Abstract
This study examines whether consumers exhibit differential responses to equivalent expressions of the benefits associated with green products when presented in varying usage-based scales or units. Specifically, it investigates the impact of scale frame on green purchase intention by comparing large-number frames to small-number frames. Results from a sample of 302 consumers indicate that green benefits expressed in a large-number frame significantly increase green purchase intention compared to those in a small-number frame. Perceived value serves as a mediator for this positive effect, whereas consumer skepticism exerts a suppressive influence on this relationship. Consequently, the large-number frame can be regarded as a double-edged sword in terms of promoting green purchase intention. Furthermore, regulatory focus moderates these effects in such a way that consumers with a promotion focus exhibit a higher purchase intention because of an enhanced perceived value in the large-number frame. In contrast, consumers with a prevention focus demonstrate a lower purchase intention due to increased skepticism toward the benefits framed in large numbers. These findings contribute to the literature on information framing, regulatory fit, and pro-environmental behaviours, offering valuable insights for businesses and governments to design effective communication campaigns by aligning environmental information with the motivational states of their target audience, thereby further promoting pro-environmental behaviours.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Green consumption constitutes a vital avenue for achieving sustainability goals (Zhang et al., 2024). The environmental advantages and personal benefits associated with green products can effectively activate consumers’ latent demands, thereby promoting green consumption practices (Pekkanen et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2024). To inform consumers about the benefits of their purchases, many businesses opt to present the advantages of green products using numerical data. This approach provides specific and quantifiable evidence of a product’s benefits, thereby enhancing consumer perception and fostering green purchase behaviour (Xie and Kronrod, 2012).
The relevant legal standards provide businesses with a degree of flexibility to present numerical information in accordance with their preferred reference units (Ohlwein, 2022). For example, marketers can represent the benefits of a green product either based on per usage (e.g., saving 1 L of water per usage) or based on the expected usage times during its lifetime (e.g., saving 100 L of water over 100 times usage in the lifetime). Therefore, it is crucial to comprehend how consumers respond to the equivalent yet different numerical representations of potential benefits associated with green products, thus providing implications for businesses to develop and implement effective communication strategies for promoting green purchase behaviour.
An expanding body of research in cognitive psychology and marketing has demonstrated that rescaling identical numerical information can alter consumers’ decisions and behaviours (Camilleri and Larrick, 2014; Lembregts and Van den Bergh, 2019; Schley et al., 2017). For example, when compared to a small-scale frame (e.g., saving 1 kWh of electricity resulting in a cost reduction of ￥0.538), monetary saving benefits expressed in a large-number scale (e.g., saving 10 kWh of electricity resulting in a cost reduction of ￥5.38) have a more pronounced impact on promoting energy-saving behaviours. This phenomenon is attributed to consumers frequently failing to fully process the numerical information, leading them to rely on number values as a simplifying heuristic to estimate quantities and form judgments; therefore, they may perceive a greater savings in the large-number frame and exhibit a stronger willingness towards energy conservation (Wang et al., 2022).
In contrast, when consumers allocate more cognitive resources in analyzing the numerical data or in speculating about the marketer’s motives for employing a rescaling numerical strategy, they may perceive themselves as being manipulated by marketers and thus have an unfavorable response. For example, compared to the aggregated price ($24 per month), the reframed price ($0.8 per day) makes consumers have a sense of manipulation, thereby developing a negative attitude towards product evaluation (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold, 2009). The inference of marketers’ manipulative intent is more likely to be drawn when the communication strategy employed towards consumers is perceived as attention-grabbing, complex, or unconventional (Bambauer-Sachse and Grewal, 2011; Campbell, 1995). Hence, the utilization of a large-number frame may have adverse effects in certain scenarios. However, it remains unclear whether rescaling the numerical information regarding the benefits of green products will produce a similar backfire effect when presented in a large-number frame as opposed to a small-number frame.
