Fight or Flight: How Advertising for Air Travel Triggers Moral Disengagement

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed theoretical model.

Table 1. Pattern matrix of a principal component analysis on moral disengagement strategies using oblimin rotation.

	Rotated Factor Loadings
	1	2	3	M	SD
Neglecting Consequences (α = .87)				4.14	1.53
When one thinks of the harmful lifestyle of others, a single flight hardly matters.	.76	.11	.18	3.69	1.87
Flying once a year is not as bad compared to what others do every day.	.62	.17	.26	4.61	1.82
There are far more climate-damaging behaviors than flying.	.47	.04	.27	4.41	1.79
My actions make no difference to climate change.	.69	.02	−.01	2.95	1.73
I can’t do much for the climate by abstaining from air travel.	.70	−.04	.07	3.44	1.87
I think I can do something positive to protect the climate by doing without air travel.	−.80	.10	.08	4.81	1.82
It is useless to reduce air travel as a single person.	.62	−.10	.15	3.44	1.98
I can protect the climate by abstaining from air travel.	−.78	.20	.25	4.72	1.82
Displacement of responsibility (α = .94)				5.88	1.18
It is important for the government to take immediate action to reduce air traffic CO2.	−.13	.83	.04	5.76	1.43
It is important for the aviation industry to take immediate action to reduce air traffic CO2.	−.05	.88	−.05	5.83	1.41
It is important for the trade and industry to take immediate action to reduce air traffic CO2.	.06	.92	−.02	5.94	1.27
It is important for the government to reduce the aviation sectors’ use of fossil fuels.	−.12	.80	−.06	5.71	1.46
It is important for the aviation industry to reduce the aviation sectors’ use of fossil fuels.	.04	.90	−.09	6.03	1.24
It is important for the trade and industry to reduce the aviation sectors’ use of fossil fuels.	.07	.88	−.01	5.98	1.20
Moral justification (α = .88)				3.88	1.42
It is alright to fly to get to know the world in all its facets.	.22	−.02	.73	4.14	1.70
It is alright to fly, because everyone should learn to understand foreign cultures.	.21	.01	.69	4.07	1.65
Only when you sometimes fly to another country, you can expand your horizon.	.07	.02	.69	4.35	1.80
Air travel keeps the bond with distant friends and family alive.	−.03	.03	.85	3.84	1.80
Without air travel you can’t really be there for long-distance friends and family.	−.09	−.14	.78	3.54	1.87
Only through regular air travel you can maintain a good relationship with distant friends and family members.	−.05	−.10	.84	3.35	1.82

Note. N = 199, Factor Loadings over 0.6 in bold.

Table 2. Moderated effects of flight advertisements and counter-campaigns on moral justification.

	Dependent variable
	Moral justification
Flight ad group ^a	0.03 (0.23)
Flight counter-campaign group ^a	−0.11 (0.13)
Climate change concern	−0.19 (0.23)
Flight frequency	0.66*** (0.12)
Age	−0.01 (0.01)
Female (dummy)	−0.24 (0.19)
Medium education (dummy)	0.47* (0.23)
High education (dummy)	0.52* (0.26)
Ad evaluation	0.05 (0.08)
Campaign evaluation	−0.13 (0.08)
Reception time ad	0.005 (0.01)
Reception time campaign	−0.002 (0.004)
Flight ad group: Climate change concern	−0.26 (0.21)
Flight counter-campaign group: Climate change concern	0.10 (0.18)
Constant	4.44*** (0.69)
Observations	199
R^2	.25
Adjusted R^2	.19

Note. All coefficients are unstandardized; standard errors are presented in parentheses;

^a The control group was taken as the reference group.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 3. Moderated effects of flight advertisements and counter-campaigns on neglecting the harm of flying.

	Dependent variable
	Neglecting consequences
Flight ad group ^a	−0.25 (0.24)
Flight counter-campaign group ^a	0.03 (0.24)
Climate change concern	−0.15 (0.14)
Flight frequency	0.55*** (0.13)
Age	−0.002 (0.01)
Female (dummy)	−0.36^+ (0.21)
Medium education (dummy)	0.51* (0.24)
High education (dummy)	0.12 (0.27)
Ad evaluation	0.07 (0.08)
Campaign evaluation	−0.09 (0.09)
Reception time ad	0.01 (0.01)
Reception time campaign	−0.004 (0.005)
Flight ad group: Climate change concern	−0.53* (0.22)
Flight counter-campaign group: Climate change concern	−0.32 (0.19)
Constant	4.29*** (0.73)
Observations	199
R^2	.27
Adjusted R^2	.21

Note. All coefficients are unstandardized; standard errors are presented in parentheses;

^a The control group was taken as the reference group.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Table 4. Moderated effects of flight ads and counter-campaigns on displacement of responsibility.

	Dependent variable
	Displacement of responsibility
Flight ad group ^a	0.50** (0.18)
Flight counter-campaign group ^a	0.37*** (0.11)
Climate change concern	0.55** (0.18)
Flight frequency	0.04 (0.10)
Age	0.004 (0.01)
Female (dummy)	0.46** (0.16)
Medium education (dummy)	−0.32^+ (0.18)
High education (dummy)	−0.56** (0.21)
Ad evaluation	−0.13* (0.06)
Campaign evaluation	0.12^+ (0.07)
Reception time ad	−0.02*** (0.01)
Reception time campaign	0.0001 (0.003)
Flight ad group: Climate change concern	−0.02 (0.17)
Flight counter-campaign group: Climate change concern	−0.01 (0.15)
Constant	5.75*** (0.55)
Observations	199
R^2	.30
Adjusted R^2	.25

Note. All coefficients are unstandardized; standard errors are presented in parentheses;

^a The control group was taken as the reference group.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001

Figure 2. Path model of indirect effects of flight advertisements on the evaluation of flying intentions.

Figure 3. Path model of indirect effects of flight advertisements on policy support.

Table 5. Overview of the hypotheses.

No.	Hypotheses	Status
H1	Being exposed to flight advertising will lead to higher moral justification as compared to the control group.	Rejected
H2	Being exposed to flight advertising will lead to more advantageous comparisons of flying to other environmentally harmful actions, as compared to the control group.	Partly Accepted
H3	Being exposed to flight advertising will lead to more minimizing of negative consequences of flying as an individual as compared to the control group.	Partly Accepted
H4	Being exposed to flight advertising will lead to higher displacement of responsibility as compared to the control group.	Accepted
H5	The effects of flight advertising on a) individuals’ intentions to fly and b) policy support are mediated by the moral disengagement mechanisms of moral justification, advantageous comparison, minimizing negative consequences, and displacement of responsibility.	H5a: Partly Accepted; H5b: Partly Accepted
H6	Individuals high in climate change concern are less likely to use moral disengagement mechanisms of a) moral justification, b) advantageous comparison, c) minimizing negative consequences, and d) displacement of responsibility.	H6a: Rejected, H6b: Partly Accepted; H6c: Partly Accepted; H6d: Rejected

Data availability statement

Raw data were generated at the University of Vienna. Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author on request.