Promoting Conservation Behaviors by Leveraging Optimistic and Pessimistic Messages and Emotions

References

• Anik, L., L. B. Aknin, M. I. Norton, and E. W. Dunn. 2009. Feeling good about giving: The benefits (and costs) of self-interested charitable behavior. Harvard Business School Marketing Unit Working Paper :10–012.
   Google Scholar
• Baberini, M., C.-L. Coleman, P. Slovic, and D. Västfjäll. 2015. Examining the effects of photographic attributes on sympathy, emotions, and donation behavior. Visual Communication Quarterly 22 (2):118–28. doi:10.1080/15551393.2015.1061433.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Badullovich, N., W. J. Grant, and R. M. Colvin. 2020. Framing climate change for effective communication: A systematic map. Environmental Research Letters 15 (12):123002. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/aba4c7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P., and D. J. Moore. 1994. Public service advertisements: Emotions and empathy guide prosocial behavior. Journal of Marketing 58 (1):56–70. doi:10.2307/1252251.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bagozzi, R. P., M. Gopinath, and P. U. Nyer. 1999. The role of emotions in marketing. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27 (2):184–206. doi:10.1177/0092070399272005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bamberg, S., and G. Möser. 2007. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27 (1):14–25. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.12.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Benjamin, D., H. H. Por, and D. Budescu. 2017. Climate change versus global warming: Who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environment and Behavior 49 (7):745–70. doi: 10.1177/0013916516664382.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berinsky, A. J., G. A. Huber, and G. S. Lenz. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon. com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis 20 (3):351–68. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpr057.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borah, P. 2011. Conceptual issues in framing theory: A systematic examination of a decade’s literature. Journal of Communication 61 (2):246–63. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01539.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burt, C. D., and K. Strongman. 2005. Use of images in charity advertising: Improving donations and compliance rates. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour 8 (8):571–80.
   Google Scholar
• Cacciatore, M. A., D. A. Scheufele, and B. R. Shaw. 2012. Labeling renewable energies: How the language surrounding biofuels can influence its public acceptance. Energy Policy 51:673–82. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.09.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciatore, M. A., D. A. Scheufele, S. Iyengar. 2016. The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society 19 (1):7–23. doi:10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carrus, G., P. Passafaro, and M. Bonnes. 2008. Emotions, habits and rational choices in ecological behaviours: The case of recycling and use of public transportation. Journal of Environmental Psychology 28 (1):51–62. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chong, D., and J. N. Druckman. 2007. A theory of framing and opinion formation in competitive elite environments. Journal of Communication 57 (1):99–118. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00331.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cialdini, R. B. 1991. Altruism or egoism? That is (still) the question. Psychological Inquiry 2 (2):124–6. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0202_3.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, C. E., P. S. Hart, J. P. Schuldt, D. T. Evensen, H. S. Boudet, J. B. Jacquet, and R. C. Stedman. 2015. Public opinion on energy development: The interplay of issue framing, top-of-mind associations, and political ideology. Energy Policy 81:131–40. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2015.02.019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Lange, E., W. Sharkey, S. Castelló y Tickell, J. Migné, R. Underhill, and E. J. Milner-Gulland. 2022. Communicating the biodiversity Crisis: From “warnings” to positive engagement. Tropical Conservation Science 15:194008292211348. doi:10.1177/19400829221134893.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, A. J., E. K. Church, J. Loder, K. S. Fielding, and K. A. Wilson. 2018. How do marine and coastal citizen science experiences foster environmental engagement? Journal of Environmental Management 213:409–16. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.02.080.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dean, A. J., and K. A. Wilson. 2023. Relationships between hope, optimism, and conservation engagement. Conservation Biology 37 (2):e14009. doi:10.1111/cobi.14020.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detenber, B. H., S. S. Ho, A. H. Ong, and N. W. Lim. 2018. Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication 40 (2):173–98. doi:10.1177/1075547018758075.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N. 2001. The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior 23 (3):225–56. doi:10.1023/A:1015006907312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Echeverri, A., K. M. Chan, and J. Zhao. 2017. How messaging shapes attitudes toward sea otters as a species at risk. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 22 (2):142–56. doi:10.1080/10871209.2016.1272146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Entman, R. M. 1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication 43 (4):51–8. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erlandsson, A., A. Nilsson, and D. Västfjäll. 2018. Attitudes and donation behavior when reading positive and negative charity appeals. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing 30 (4):444–74. doi:10.1080/10495142.2018.1452828.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Finucane, M. L., A. Alhakami, P. Slovic, and S. M. Johnson. 2000. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 13 (1):1–17. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::AID-BDM333>3.0.CO;2-S.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ford, B. Q., M. Feinberg, P. Lam, I. B. Mauss, and O. P. John. 2019. Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 US Presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 117 (5):998–1015. doi:10.1037/pspp0000200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, D. H. 2013. The truth about genetically modified food. Scientific American 309 (3):107–12.