Therefore, unlike the existing literature that has primarily focused on the positive impact of large-number scales (as opposed to small-number scales) on pro-environmental behaviour, this paper adopts two distinct theoretical perspectives, namely the numerosity heuristic and persuasive knowledge model, to investigate the double-edged effect of a large-number frame (in contrast to a small-number frame) on consumer perception, and subsequently their purchase intention. Furthermore, to provide a deeper insight into the impact of a large-number frame on consumers’ responses, this paper incorporates regulatory focus as a motivational state and examines its moderating role in the relationship between the large-number frame and its double-edged outcomes. Therefore, this paper provides a comprehensive and lucid analysis of the relationship between usage-based scale frame and green purchase intention, contributing to the existing literature on message framing, regulatory fit, and pro-environmental behaviours. Practically, this study provides valuable insights to both businesses and governmental entities by deepening the understanding of consumers’ responses to numerical information in the context of sustainability, thereby promoting more sustainable behaviours.
Literature review and hypotheses
Heuristic versus systematic information processing
Consumers often use two primary information-processing models to make judgments, i.e., heuristic thinking and systematic information processing (Chaiken, 1980). Specifically, the heuristic processing approach relies on learned knowledge structures to support rapid decision-making. The primary advantage of heuristic thinking is its capability to facilitate less cognitively demanding and more efficient decisions by utilizing previously acquired and applicable knowledge (Shah and Oppenheimer, 2008). Nevertheless, a notable risk associated with heuristic thinking is its propensity to overlook relevant information, which may result in biased judgments (Gigerenzer and Gaissmaier, 2011). In contrast, systematic information processing entails a thorough and elaborate approach to carefully examine, analyze, and synthesize information, thereby facilitating more unbiased judgments (Neuwirth et al., 2002). This study examines heuristic thinking with a specific focus on the numerosity heuristic and systematic information processing involving the activation of persuasive knowledge, as two distinct models of consumer information processing in response to green advertising appeals.
Numerosity heuristic and perceived value
‘Numerosity heuristic’ is observed when consumers ignore the reference scale, such as units of measurement, and instead place excessive emphasis on the magnitude of numeric information (Schley et al., 2017). For example, research on consumer perception suggests that a space measuring 4000 square feet (approximately 372 square meters) appears more spacious than one measuring 500 square meters, despite the actual area being smaller. This is due to the numerical value of 4000 being greater than 500, which can create a misleading impression of size (Bagchi and Davis, 2016). Additionally, from an adaptive perspective, there is a strong correlation between numerosity and quantity in natural environments, implying that a higher number of items corresponds to a greater quantity (Pelham et al., 1994). Consequently, consumers are particularly sensitive to the numerosity heuristic and tend to base their judgments on the apparent numerical values while potentially overlooking other significant information (Cadario et al., 2016; Camilleri and Larrick, 2019; Kahneman, 2003; Pandelaere et al., 2011; Park et al., 2022).
Empirical studies in business and marketing have provided substantial evidence supporting the numerosity heuristic. For instance, when presented with the same product, consumers perceive higher unit prices (e.g., $50 per kg) as more expensive and exhibit lower purchase intentions compared to lower unit prices (e.g., $5 per 100 g; Fecher et al., 2019). Similarly, French consumers perceive a smaller price difference between premium and budget brands when products are priced in Euros rather than Francs (1 euro = 6.56 francs; Gaston-Breton, 2006). In the context of risk perception, research has shown that framing risks using larger numbers (e.g., deaths per 10,000 cases) leads to higher perceived risk levels compared to smaller numbers (e.g., deaths per 100 cases), thereby enhancing consumers’ protective motivation and security awareness (Bonner and Newell, 2008). Applying these conclusions to our research context, it is expected that the perceived value of a green product will be higher when its benefits are presented in a numerical format with larger magnitudes, as compared to smaller magnitudes. The following hypothesis is therefore suggested:
H1: Green benefits expressed in the large-number frame, as opposed to the small-number frame, are positively related to perceived value.
