The Influence of Message Framing on Consumers’ Selection of Local Food

Abstract

Although local food purchasing provides several benefits to both consumers and producers, research on what recommendation messages can effectively promote the purchase of local food is still lacking. In the present study, 410 participants were involved in a 2-week intervention relying on prefactual (i.e., “If … then”) messages promoting the purchase of local food. All messages were sent through a research app to participants’ mobile phones and were focused on environmental consequences of purchasing (or not purchasing) local food. Four experimental conditions involving messages differing as to outcome sensitivity framing (i.e., gain, non-loss, non-gain and loss) were compared to a control condition. To test the effectiveness of the messages, before and after the 2-week intervention participants were involved in a choice task. They were asked to choose among fruits with different provenience, that is, from the participants’ municipality of residence or abroad. Results showed that all message frames increased the selection of local food, compared to control. Furthermore, pro-environmental consumers were more persuaded by messages formulated in terms of gains and non-gains, whereas healthy consumers were more persuaded by messages formulated in terms of losses or non-losses. Discussion focuses on the advantages of tailored communication to promote the purchase of local food.

Psychosocial drivers influencing local food purchasing: beyond availability, the importance of trust in farmers

“…Consumers buy local food not only for its perceived sensory and health attributes but also because it contributes to sustainable practices for both the environment and society ( 13 , 20 , 21 ). Indeed, some scientists agree that local food supply chains are produced in a non-industrial, non-mass, and environmentally friendly way and can, therefore, have a low impact on the environment.…”

Going Green: A Review on the Role of Motivation in Sustainable Behavior

“…In addition to the general framing effect described above, some studies have indicated that sensitivity to negative or positive frames depends on the type of good being advertised (e.g., essential vs. nonessential goods) [42,83,88], individual-specific characteristics of the consumer (e.g., motivation and knowledge) [89], and the behavior under consideration (e.g., purchase intention vs. donating to a cause) [42]. Studies on nonessential goods [42,83] showed that information with negative valence (e.g., if you decide to buy this T-shirt, you actively contribute to the collapse of the environment) increases sustainable choices and behaviors more than information with positive valence (e.g., if you decide to buy this T-shirt, you certainly contribute to the improvement of the environment).…”

“…Studies on nonessential goods [42,83] showed that information with negative valence (e.g., if you decide to buy this T-shirt, you actively contribute to the collapse of the environment) increases sustainable choices and behaviors more than information with positive valence (e.g., if you decide to buy this T-shirt, you certainly contribute to the improvement of the environment). On the other hand, studies on essential goods (e.g., food) found that positively framed messages are more effective than negatively framed messages in prompting consumers to engage in green behaviors [88]. Moreover, dispositional factors such as environmental motivation and knowledge also modulate the response to negative vs. positive framed messages, with individuals high in environmental motivation and knowledge being more sensitive to negative frames in terms of behavioral intentions [89].…”

Legumes or Meat? The Effectiveness of Recommendation Messages towards a Plant-Based Diet Depends on People’s Identification with Flexitarians

“…Numerous studies have tested the effectiveness of different types of messages to promote a change in eating behavior, such as messages focused on health benefits, on emotional components, or on the presentation of images (for a review on meat reduction, see [ 20 ]). Prior studies on the effects of messages promoting a change in eating behavior via a focus on environmental benefits found mixed results (e.g., [ 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ]). These results suggest that the persuasiveness of these messages might depend on how they are formulated.…”