   Google Scholar
• Fry, M., A. Briggle, and J. Kincaid. 2015. Fracking and environmental (in) justice in a Texas city. Ecological Economics 117:97–107. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.06.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gifford, R., and L. A. Comeau. 2011. Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Global Environmental Change 21 (4):1301–7. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.06.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg, E. A., A. M. Kusmanoff, G. E. Garrard, L. R. Kidd, and S. A. Bekessy. 2021. Biodiversity conservation cannot afford COVID-19 communication bungles. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 36 (10):879–82. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2021.07.003.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gregg, E. A., L. R. Kidd, S. A. Bekessy, J. K. Martin, J. A. Robinson, and G. E. Garrard. 2022. Ethical considerations for conservation messaging research and practice. People and Nature 4 (5):1098–112. doi:10.1002/pan3.10373.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., L. Feldman, A. Leiserowitz, and E. Maibach. 2015. Extending the impacts of hostile media perceptions: Influences on discussion and opinion polarization in the context of climate change. Science Communication 37 (4):506–32. doi: 10.1177/1075547015592067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harth, N. S., C. W. Leach, and T. Kessler. 2013. Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: Different emotions predict distinct intentions. Journal of Environmental Psychology 34:18–26. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.12.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayes, A. F., and K. J. Preacher. 2013. Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes.
   Google Scholar
• Ho, S. S. 2021. Complementary and competitive framing of driverless cars: Framing effects, attitude volatility, or attitude resistance? International Journal of Public Opinion Research 33 (3):512–31. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edab001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Iyer, A., T. Schmader, and B. Lickel. 2007. Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin 33 (4):572–87. doi:10.1177/0146167206297402.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson, S. K., N. A. Morales, B. Chen, R. Soodeen, M. P. Moulton, and E. Jain. 2019. Love or Loss: Effective message framing to promote environmental conservation. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 18 (3):252–65. doi:10.1080/1533015X.2018.1456380.
   Google Scholar
• Jain, E., S. K. Jacobson, P. Raiturkar, N. A. Morales, A. Nagarajan, B. Chen, N. R. Sivasubramanian, K. Chaturvedi, and A. Lee. 2019. Using audience physiology to assess engaging conservation messages and animal taxa. Society & Natural Resources 32 (10):1092–8. doi:10.1080/08941920.2018.1556760.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decisions under risk. Econometrica 47 (2):263. doi:10.2307/1914185.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1982. The psychology of preferences. Scientific American 246 (1):160–73. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0182-160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, L. R., S. A. Bekessy, and G. E. Garrard. 2019a. Evidence is key for effective biodiversity communication. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34 (8):693–4. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.05.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, L. R., G. E. Garrard, S. A. Bekessy, M. Mills, A. R. Camilleri, F. Fidler, K. S. Fielding, A. Gordon, E. A. Gregg, A. M. Kusmanoff, et al. 2019b. Messaging matters: A systematic review of the conservation messaging literature. Biological Conservation 236:92–9. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.05.020.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kidd, L. R., S. A. Bekessy, and G. E. Garrard. 2019c. Neither hope nor fear: Empirical evidence should drive biodiversity conservation strategies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 34 (4):278–82. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2019.01.018.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kormos, C., and R. Gifford. 2014. The validity of self-report measures of proenvironmental behavior: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Environmental Psychology 40:359–71. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.09.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kusmanoff, A. M., F. Fidler, A. Gordon, G. E. Garrard, and S. A. Bekessy. 2020. Five lessons to guide more effective biodiversity conservation message framing. Conservation Biology 34 (5):1131–41. doi:10.1111/cobi.13482.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant: Progressive values and the framing wars—a progressive guide to action. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing
   Google Scholar
• Larson, L. R., C. B. Cooper, and M. E. Hauber. 2016. Emotions as drivers of wildlife stewardship behavior: Examining citizen science nest monitors’ responses to invasive house sparrows. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 21 (1):18–33. doi:10.1080/10871209.2015.1086933.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ledford, V. A., and X. Nan. 2020. Gain‐and Loss‐Based Frames. The International Encyclopedia of Media Psychology 2020:1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Y.-K., and C.-T. Chang. 2007. Who gives what to charity? Characteristics affecting donation behavior. Social Behavior and Personality 35 (9):1173–80. doi:10.2224/sbp.2007.35.9.1173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu, G., Z. Xin, and C. Lin. 2014. Lax decision criteria lead to negativity bias: Evidence from the emotional Stroop task. Psychological Reports 114 (3):896–912. doi:10.2466/28.04.PR0.114k29w0.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lomberg, B. 2013. The deadly opposition to genetically modified food. Slate. https://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/project_syndicate0/2013/02/gm_food_golden_rice_will_save_millions_of_people_from_vitamin_a_deficiency.html.