Green products provide consumers with dual benefits in terms of environmental protection and personal savings; thus, the perception of environmental value and economic value are identified as two important dimensions of perceived value that significantly influence consumer choice (Ates, 2020; Steinhorst et al., 2015; Webb et al., 2008; Yuan et al., 2022). Prior research suggests that fostering green purchase intention necessitates addressing both perceived environmental value and perceived economic value (Mo et al., 2018; Shi et al., 2022). On one hand, consumers may prioritize the environmental impact of products due to their desire for a more sustainable ecological environment (Jackson, 2005; Lee and Lee, 2024). Additionally, consumers may prefer green products over traditional ones due to the considerations of social responsibility, social norms, or group identity (Choi and Johnson, 2019; Munerah et al., 2021). Therefore, perceived environmental value serves as a significant antecedent to green purchase intention (Li et al., 2021; Teng et al., 2018). Consequently, advertising appeals that emphasize on environmental benefits of green products can also effectively encourage green purchase behaviours (Khan and Mohsin, 2017). On the other hand, green products also involve personal interests, such as cost savings and health benefits (Lee et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2020). Therefore, consumers are more likely to purchase green products when the personal benefits associated with these products are highlighted (Bär et al., 2023; De Groot and Steg, 2008). Consequently, the perceived economic value of green products can also significantly contribute to green purchase behaviour (Joshi et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2024). In line with these arguments, the following hypothesis is put forward:
H2: Perceived value is positively related to green purchase intention.
Based on the literature on information framing and consumer responses, we propose that perceived value mediates the relationship between the large-number frame and green purchase intention. First, in accordance with the theory of numerosity heuristic, research findings indicate a significant relationship between the rescaling of numerosity information and consumer quantity perception (Basu and Ng, 2020; Cadario et al., 2016). Specifically, a higher numerical representation of product attributes leads to a more pronounced consumer perception (Siddiqui et al., 2018). Consequently, presenting green benefits with a larger numerical frame can enhance the perceived value of the product. Additionally, scholars have established that the perceived value of green products is a powerful predictor of green purchase intention (Bi et al., 2023; Roh et al., 2022; Saini et al., 2024). In alignment with these arguments, we propose that presenting the benefits of green products in a large-number frame (as opposed to the small-number frame) may lead to a higher perceived value of the product, which in turn influences consumers’ purchase decisions. Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Perceived value mediates the relationship between the large-number frame, as opposed to the small-number frame, and green purchase intention.
Persuasive knowledge and consumer skepticism
According to the persuasion knowledge model, consumers have defensive beliefs about marketers’ motives, strategies, and tactics (Aguirre-Rodriguez, 2013; Van Reijmersdal et al., 2015; Liu and Zheng, 2024). When faced with green advertisements, consumers may interpret these advertisements not only as a means for marketers to improve consumers’ product knowledge, but also as a manipulative tactic employed to influence consumer behaviour in accordance with marketing objectives. In this case, where consumers perceive green advertisements as indicative of manipulative intent from the marketers, they tend to attribute less integrity to the marketers and question the credibility of advertising claims, i.e., an inference of manipulative intent (Isaac and Grayson, 2017; Lunardo and Mbengue, 2013). This inference of manipulative intent is more likely to be made when the communication strategies employed towards consumers are perceived as attention-grabbing, complex, or unconventional (Bambauer-Sachse and Grewal, 2011; Campbell, 1995; Romani, 2006).
This paper posits that a large-number frame (as opposed to a small-number one) may enhance the perception of manipulative intention among consumers, thereby increasing their skepticism about green advertisements. First, the strength of advertising statements is a crucial factor to stimulate the inference of manipulative intention (Alenazi, 2015). Accordingly, it is anticipated that green advertisements framed with larger numbers (as opposed to smaller numbers) may increase the perception of manipulative intent by leveraging a greater emphasis on the benefits to attract consumer attention and by amplifying the perceived advantages of green products. Furthermore, the inference of manipulative intention has been demonstrated to erode consumers’ trust and engender skepticism towards the green advertisement (Singh et al., 2020). Second, the advertisements presented with a large-number frame appear more complex and unconventional to consumers (Bambauer-Sachse and Grewal, 2011). Therefore, consumers who expect product advertisements to be simple and straightforward may be reluctant to process benefits articulated with the large-number frame (Bambauer-Sachse and Mangold, 2009; Das et al., 2021). Instead, they might perceive this as a marketing strategy designed by marketers to influence their intentions. As a result, consumers tend to adopt a more skeptical stance toward advertisements presented with a large-number frame. Based on these reasons, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H4: Green benefits expressed in the large-number frame, as opposed to the small-number frame, are positively related to consumer skepticism.
