Effects of Nature Values and Regulatory Fit of Message Framing on Message Evaluation and Actual Pro-Environmental Donations

Abstract

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.

Keywords

value-behavior relations donations regulatory fit nature values pro-environmental behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaker

J. L.

Lee

A. Y.

(2006). Understanding regulatory fit. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 15–19. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.15

Aavik

Dobewall

(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

Aiken

West

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. SAGE Publications.

Arieli

Grant

A. M.

Sagiv

(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

Baek

T. H.

Reid

L. 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

Bain

P. G.

Hornsey

M. J.

Bongiorno

Jeffries

(2012). Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers. Nature Climate Change, 2(8), 600–603. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1532

Banaji

M. R.

Heiphetz

(2010). Attitudes. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

D. T.

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 5th ed., pp. 353–393). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Bardi

Lee

J. A.

Hofmann-Towfigh

Soutar

(2009). The structure of intraindividual value change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(5), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016617

Bardi

Schwartz

S. 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.

Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

Funder

D. 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.

Bertolotti

Catellani

(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.

Bhatnagar

McKay-Nesbitt

(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.

Bouman

Steg

Kiers

H. 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.

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. 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.

Cao

(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.

Casale

Baumann

(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.

Cesario

Corker

K. S.

Jelinek

(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.

Cesario

Grant

Higgins

E. 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.

Cesario

Higgins

E. T.

Scholer

A. 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.

Chang

(2014). Guilt regulation: The relative effects of altruistic versus egoistic appeals for charity advertising. Journal of Advertising, 43(3), 211–227.

21.

Chang

C.-T.

Lee

Y.-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.

Chen

M. 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.

Clements

J. M.

McCright

A. M.

Dietz

Marquart-Pyatt

S. 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.

Coleman

J. T.

Royne (Stafford)

M. B.

Pounders

K. 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.

Crowe

Higgins

E. 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 Groot

J. I. M.

Steg

. (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 Groot

J. I. M.

Steg

. (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

28.

Dietz

Allen

McCright

A. M.

(2017). Integrating concern for animals into personal values. Anthrozoös, 30(1), 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2017.1270597

29.

Dijkstra

Rothman

Pietersma

(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

30.

Döring

A. K.

Hillbrink

(2015). Brief report: Into the wild? How a film can change adolescents’ values. Journal of Adolescence, 40, 78–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.01.006

31.

Erlandsson

Nilsson

Västfjäll

(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

32.

Evans

Maio

G. R.

Corner

Hodgetts

C. J.

Ahmed

Hahn

(2013). Self-interest and pro-environmental behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 122–125. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1662

33.

Faul

Erdfelder

Lang

A. G.

Buchner

(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.

Feinberg

Willer

(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

35.

Förster

Higgins

E. T

. (2005). How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science, 16(8), 631–636. https://doi.org/10/1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01586.x

36.

Furr

R. 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.

Gorman

C. A.

Meriac

J. P.

Overstreet

B. L.

Apodaca

McIntyre

A. L.

Park

Godbey

J. 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.

Gouveia

V. V.

Milfont

T. L.

Guerra

V. 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.

Graham

Abrahamse

(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.

Greenspan

Handy

Katz-Gerro

(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.

Hartmann

Apaolaza

D’souza

Barrutia

J. M.

Echebarria

(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.

Helmig

Jegers

Lapsley

(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

43.

Henrich

Heine

S. J.

Norenzayan

(2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

44.

Herziger

Berkessel

J. B.

Steinnes

K. 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.

Herziger

Hoelzl

(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

46.

Higgins

E. T.

(1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280

47.

Higgins

E. 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

48.

Higgins

E. T.

(2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.11.1217

49.

Higgins

E. T.

(2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14(4), 209–213. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00366.x

50.

Higgins

E. 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.

Higgins

E. T.

Friedman

R. S.

Harlow

R. E.

Idson

L. C.

Ayduk

O. N.

Taylor

(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.

Higgins

E. T.

Roney

C. J.

Crowe

Hymes

(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.

Higgins

Tykocinski

(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.

Idson

L. C.

Liberman

Higgins

E. 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.

Igoe

(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.

Ingelhart

(1977). The silent revolution: Changing values and political styles among Western publics. Princeton University Press.

57.

Katz-Gerro

Greenspan

Handy

Lee

H. 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.

Keller

(2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33(1), 109–114. https://doi.org/10.1086/504141

59.

Kormos

Gifford

(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.

Kung

F. Y. H.

Scholer

A. 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.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. 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.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

Gardner

W. 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.

Lee

A. Y.

Higgins

E. T.

(2009). The persuasive power of regulatory fit. In Wänke

(Ed.), The social psychology of consumer behavior (pp. 319–333). Psychology Press.

64.

Lee

J. A.

Bardi

Gerrans

Sneddon

van Herk

Evers

Schwartz

(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

65.

Lee

J. A.

Evers

Sneddon

J. N.

Rahn

Schwartz

S. H.

(2019). What do we value? How our values influence our everyday behaviours. The Centre for Human and Cultural Values, University of Western Australia. http://whatdowevalue.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Values-Report-Final-2019-SM.pdf

66.