   Google Scholar
• Lundberg, P., A. Vainio, D. C. MacMillan, R. J. Smith, D. Veríssimo, and A. Arponen. 2019. The effect of knowledge, species aesthetic appeal, familiarity and conservation need on willingness to donate. Animal Conservation 22 (5):432–43. doi:10.1111/acv.12477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Luntz, F. 2002. The environment: A cleaner, safer, healthier America. Luntz Research.
   Google Scholar
• Mace, G. M., M. Barrett, N. D. Burgess, S. E. Cornell, R. Freeman, M. Grooten, and A. Purvis. 2018. Aiming higher to bend the curve of biodiversity loss. Nature Sustainability 1 (9):448–51. doi:10.1038/s41893-018-0130-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacGregor, C. J., J. Williams, J. Bell, and C. Thomas. 2019. Moth biomass increases and decreases over 50 years in Britain. Nature Ecology and Evolution 2019:1–16.
   Google Scholar
• MacKinnon, M., A. C. Davis, and S. Arnocky. 2022. Optimistic environmental messaging increases state optimism and in vivo pro-environmental behavior. Frontiers in Psychology 13:856063. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.856063.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manfredo, M. J., T. L. Teel, and K. L. Henry. 2009. Linking society and environment: A multilevel model of shifting wildlife value orientations in the western United States. Social Science Quarterly 90 (2):407–27. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2009.00624.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martell, J. E., and A. D. Rodewald. 2020. Frames, facts, and the science of communicating environmental crises. Conservation Biology 34 (3):766–8. doi:10.1111/cobi.13424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martell, J. E., and A. D. Rodewald. 2020. Media transparency and evidence‐based framing: Reply to Kusmanoff. Conservation Biology 34 (5):1063–4. doi:10.1111/cobi.13595.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marquina, T., D. Hackenburg, H. Duray, B. Fisher, and R. K. Gould. 2022. Lessons from an experiment with values‐based messaging to support watershed conservation. Conservation Biology 36 (5):e13910. doi:10.1111/cobi.13910.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McAfee, D., Z. A. Doubleday, N. Geiger, and S. D. Connell. 2019. Everyone loves a success story: Optimism inspires conservation engagement. BioScience 69 (4):274–81. doi:10.1093/biosci/biz019.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McComas, K. A., R. Stedman, and P. Sol Hart. 2011. Community support for campus approaches to sustainable energy use: The role of “town–gown” relationships. Energy Policy 39 (5):2310–8. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2011.01.045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morris, B. S., P. Chrysochou, S. T. Karg, and P. Mitkidis. 2020. Optimistic vs. pessimistic endings in climate change appeals. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 7 (1). doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00574-z.
   Google Scholar
• Morton, T. A., A. Rabinovich, D. Marshall, and P. Bretschneider. 2011. The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Global Environmental Change 21 (1):103–9. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murat, k A. 1998. The Impact of Emotions on Donating Behavior among the Students. Psicologia, Educação e Cultura :1–29.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, T. A., M. C. Nisbet, E. W. Maibach, and A. A. Leiserowitz. 2012. A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change: A letter. Climatic Change 113 (3–4):1105–12. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niemiec, R. M., S. Sekar, M. Gonzalez, and A. Mertens. 2020. The influence of message framing on public beliefs and behaviors related to species reintroduction. Biological Conservation 248:108522. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2020.108522.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nisbet, M. C., and D. A. Scheufele. 2009. What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany 96 (10):1767–78. doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Neill, S. J., and M. Boykoff. 2010. Climate denier, skeptic, or contrarian? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (39):E151–E151. doi:10.1073/pnas.1010507107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwezen, M. C., G. Antonides, and J. Bartels. 2013. The Norm Activation Model: An exploration of the functions of anticipated pride and guilt in pro-environmental behaviour. Journal of Economic Psychology 39:141–53. doi:10.1016/j.joep.2013.07.005.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papworth, S., R. L. Thomas, and S. T. Turvey. 2019. Increased dispositional optimism in conservation professionals. Biodiversity and Conservation 28 (2):401–14. doi:10.1007/s10531-018-1665-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penner, L., M. T. Brannick, S. Webb, and P. Connell. 2005. Effects on volunteering of the September 11, 2001, attacks: An archival analysis 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 35 (7):1333–60. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02173.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petit, J. D., M. D. Needham, and G. T. Howe. 2021. Effects of message framing on public responses to using genetic engineering to restore American chestnut trees. Society & Natural Resources 34 (9):1194–212. doi:10.1080/08941920.2021.1946628.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petrovici, D., L. Golden, and D. Orazbek. 2019. Direct and indirect brand comparisons, message framing and gender effects in advertising. Journal of Market Development and Competitiveness 13 (5):9–21.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips, T. B., H. L. Ballard, B. V. Lewenstein, and R. Bonney. 2019. Engagement in science through citizen science: Moving beyond data collection. Science Education 103 (3):665–90. doi: 10.1002/sce.21501.