Consumer skepticism towards green advertisements exerts a negative influence on green purchase intention (Cheng et al., 2020; Yu, 2020). First, when consumers harbor doubts about the authenticity of green advertisements, they are likely to form negative perceptions of both the green products and the companies promoting them, thereby reducing their willingness to make purchases (Leonidou and Skarmeas, 2017). Second, a skeptical stance among consumers toward green advertisements can diminish their belief in their own capacity to contribute positively to environmental improvement, which in turn dampens their inclination to buy green products (Albayrak et al., 2011). Therefore, we posit that:
H5: Consumer skepticism is negatively related to green purchase intention.
According to the persuasive knowledge model, when the information strategies employed by marketers to communicate with consumers are attention-attracting, complex, or unconventional, consumers tend to adopt a defensive mindset and have a stronger inference of manipulative intent (Bambauer-Sachse and Grewal, 2011; Shen et al., 2025). Furthermore, this perception of manipulative intent can significantly heighten consumer skepticism, thereby reducing consumer purchase intention (Hibbert et al., 2007). Applying a similar reasoning to the scale frame, the benefits of product attributes expressed in a large-number format may be perceived as more appealing, unusual, and complex than those in a small-number format. Consequently, in response to the large-number frame, consumers might speculate on marketers’ motives for using such a strategy, suspecting it as an attempt to manipulate their behaviours. This suspicion could lead to disbelief in green advertisements and a reduction in purchase intention. Building on these arguments, we propose that:
H6: Consumer skepticism suppresses the positive relationship between the large-number frame, as opposed to the small-number frame, and green purchase intention.
Regulatory fit and the moderation effect of regulatory focus
Regulatory focus theory suggests that the self-regulation process has two distinct regulatory orientations: promotion focus and prevention focus (Fazeli et al., 2020; Higgins, 1997, 1998; Song and Qu, 2019). People with a promotion focus adopt an approach-oriented strategy in pursuing their goals, thereby placing a greater emphasis on aspirations, accomplishments, and advancement needs (Codini et al., 2018). Consequently, they exhibit heightened sensitivity to positive outcomes and a strong eagerness to achieve them (Choi et al., 2019). In contrast, people with a prevention focus employ a vigilance-related strategy to achieve their goals, thus emphasizing duty, commitment, and non-losses. Therefore, they strive to prevent any mismatch from the desired end-state (Chatterjee et al., 2010).
Regulatory focus significantly impacts consumer information processing and decision-making. When the type of information being processed aligns with their regulatory focus (known as regulatory fit), consumers tend to have more favorable evaluations of an object (Gabisch and Milne, 2013). Applying the regulatory fit into our research context, we argue that regulatory focus interacts with the large-number frame to shape consumer perception. Specifically, consumers with a promotion focus are more attuned to positive outcomes (Higgins, 1997), suggesting that the benefits of green products presented by a large-number frame can enhance their perception of product value. In contrast, consumers with a prevention focus exhibit skepticism and sensitivity to marketers’ manipulative intent (Kirmani and Zhu, 2007). Consequently, they are likely to adopt a skeptical stance toward the large-number frame, thereby diminishing the positive impact of such framing on green purchase intentions. Based on this reasoning, we propose the following hypothesis:
H7a: For consumers who are promotion-focused, as opposed to prevention-focused, the relationship between the large-number frame and perceived value is stronger.
H7b: For consumers who are prevention-focused, as opposed to promotion-focused, the relationship between the large-number frame and consumer skepticism is stronger.
The research model is presented in Fig. 1.
Research model.
Methods
Experimental design and pretest
This study adopted a one-factor (usage-based scale frame: large-number versus small-number frame) between-subjects design, with participants being randomly assigned to different conditions. We selected a water-efficient washing machine as the experimental stimulus due to its familiarity to respondents. The number of loads served as an indicator for manipulating the large-number frame or small-number frame in green advertising appeals.
To enhance the effectiveness of experimental manipulation, this study conducted a pretest. In this pretest, we examined the washing frequency of consumers and their perceptions of the reasonable lifespan of washing machines to determine appropriate numerical scales for subsequent experiments. The survey involved 155 participants, comprising 90 females and 65 males. Among them, 44.5% believed that the reasonable lifespan of a washing machine is 4–6 years, while 34.2% considered it to be 7–10 years. Additionally, 58.1% of respondents reported using their washing machines every 2–3 days. Based on these results, the optimal working capacity for a washing machine was estimated to be between 500 and 1500 loads. Consequently, we employed two usage-based scale frames, namely 1000 loads (large-number frame) and 1 load (small-number frame), to investigate the influence of scale frame on green purchase intention.