Lee

J. A.

Sneddon

J. N.

Daly

T. M.

Schwartz

S. H.

Soutar

G. N.

Louviere

J. 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

67.

Levis

Miller

Williams

(2018). 2018 fundraising effectiveness survey report. http://afpfep.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2018-Fundraising-Effectiveness-SurveyReport.pdf

68.

Louviere

J. J.

Flynn

T. N.

Marley

A. A. J.

(2015). Best-worst scaling: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

69.

Ludolph

Schulz

P. 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

70.

Maio

G. R.

(2010). Mental representation of social values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(10)42001-8

71.

Marshall

N. A.

Thiault

Beeden

Benham

Curnock

M. I.

Diedrich

Gurney

G. G.

Jones

Marshall

P. A.

Nakamura

Pert

(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

72.

Mason

Suri

(2012). Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 44(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-011-0124-6

73.

Mogilner

Aaker

J. L.

Pennington

G. 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.

Molinario

Kruglanski

A. W.

Bonaiuto

Bonnes

Cicero

Fornara

Scopelliti

Admiraal

Beringer

Dedeurwaerdere

DeGroot

Hiedanpää

Knights

Knippenberg

Ovdenden

Polajnar Horvat

Popa

Porras-Gomez

Smrekar

. . ., Bonaiuto

(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.

Morales

A. C.

Amir

Lee

(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

76.

Morris

Roberts

MacIntosh

Bordone

(2018). The financial health of the United States non-profit sector: Facts and observations. https://www.oliverwyman.com/content/dam/oliver-wyman/v2/publications/2018/January/FinancialHealthofUSNonprofitSector.pdf

77.

Morton

T. A.

Rabinovich

Marshall

Bretschneider

(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.

Motyka

Grewal

Puccinelli

N. M.

Roggeveen

A. L.

Avnet

Daryanto

de Ruyter

Wetzels

(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.

Mukherjee

Srinivasan

Manjaly

J. 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.

Nabi

R. L.

Gustafson

Jensen

(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.

Nabi

R. L.

Walter

Oshidary

Endacott

C. G.

Love-Nichols

Lew

Z. J.

Aune

(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.

Neumayr

Handy

(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.

Nielsen

K. S.

Clayton

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Capstick

Whitmarsh

(2021). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist, 76, 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624

84.

O’Keefe

D. 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

85.

Pennington

G. L.

Roese

N. J.

(2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-1031(03)00058-1

86.

Petty

R. E.

Wheeler

S. C.

Bizer

G. Y.

(2000). Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In Maio

G. R.

Olson

J. M.

(Eds.), Why we evaluate: Functions of attitudes (pp. 133–162). Erlbaum.

87.

Ponizovskiy

Ardag

Grigoryan

Boyd

Dobewall

Holtz

(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.

Ratneshwar

Chaiken

(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.

Roccas

Sagiv

Navon

(2017). Methodological issues in studying personal values. In Roccas

Sagiv

(Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 15–50). Springer.

90.

Rokeach

(1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

91.

Sassenberg

Scholl

(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.

Schuster

Pinkowski

Fischer

(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.

Schwartz

S. 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

94.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x

95.

Schwartz

S. H.

(2015). Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. In Sander

Brosch

(Eds.), Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy, psychology and sociology (pp. 63–84). Oxford University Press.

96.

Schwartz

S. H.

Bardi

(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.

Schwartz

S. H.

Butenko

(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.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

Vecchione

Davidov

Fischer

Beierlein

Ramos

Verkasalo

Lönnqvist

J.-E.

Demirutku

Dirilen-Gumus

Konty

(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.

Semin

G. R.

Higgins

de Montes

L. G.

Estourget

Valencia

J. 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.

Shah

Higgins

E. T.

Friedman

R. 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.

Shaw

A. Z.

Dolan

E. A.

Yurgalite

Walton

J. A.

Underwood

(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.

Sheeran

Webb

T. L.

(2016). The intention-behavior Gap. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(9), 503–518. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12265

103.

Skimina

Cieciuch

Schwartz

S. H.

Davidov

Algesheimer

(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.

Smith

E. K.

Mayer

(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.

Sneddon

J. N.

Evers

Lee

J. 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.

Spence

Pidgeon

(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.

Spiegel

Grant-Pillow

Higgins

E. 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

108.

Srnka

K. J.

Grohs

Eckler

(2003). Increasing fundraising efficiency by segmenting donors. Australasian Marketing Journal, 11(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1441-3582(03)70119-0

109.

Steg

De Groot

J. I. M.

Dreijerink

Abrahamse

Siero

(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.

Steg

Perlaviciute

van der Werff

Lurvink

(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.

Stern

P. C.

Dietz

Kalof

(1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25(5), 322–348. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916593255002

112.

Uskul

A. K.

Sherman

D. K.

Fitzgibbon

. (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 Broek

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Steg

. (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 Linden

Maibach

Leiserowitz

. (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 Dijk

Van Herk

Prins

. (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.

Wiepking

(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.

Woltin

K.-A.

Bardi

(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-Rugar

Klucarova-Travani

(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.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB