. H.BardiA. (2001). Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(3), 268–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032003002
97.
SchwartzS. H.ButenkoT. (2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 799–813. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2053
98.
SchwartzS. H.CieciuchJ.VecchioneM.DavidovE.FischerR.BeierleinC.RamosA.VerkasaloM.LönnqvistJ.-E.DemirutkuK.Dirilen-GumusO.KontyM. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393
99.
SeminG. R.HigginsT.de MontesL. G.EstourgetY.ValenciaJ. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36
100.
ShahJ.HigginsE. T.FriedmanR. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 285–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.285
101.
ShawA. Z.DolanE. A.YurgaliteL.WaltonJ. A.UnderwoodK. (2017). Using regulatory fit theory to examine how the communication context of compliance-gaining interactions influences compliance. Social Influence, 12(2–3), 80–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2017.1365759
102.
SheeranP.WebbT. L. (2016). The intention-behavior Gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265
103.
SkiminaE.CieciuchJ.SchwartzS. H.DavidovE.AlgesheimerR. (2019). Behavioral signatures of values in everyday behavior in retrospective and real-time self-reports. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 281. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00281
104.
SmithE. K.MayerA. (2019). Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states. Climatic Change, 152, 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-018-2332-x
105.
SneddonJ. N.EversU.LeeJ. A. (2020). Personal values and choice of charitable cause: An exploration of donors’ giving behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(4), 803–826. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020908339
106.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20, 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
107.
SpiegelS.Grant-PillowH.HigginsE. T. (2004). How regulatory fit enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.180
StegL.De GrootJ. I. M.DreijerinkL.AbrahamseW.SieroF. (2011). General antecedents of personal norms, policy acceptability, and intentions: The role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society & Natural Resources, 24(4), 349–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920903214116
110.
StegL.PerlaviciuteG.van der WerffE.LurvinkJ. (2014). The significance of hedonic values for environmentally relevant attitudes, preferences, and actions. Environment and Behavior, 46(2), 163–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512454730
111.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002
112.
UskulA. K.ShermanD. K.FitzgibbonJ. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. Loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 535–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005
113.
van Den BroekK.BolderdijkJ. W.StegL. (2017). Individual differences in values determine the relative persuasiveness of biospheric, economic and combined appeals. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 53, 145–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2017.07.009
114.
van der LindenS.MaibachE.LeiserowitzA. (2015). Improving public engagement with climate change: Five “best practice” insights from psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(6), 758–763. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615598516
115.
van DijkM.Van HerkH.PrinsR. (2019). Choosing your charity: The importance of value congruence in two-stage donation choices. Journal of Business Research, 105, 283–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.08.008
116.
WiepkingP. (2010). Democrats support international relief and the upper class donates to art? How opportunity, incentives and confidence affect donations to different types of charitable organizations. Social Science Research, 39(6), 1073–1087. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.06.005
117.
WoltinK.-A.BardiA. (2018). Fitting motivational content and process: A systematic investigation of fit between value framing and self-regulation. Journal of Personality, 86(6), 973–989. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12369
118.
Zemack-RugarY.Klucarova-TravaniS. (2018). Should donation ads include happy victim images? The moderating role of regulatory focus. Marketing Letters, 29(4), 421–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-018-9471-8
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