Data collection
Data for the formal survey were collected from an online platform named ‘wjx’ (https://www.wjx.cn/). A total of 400 consumers were randomly allocated into two distinct groups: the small-number frame group (1 load) and the large-number frame group (1000 loads). Participants in the small-number frame group were informed that this washing machine can save 5 L of water per standard cycle, while those in the large-number frame group were informed that it has the potential to save 5000 L of water over 1000 standard cycles (see Appendix). Following this, all participants were asked to complete a questionnaire designed to assess several key psychological variables, including perceived value, consumer skepticism, regulatory focus, and purchase intention. Last, the demographic information of the participants was collected.
Measurement scale
All variables were assessed using a 7-point Likert scale. Specifically, the measurement items for perceived value were adapted from Zundel and Stieß (2011), while those for consumer skepticism were derived from Do Paço and Reis (2012). Green purchase intention was assessed using items modified from Han et al. (2017). Regulatory focus was measured using four items for promotion focus and three items for prevention focus, both adapted from Lockwood et al. (2002). As suggested by prior studies (Lee et al., 2019; Yao et al., 2024), a regulatory orientation index was computed by first averaging the items associated with promotion focus and prevention focus separately to derive the respective promotion index and prevention index. Subsequently, the promotion index was subtracted from the prevention index to obtain the regulatory focus index. A positive value indicates a salient promotion-focus motive, whereas a negative value suggests a prominent prevention-focus motive.
Furthermore, to mitigate the potential confounding effects on our results, we incorporated environmental concern and math ability as control variables (Filieri et al., 2021; Garvey and Bolton, 2017). Environmental concern was assessed using a four-item scale adapted from Schmuck et al. (2018), while math ability was evaluated through a three-item scale derived from Suri et al. (2013). Additionally, this study accounted for consumers’ demographic characteristics, reasonable product lifespan, and washing frequency, as these factors may influence the analysis outcomes (Casalegno et al., 2022; Yang et al., 2022).
Results
Sample characteristics
Among the 400 samples, 77 participants under the age of 18 were excluded from the study. Additionally, data from 21 questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete or outlier responses. Consequently, 302 questionnaires remained and were considered valid for analysis. As shown in Table 1, these respondents consisted of 149 consumers in the small-number frame group (1 load) and 153 consumers in the large-number frame group (1000 loads).
The overall sample consisted of a marginally higher proportion of females compared to males. The majority of participants were within the age range of 18–39 years, which, while somewhat younger than the general domestic population, adequately represents consumers with a strong behavioral tendency towards purchasing green products. Most participants held a bachelor’s degree, indicating a likely high level of comprehension of our instructions. Monthly income primarily ranged from ￥3000 to ￥15,000, aligning with the domestic income distribution in China. Additionally, consistent with our pretest findings, most participants considered the reasonable lifespan of a washing machine to be between 7 and 10 years, and over half reported using their washing machines once every 2–3 days. This confirms that the selected numerical scales (1 load and 1000 loads) are both reasonable and valid.
Reliability and validity analysis
The evaluation of reliability and validity was undertaken to ensure the quality of the data. As shown in Table 2, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all latent variables, with one exception, exceed 0.6, indicating satisfactory internal consistency of the measurement scales. Although the Cronbach’s alpha for prevention focus is marginally lower, it remains within the acceptable range as supported by previous literature (Bonett and Wright, 2015; Punzo et al., 2019). Furthermore, the composite reliability for each latent variable surpasses the recommended threshold of 0.7. These outcomes confirm that the measurement scales possess a high level of reliability.
The factor loadings for each latent variable exceed 0.5, indicating robust convergent validity of the measurement scales. Furthermore, as presented in Table 3, all latent variables exhibit AVE values greater than 0.5, with their square roots exceeding the correlation coefficients between the constructs and other variables, thereby supporting strong discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, the heterotrait–monotrait (HTMT) ratio of correlations was calculated, as it offers a more rigorous assessment of discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015). The results indicate that the HTMT ratios for all variables are significantly below the threshold value of 0.85, thereby providing compelling evidence for discriminant validity. Overall, the variables in this study are comprehensively assessed and demonstrate high levels of reliability, consistency, and validity.