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pidgeon, N., and B. Fischhoff. 2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Climate Change 1 (1):35–41. doi:10.1038/nclimate1080.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putrevu, S. 2014. Effects of mood and elaboration on processing and evaluation of goal‐framed appeals. Psychology & Marketing 31 (2):134–46. doi:10.1002/mar.20682.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reddy, S. M., J. Montambault, Y. J. Masuda, E. Keenan, W. Butler, J. R. Fisher, S. T. Asah, and A. Gneezy. 2017. Advancing conservation by understanding and influencing human behavior. Conservation Letters 10 (2):248–56. doi:10.1111/conl.12252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, et al. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. Science 366 (6461):120–4. doi:10.1126/science.aaw1313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sachdeva, S., J. Jordan, and N. Mazar. 2015. Green consumerism: Moral motivations to a sustainable future. Current Opinion in Psychology 6:60–5. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.029.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salazar, G., M. C. Monroe, M. Ennes, J. A. Jones, and D. Veríssimo. 2022. Testing the influence of visual framing on engagement and pro‐environmental action. Conservation Science and Practice 4 (10):e12812. doi:10.1111/csp2.12812.
   Google Scholar
• Scannell, L., and R. Gifford. 2013. Personally relevant climate change: The role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environment and Behavior 45 (1):60–85. doi:10.1177/0013916511421196.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schneider, I. K., and N. Schwarz. 2017. Mixed feelings: The case of ambivalence. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 15:39–45. doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuldt, J. P., S. H. Konrath, and N. Schwarz. 2011. Global warming” or “climate change”? Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (1):115–24. doi:10.1093/poq/nfq073.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schuldt, J. P., K. A. McComas, and C. A. Burge. 2021. Intersecting frames in communicating environmental risk and uncertainty. Journal of Risk Research 24 (5):562–73. doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1382559.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Selinske, M., G. Garrard, S. Bekessy, A. Gordon, A. Kusmanoff, and F. Fidler. 2018. Revisiting the promise of conservation psychology. Conservation Biology 32 (6):1464–8. doi:10.1111/cobi.13106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheshadri, K., C.-W. Hang, and M. Singh. 2018. The causal link between news framing and legislation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1802.05768
   Google Scholar
• Skitka, L. J., and D. C. Wisneski. 2011. Moral conviction and emotion. Emotion Review 3 (3):328–30. doi:10.1177/1754073911402374.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spence, A., and N. Pidgeon. 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change 20 (4):656–67. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinhorst, J., C. A. Klöckner, and E. Matthies. 2015. Saving electricity–For the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. Journal of Environmental Psychology 43:125–35. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.012.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tausch, N., J. C. Becker, R. Spears, O. Christ, R. Saab, P. Singh, and R. N. Siddiqui. 2011. Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101 (1):129–48. doi:10.1037/a0022728.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Veríssimo, D., H. A. Campbell, S. Tollington, D. C. MacMillan, and R. J. Smith. 2018. Why do people donate to conservation? Insights from a ‘real world’campaign. PLoS One 13 (1):e0191888. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0191888.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villar, A., and J. A. Krosnick. 2011. Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: Does word choice matter? Climatic Change 105 (1–2):1–12. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9882-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weinstein, N., M. Rogerson, J. Moreton, A. Balmford, and R. B. Bradbury. 2015. Conserving nature out of fear or knowledge? Using threatening versus connecting messages to generate support for environmental causes. Journal for Nature Conservation 26:49–55. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2015.04.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, K. M., and M. K. Hyde. 2012. The role of self-perceptions in the prediction of household recycling behavior in Australia. Environment and Behavior 44 (6):785–99. doi: 10.1177/0013916511408069.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, D., and P. R. Brewer. 2010. Competing frames for a public health issue and their effects on public opinion. Mass Communication and Society 13 (4):435–57. doi:10.1080/15205430903296077.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Witte, K., and M. Allen. 2000. A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior 27 (5):591–615. doi:10.1177/109019810002700506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xue, W., D. W. Hine, A. D. Marks, W. J. Phillips, P. Nunn, and S. Zhao. 2016. Combining threat and efficacy messaging to increase public engagement with climate change in Beijing, China. Climatic Change 137 (1–2):43–55. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1678-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zahry, N. R., and J. C. Besley. 2019. Genetic engineering, genetic modification, or agricultural biotechnology: Does the term matter? Journal of Risk Research 22 (1):16–31. doi:10.1080/13669877.2017.1351470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar