Positive environmental images motivate people to take action

If you want to motivate a consumer about an ongoing environmental issue, it’s better to use a positive image – for example, a smiling tree or smiling Earth – than to be a doomsayer. 

That’s according to a study in the Journal of Advertising Research which examined the use of anthropomorphism in motivating people about environmental issues. 

Why environmental issues in advertising matters 

Consumers are increasingly worried about the environment, and a growing number would like to see brands address green issues directly and become more ethical. As a result, advertising is more focused on promoting positive environmental messages that will engage and motivate consumers. 

Anthropomorphism – giving human characteristics to objects or things – is becoming more common when communicating green issues. Case in point: a Google search for ‘earth smile’ and ‘sad earth’ produced 97 million and 67 million results, respectively. But it’s not always obvious which of these emotions (positive or negative) will resonate most in advertising, or in green campaigns led by nonprofits.

Takeaways

• When an environmental problem is framed as an ongoing tragedy, positive anthropomorphism results in a more favorable attitude, higher willingness to pay for a solution, and more money being donated.
• But when the problem is considered a sudden disaster, negative anthropomorphism that gives rise to sad emotions is more persuasive.
• How connected a person feels to nature will influence how motivated they are on environmental issues, and it was found to be a significant predictor of donating to a cause. 
• If the level of connectedness to nature is low, nonprofits and companies should try to alter what imagery is used in promotions and advertising and reframe the environmental issue as sudden or ongoing depending on the context. 

About the study 

Three studies looked at a variety of green consumption contexts familiar to consumers (towel reuse in study one, tea tree shampoo in study two, and ocean protection in study three), with participants coming from Taiwan, all of whom were adults of varying ages.

Study one asked participants to design a sign for a towel reuse program at a hotel where water shortage was presented as either a sudden disaster or ongoing tragedy. Study two assessed participants’ willingness to pay for an advertised product and their attitude to it (a tea tree shampoo that protects the rainforest). Study three asked participants to fill in a survey and to make an optional donation to protect the oceans from pollution. They were told the money would go to Greenpeace.

Sourced from JAR