Executive summary of “Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals?”

Citation

(2015), "Executive summary of “Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals?”", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-06-2015-026

Executive summary of “Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals?”

Article Type: Executive summary and implications for managers and executives From: Journal of Consumer Marketing, Volume 32, Issue 4

This summary has been provided to allow managers and executives a rapid appreciation of the content of this article. Those with a particular interest in the topic covered may then read the article in toto to take advantage of the more comprehensive description of the research undertaken and its results to get the full benefits of the material present.

Growing anxiety about global warming has prompted an increase in efforts to persuade businesses and the public to engage in practices and behaviors which are less harmful to the environment.

Closely related is the issue of biodiversity. Actions which damage the environment lead to biodiversity loss with regard to the variety of the planet’s genetics, species and ecosystems. Scientific conventions acknowledge the role of governments, firms and farming communities where biodiversity is concerned. However, even greater significance is attached to decisions made by the individual consumer. It is argued that the degree of harm to biodiversity is to a large extent determined by people’s demand for certain products to satisfy their consumption needs. Careful choice of products can result in consumers directly and indirectly having a positive effect on sustainable development and biodiversity goals.

The key is to ensure that the public is properly informed about the importance of biodiversity and the potential impact of their purchase activities. Those charged with the task must therefore seek to ascertain and implement effective communication strategies. Consequently, the need exists to develop a framework which best enables such strategies to be designed.

Persuasion is the goal of communications where safeguarding the environment is concerned. Such techniques have been widely utilized for recycling, climate change and other ecological issues. But several authors have concluded that the attitudes toward communications used can significantly determine their impact.

Attitudes incorporate both affective and cognitive responses, while others sometimes frame the issue as “advertising or communication likeability”. Research has confirmed an association between “ad-liking” and persuasion, while acknowledging that the predictive power of more established measures like recall and comprehension of advertisements still prevails.

Various dimensions have been found to influence likeability and include such as the advertisement’s capacity to entertain or stimulate, be relevant or informative, demonstrate empathy and be familiar. However, identifying which factors prompt likeability for communications relating to pro-environmental behaviors has not been afforded research attention to date.

Recent work has proposed that the type of strategy used is likely to determine the degree of communication effectiveness. Three different approaches are identified in the literature and compared by Schaffner et al. in the current study. They are labeled as:

• Cognitive informational: This approach is similar to the established belief that knowledge informs attitude, which in turn influences behavior. It is suggested that this linear approach might be relevant in the context of environmental and biodiversity issues. Knowledge is perceived as important given the scientific manner in which these issues are communicated. Key differences are drawn between “declarative knowledge” and “procedural knowledge”, and researchers point out their capacity to vary in how they impact on consumer attitudes. The former type incorporates factual information, such as details pertaining to biodiversity loss. The purpose of procedural knowledge is to inform and advise, in this case about which consumer behaviors to adopt to aid biodiversity. Critics point to the divide between attitudes and behavior that have been frequently found to exist. This approach also fails to consider individual differences in “cognitive reasoning” capacity.

• Emotional experiential: The premise here is that emotions and feelings shape attitudes. It is therefore typical for communications aiming to encourage pro-environmental behavior to try and evoke fear, anxiety or other negative emotions. The message emphasizes the threat or danger posed. So-called “fear appeals” are successful because they motivate consumers to eliminate behaviors associated with the unpleasant feelings. Appeals based on fear can also prompt denial as a response, scholars have found. Communication strategies which evoke positive emotions like contentment are established too, although are not usually deployed in the promotion of ecologically friendly behaviors.

• Normative: Personal values are the core element of this approach, which essentially appeals to the altruistic or caring nature of message recipients. In this situation, communication using a “moral-norm” strategy would usually focus on emphasizing the moral responsibility consumers have toward other humans and nature. Normative appeals aim to persuade by pointing out the role of biodiversity in helping them uphold such responsibilities.

Personal factors can likewise impact on communication effectiveness. Knowledge and attitudes relating to the environment are especially significant. Those possessing greater knowledge and interest in sustainability are thus seemed likelier to respond positively to communication strategies, particular those which impart information.

After consulting experts to validate the communication strategies identified from the literature, a qualitative study involving 25 German-speaking respondents from Switzerland was carried out. In-depth personal interviews were conducted with the respondents, who varied in terms of age, gender and education. Questions addressed their pro-environmental behaviors and knowledge of sustainability issues. This was used to categorize subjects into high, medium and low groups with regard to pro-environmental knowledge and attitudes. Participants were also exposed to the different communication strategies and asked for their reaction to them.

Comments were identified as positive or negative, and the data indicated that responses to the:

• procedural knowledge strategy were largely positive;

• declarative knowledge were mostly unfavorable;

• negative emotion strategy were mixed;

• positive emotion strategy were in general more favorable;

• moral-norm strategy tended to be mainly positive; and

• benefit strategy were largely favorable.

Further analysis ascertained that various factors appear to influence communication strategies pertaining to biodiversity. Raising awareness is seen as key, along with informing the consumer about the best action to take. Communication should be informative too. Likeability is impeded though by messages which are too long and difficult to comprehend. Information which is insufficient or not relevant leaves a similarly negative impression.

The different attitude levels showed no relevance to likeability, but knowledge about environmental issues appears to impact on both likeability and its key factors. Responses to the different communication strategies tended to vary depending on the subject’s degree of knowledge.

Based on this evidence, Schaffner et al. believe that communication strategies which elicit positive emotions will be preferable to negative emotions strategies. The risk of an unfavorable response is perceived to be greater where the latter is concerned. Similar reservations are expressed about declarative information strategies. It is specific information which instructs that is valued more highly, especially when the message is short and easy to understand. The authors note the significance of positive reactions to the moral-norm strategy given that safeguarding biodiversity does not typically link to personal benefits for the consumer. For biodiversity-related communications, visual components within messages also tend to be well received.

Mass media could be suitable for conveying positive messages, the authors believe. But its lesser suitability for relaying procedural knowledge prompts the suggestion that product packaging could be exploited for this purpose. Between-consumer interaction through local media and social media might also prove effective. However, it is thought that behaviors to support biodiversity will be likelier if people have trust in the positive actions of others.

In future, studies might further analyze the impact of communications with a combined focus on feelings and information. Replicating the work with more representative samples and within different cultural contexts will ascertain its wider applicability.

To read the full article, enter 10.1108/JCM-11-2014-1220 into your search engine.

(A précis of the article “Promoting biodiversity: do consumers prefer feelings, facts, advice or appeals?”. Supplied by Marketing Consultants for Emerald.)