Previous studies have tested various light-switching appeals, except for messages that explicitly focused on the energy gains or losses accompanying manual light control. To fill this research gap, we tested the effectiveness of prompts with different frames (i.e., gain vs. non-loss vs. loss vs. non-gain) of energy-saving arguments promoting turning off the lights in single-stall restrooms across two field experiments (university building: N = 786, and DIY store: N = 2,288). Results revealed that gain- and loss-framed prompts were overall effective in promoting turning off lights compared with the control condition. However, the effectiveness of a particular gain- and loss-framed prompt varied across the occupants’ samples. Despite these differences, explicitly stated gain (i.e., conserving energy) or loss (i.e., wasting energy) from turning off or leaving on the lights, respectively, had the most stable influence as compared with non-loss (i.e., not wasting energy) or non-gain (i.e., not conserving energy) frames.
AartsH.DijksterhuisA. (2003). The silence of the library: Environment, situational norm, and social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 18–28. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.18
2.
AliA. S.ZanzingerZ.DeboseD.StephensB. (2016). Open source building science sensors (OSBSS): A low-cost arduino-based platform for long-term indoor environmental data collection. Building and Environment, 100, 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.02.010
3.
AllenJ.LeH. (2008). An additional measure of overall effect size for logistic regression models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 33(4), 416–441. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998607306081
4.
ApanovitchA. M.McCarthyD.SaloveyP. (2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychology, 22(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.22.1.60
5.
BedeianA. G.MossholderK. W. (1994). Simple question, not so simple answer: Interpreting interaction terms in moderated multiple regression. Journal of Management, 20(1), 159–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639402000108
6.
BergquistM.NilssonA.SchultzW. P. (2019). A meta-analysis of field-experiments using social norms to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Global Environmental Change, 59, Article 101941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101941
7.
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
8.
BrendlC. M.HigginsE. T.LemmK. M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1028–1051. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.6.1028
CameronA. C.MillerD. L. (2015). A practitioner’s guide to cluster-robust inference. Journal of Human Resources, 50(2), 317–372. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.50.2.317
ColeD. N.HammondT. P.McCoolS. F. (1996). Information quantity and communication effectiveness: Low-impact messages on wilderness trailside bulletin boards. Leisure Sciences, 19(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490409709512239
14.
CwalinaW.KoniakP. (2023). The role of conspiracy mentality, reactance, and anxiety in the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed messages promoting COVID-19 protective measures: Is vaccination different?Polish Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 279–288. https://doi.org/10.24425/ppb.2023.148847
DetweilerJ. B.BedellB. T.SaloveyP.ProninE.RothmanA. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.18.2.189
17.
DillardJ. P.ShenL. (2005). On the nature of reactance and its role in persuasive health communication. Communication Monographs, 72(2), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750500111815
18.
D’OcaS.HongT.LangevinJ. (2018). The human dimensions of energy use in buildings: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 731–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.08.019
19.
DwyerP. C.MakiA.RothmanA. J. (2015). Promoting energy conservation behavior in public settings: The influence of social norms and personal responsibility. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 30–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.002
20.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
21.
FengZ.ZhangF. (2019). Can light-shaped visual prompt promote individuals’ lights off behaviors more effectively than ordinary one?Psychology, 10(1), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2019.101006
22.
FrantzJ. P.RhoadesP.LehtoR. (2005). Practical considerations regarding the design and evaluation of product warnings. In WogalterM. S.DejoyD. M.LaugheryK. R. (Eds.), Warnings and risk communications (pp. 283–302). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780203983836
23.
GellerE. S.WinettR. A.EverettP. B. (1982). Environmental preservation: New strategies for behavior change. Pergamon Press.
24.
GemmeckeC.KühnerC.ZacherH.HüffmeierJ. (2025). Prompting change: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the (un) confounded effects of prompts on pro-environmental behavior. Applied Psychology, 74(2), Article e70003. https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.70003
GilaniS.O’BrienW. (2018). A preliminary study of occupants’ use of manual lighting controls in private offices: A case study. Energy and Buildings, 159, 572–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.055
27.
González-TorresM.Pérez-LombardL.CoronelJ. F.MaestreI. R.YanD. (2022). A review on buildings energy information: Trends, end-uses, fuels and drivers. Energy Reports, 8, 626–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2021.11.280
28.
GrzybT.DolińskiD. (2021). The field study in social psychology: How to conduct research outside of a laboratory setting?Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003092995
29.
GuentherL.GaertnerM.ZeitzJ. (2021). Framing as a concept for health communication: A systematic review. Health Communication, 36(7), 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2020.1723048
30.
HammesS.Geisler-MoroderD.HauerM.WeningerJ.ObleitnerM.MillerJ.PlörerD.Van KarsbergenV.WeitlanerR.PflugerR. (2024). Concepts of user-centred lighting controls for office applications: A systematic literature review. Building and Environment, 254, Article 111321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111321
31.
HeydarianA.McIlvennieC.ArpanL.YousefiS.SyndicusM.SchweikerM.JazizadehF.RissettoR.PiselloA. L.PiselliC.BergerC.YanZ.MahdaviA. (2020). What drives our behaviors in buildings? A review on occupant interactions with building systems from the lens of behavioral theories. Building and Environment, 179, Article 106928. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106928
32.
HighhouseS.PaeseP. W. (1996). Problem domain and prospect frame: Choice under opportunity versus threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296222002
33.
HomarA. R.CvelbarL. K. (2021). The effects of framing on environmental decisions: A systematic literature review. Ecological Economics, 183, Article 106950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.106950
34.
HongT.Taylor-LangeS. C.D’OcaS.YanD.CorgnatiS. P. (2016). Advances in research and applications of energy-related occupant behavior in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 116, 694–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.11.052
35.
HongT.YanD.D’OcaS.ChenC. F. (2017). Ten questions concerning occupant behavior in buildings: The big picture. Building and Environment, 114, 518–530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.006
36.
HorsleyA. D. (1988). The unintended effects of a posted sign on littering attitudes and stated intentions. Journal of Environmental Education, 19(3), 10–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.1988.9942757
37.
HuS.YanD.AzarE.GuoF. (2020). A systematic review of occupant behavior in building energy policy. Building and Environment, 175, Article 106807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2020.106807
38.
HuangF. L.LiX. (2022). Using cluster-robust standard errors when analyzing group-randomized trials with few clusters. Behavior Research Methods, 54(3), 1181–1199. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01627-0
JanssonC.MarlowN.BristowM. (2004). The influence of colour on visual search times in cluttered environments. Journal of Marketing Communications, 10(3), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726042000207162
41.
KeizerK.LindenbergS.StegL. (2014). Doing field studies. What is it all about?Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17(3), 404–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213510750
42.
KormosC.GiffordR. (2014). The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 40, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003
43.
LangeF. (2023). Behavioral paradigms for studying pro-environmental behavior: A systematic review. Behavior Research Methods, 55(2), 600–622. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01825-4
44.
LangeF.SteinkeA.DewitteS. (2018). The pro-environmental behavior task: A laboratory measure of actual pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 56, 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.007
45.
LeoniakK. J.CwalinaW. (2019). The role of normative prompts and norm support cues in promoting light-switching behavior: A field study. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 64, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.04.014
46.
LeoniakK. J.CwalinaW. (2020). Measuring light-switching behavior using an occupancy and light data logger. Journal of Visualized Experiments, (155), Article e60771. https://doi.org/10.3791/60771
47.
LevinI. P.SchneiderS. L.GaethG. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
48.
LiuY.XieC.SheS. (2014). Perception of delayed environmental risks: Beyond time discounting. Disaster Prevention and Management, 23(2), 112–122. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPM-06-2013-0099
49.
LordK. R. (1994). Motivating recycling behavior: A quasiexperimental investigation of message and source strategies. Psychology & Marketing, 11(4), 341–358. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110404
50.
LorozP. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24(11), 1001–1023. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20193
LuybenP. D. (1980). Effects of informational prompts on energy conservation in college classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13(4), 611–617. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1980.13-611
MaheswaranD.Meyers-LevyJ. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27(3), 361–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224379002700310
McDougallS. J.CurryM. B.de BruijnO. (1999). Measuring symbol and icon characteristics: Norms for concreteness, complexity, meaningfulness, familiarity, and semantic distance for 239 symbols. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(3), 487–519. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200730
57.
McKenzie-MohrD. (2000). New ways to promote proenvironmental behavior: Promoting sustainable behavior: An introduction to community-based social marketing. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 543–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00183
58.
MeisJ.KashimaY. (2017). Signage as a tool for behavioral change: Direct and indirect routes to understanding the meaning of a sign. PLoS One, 12(8), Article e0182975. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182975
59.
Meis-HarrisJ.EysselF.KashimaY. (2021). Are you paying attention? How pro-environmental tendencies relate to attentional processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 74, Article 101591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101591
60.
Meis-HarrisJ.KashimaY. (2020). Navigating sustainably within the urban environment: The role of environmental identity and attitudes on sign and object evaluation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(4), 407–421. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12411
Meyers-LevyJ.MaheswaranD. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14(1&2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp1401&2_18
63.
MoussaouiL. S.DesrichardO.MilfontT. L. (2020). Do environmental prompts work the same for everyone? A test of environmental attitudes as a moderator. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 508641. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03057
64.