Common method bias
Harmon’s single-factor test was employed to evaluate potential common method bias as suggested by Podsakoff and Organ (1986). The factor analysis conducted on all items utilized in this study identified seven factors accounting for 63.3% of the total variance, with the primary factor contributing 28.1% of the variance. These results indicate that the variance is adequately distributed across multiple factors, thereby suggesting that common method bias is not a significant issue.
Hypothesis tests
Regression and ANOVA analyses were employed to test the proposed hypotheses. Specifically, we utilized the SPSS PROCESS macro (Model 4) to examine the mediating roles of perceived value and consumer skepticism in the relationship between large-number frame (versus small-number frame) and green purchase intention. As shown in Table 4, the large-number frame exerts a significantly positive effect on perceived value (β = 0.252, se = 0.081, t = 3.107, p = 0.002), thereby supporting H1. Additionally, perceived value is a robust predictor of green purchase intention (β = 0.333, se = 0.064, t = 5.227, p = 0.000), thereby confirming H2. Furthermore, regression analysis results indicate that the large-number frame positively influences consumer skepticism (β = 0.214, se = 0.097, t = 2.194, p = 0.029), thereby validating H4. However, consumer skepticism has a significantly negative impact on green purchase intention (β = −0.386, se = 0.053, t = −7.271, p = 0.000), thus supporting H5.
The indirect effects of the usage-based scale frame (large-number frame versus small-number frame) on green purchase intention were examined using 5000 bootstrapping samples. As shown in Table 5, the results suggest a significantly positive indirect effect of the large-number frame (compared to the small-number frame) on the green purchase intention through perceived value (β = 0.084, se = 0.032, 95% CI: [0.033, 0.164]), supporting H3. Additionally, there is a significantly negative indirect impact of the large-number frame (as opposed to the small-number frame) on green purchase behaviour via consumer skepticism (β = −0.083, se = 0.037, 95% CI: [−0.155, −0.012]), confirming H6. Due to the dual influences of the large-number frame on green purchase intention, its total indirect effect is non-significant (β = 0.002, se = 0.056, 95% CI: [−0.105, 0.119]). However, given the direct influence of the large-number frame on green purchase intention (β = 0.289, se = 0.086, 95% CI: [0.119, 0.458]), the overall effect of the large-number frame on green purchase intention remains evident.
To examine the moderating effect of regulatory focus, we conducted a two-way ANOVA analysis. After excluding four samples where the regulatory focus index was zero, 288 samples remained. As presented in Table 6, research findings revealed a significant interaction effect between the large-number frame and regulatory focus on perceived value (F(1, 286) = 4.045, p = 0.045, partial η2 = 0.014). Furthermore, follow-up contrasts were employed to delve deeper into how regulatory focus moderates the impact of scale framing on consumer perception. As shown in Table 7 and Fig. 2, the results indicate that when consumers have a promotion focus, the large-number frame of information regarding green products leads to a significantly higher perception of product value, compared to a prevention focus (Mlarge = 5.811, SD = 0.61; Msmall = 5.404, SD = 0.778; p < 0.05). Consequently, these findings support Hypothesis 7a.
The two-way interaction of scale frame and regulatory focus on perceived value.
Furthermore, as illustrated in Table 8, the analysis revealed a significant interaction effect between the large-number frame and prevention focus on consumer skepticism (F(1, 286) = 15.706, p = 0.000, partial η2 = 0.054). To further investigate how regulatory focus moderates the impact of scale framing on consumer perception, follow-up contrasts were conducted. As shown in Table 9 and Fig. 3, the results indicate that when consumers are prevention-focused, the large-number frame of information regarding green products leads to significantly higher levels of consumer skepticism (Mlarge = 3.897, SD = 1.053; Msmall = 3.010, SD = 0.811; p < 0.05), compared to those with promotion focus. Consequently, these findings support Hypothesis 7b.
The two-way interaction of scale frame and regulatory focus on consumer skepticism.