NanX. (2007). The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus loss-framed messages: Exploring the moderating role of the desirability of end-states. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3), 509–524. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400307
65.
ObermillerC. (1995). The baby is sick / the baby is well: A test of environmental communication appeals. Journal of Advertising, 24(2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1995.10673476
66.
OcejaL.BerenguerJ. (2009). Putting text in context: The conflict between pro-ecological messages and anti-ecological descriptive norms. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1017/S113874160000202X
67.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In BeckC. S. (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 30, pp. 1–43). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
68.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
OsbaldistonR.SchottJ. P. (2012). Environmental sustainability and behavioral science: Meta-analysis of proenvironmental behavior experiments. Environment and Behavior, 44(2), 257–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511402673
71.
ParkJ. Y.OufM. M.GunayB.PengY.O’BrienW.KjærgaardM. B.NagyZ. (2019). A critical review of field implementations of occupant-centric building controls. Building and Environment, 165, Article 106351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106351
72.
PenţaM. A.BăbanA. (2018). Message framing in vaccine communication: A systematic review of published literature. Health Communication, 33(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2016.1266574
73.
PiggS.EilersM.ReedJ. (1996). Behavioral aspects of lighting and occupancy sensors in private offices: A case study of a university office building. ACEEE 1996 Summer Study on Energy Efficiency in Buildings, 8, 8.161–8.171.
74.
ReaM. S.DillonR. F.LevyA. W. (1987). The effectiveness of light switch reminders in reducing light usage. Lighting Research & Technology, 19(3), 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/096032718701900304
75.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1985). Contrast analysis: Focused comparisons in the analysis of variance. Cambridge University Press.
76.
RothmanA. J.SaloveyP. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
77.
RothmanA. J.BartelsR. D.WlaschinJ.SaloveyP. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56(S1), S202–S220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00290.x
78.
RichmanE. E.DittmerA. L.KellerJ. M. (1996). Field analysis of occupancy sensor operation: Parameters affecting lighting energy savings. Journal of the Illuminating Engineering Society, 25(1), 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00994480.1996.10748136
79.
SaloveyP.SchneiderT. R.ApanovitchA. M. (2002). Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice, (pp. 391–406). Sage Publications.
80.
SaloveyP.Williams-PiehotaP. (2004). Field experiments in social psychology: Message framing and the promotion of health protective behaviors. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 488–505. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203259293
81.
SchultzP. (2014). Strategies for promoting proenvironmental behavior: Lots of tools but few instructions. European Psychologist, 19(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000163
82.
SegevS.FernandesJ.WangW. (2015). The effects of gain versus loss message framing and point of reference on consumer responses to green advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10641734.2014.912600
83.
SeoJ. Y.ScammonD. L. (2017). Do green packages lead to misperceptions? The influence of package colors on consumers’ perceptions of brands with environmental claims. Marketing Letters, 28(3), 357–369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-017-9420-y
84.
SmithS. M.PettyR. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223004
85.
SpenceA.PidgeonN. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002
TetlowR. M.BeamanC. P.ElmualimA. A.CoulingK. (2014). Simple prompts reduce inadvertent energy consumption from lighting in office buildings. Building and Environment, 81, 234–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.07.003
88.
TianY.BrehenyR. (2019). Negation. In CumminsC.KatsosN. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of experimental semantics and pragmatics, (pp. 195–207). Oxford University Press.
UdallA. M.De GrootJ. I.De JongS. B.ShankarA. (2021). How I see me—A meta-analysis investigating the association between identities and pro-environmental behaviour. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 582421. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.582421
92.
WangX. T. (1996). Framing effects: Dynamics and task domains. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 68(2), 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0095
93.
WhiteK.MacDonnellR.DahlD. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472–485. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472
WogalterM. S.BegleyP. B.ScancorelliL. F.BrelsfordJ. W. (1997). Effectiveness of elevator service signs: Measurement of perceived understandability, willingness to comply and behaviour. Applied Ergonomics, 28(3), 181–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(96)00063-4
96.
WolskeK. S.ToddA.RossolM.McCallJ.SigrinB. (2018). Accelerating demand for residential solar photovoltaics: Can simple framing strategies increase consumer interest?Global Environmental Change, 53, 68–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.08.005
97.
YeN.ZhangX.ZhangM.AtherleyJ.HouL. (2021). Could visual cues moderate the normative influence in promoting energy conservation? A perspective from the construal level. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 174, Article 105808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105808
98.
YiS.BaumgartnerH. (2008). Motivational compatibility and the role of anticipated feelings in positively valenced persuasive message framing. Psychology & Marketing, 25(11), 1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20250
99.
ZeleznyL. C.ChuaP. P.AldrichC. (2000). New ways of thinking about environmentalism: Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 443–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00177
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.