Discussion
The discussion of results
Numerous studies in cognitive psychology and marketing have confirmed that presenting the same numerical information in different ways can influence consumer responses and subsequently behaviours (Chou, 2019; Guha et al., 2018; Pandelaere et al., 2011; Hou and Sarigöllü, 2022). While most of these studies indicate that consumers exhibit a more pronounced response to a large-number frame compared to a small-number one (Fecher et al., 2019; Saayman et al., 2022), few studies have delved into the underlying mechanism, revealing how the large-number frame influences consumer perception and evaluation. To address this gap, this study employs two distinct theoretical frameworks, namely the numerosity heuristic and persuasive knowledge model, to investigate the impact of the large-number frame on green purchase behaviour and to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms through which the large-number frame exerts its influence, as well as the conditions under which it operates.
First, the findings indicate that green benefits framed in large numbers can enhance consumer perception of product value and further stimulate green purchase intention. These results support previous conclusions that a large-number frame can generate a stronger perception of quantity (Hou and Sarigöllü, 2022; Monga and Bagchi, 2012; Yao and Oppewal, 2016). Additionally, this study provides further evidence for past research suggesting that if advertisements successfully guide consumers to perceive desirable value from promoted products, they can stimulate stronger purchase intentions (Lin and Bautista, 2020; Steinhorst et al., 2015).
Second, this study identifies the potential adverse effect of a large-number frame on green purchase intention by incorporating consumer skepticism as a suppressing variable. The results indicate that consumer skepticism plays a significant role in mitigating the otherwise positive influence of large-number frames on green purchase intention. To be specific, the representation of green benefits through large numerical values can activate consumers’ latent persuasive knowledge, leading them to infer marketers’ manipulative intent due to the perceived complexity and unfamiliarity. Consequently, consumers may perceive the product claims framed in large numbers as a marketing strategy aimed at exaggerating product benefits, thereby inducing skepticism and reducing purchase intention. These findings not only align with previous research on the large-number price phenomenon by revealing its potential backfire effect (Bambauer-Sachse and Grewal, 2011) but also provide more profound insights into the underlying mechanisms of the large-number frame on green purchase intention.
Last, this paper provides a novel insight that the effectiveness of the scale frame depends on which set of motives (i.e., promotion-focus or prevention-focus motive) is prominent to the consumer. The large-number frame is generally perceived as more valuable by promotion-focused consumers, who seek to maximize gains. In contrast, prevention-focused consumers tend to be skeptical of green claims presented in a large-number frame, aiming to minimize risks and potential losses. These findings align with previous research on regulatory fit, which indicates that when the type of information aligns with an individual’s regulatory focus, consumers exhibit a stronger response to the information (Lee et al., 2010; Yi and Lee, 2024). Additionally, these results offer new insights into the conditions under which the large-number frame exerts its double-edged effect on green purchase intention.
Theoretical implications
The current study contributes to the existing body of knowledge by offering empirical evidence that the expression of green benefits using a large-number frame, as opposed to a small-number frame, can be a double-edged sword. By employing two distinct theoretical frameworks, this paper has provided a more comprehensive understanding of consumer responses to the large-number frame (compared to the small-number frame) and its subsequent influence on purchase intentions. The research findings indicate that the large-number frame enhances the perceived value of green products, yet simultaneously intensifies the inference of manipulative intent and increases skepticism. Despite these secondary effects, the overall impact of the large-number frame remains positive. These findings not only support the conclusion drawn by prior studies that rescaling the potential benefits of green products promotes a positive attitude (Hou and Sarigöllü, 2022; Wang et al., 2022), but also found its additional negative effect by increasing consumer skepticism. Therefore, these findings expand the literature on scale frame and pro-environmental behaviour, and provide a detailed and deeper insight into the underlying mechanism of usage-scale frame in shaping consumers’ pro-environmental behaviour.
Second, this study contributes to the literature on regulatory fit by investigating the interaction between scale frame and regulatory focus. Previous research has established that the effectiveness of message framing is influenced by consumers’ regulatory goals (Coelho et al., 2022; Luan et al., 2023). However, the relationship between message frame, particularly concerning scale frame, and regulatory focus has not been thoroughly explored. This paper addresses this gap by incorporating regulatory focus as a moderator and by examining the interaction effect between large-number frames and regulatory focus on consumer responses. The results indicate that for promotion-focused consumers, a large-number frame enhances perceptions of product value, thereby amplifying its positive impact. Conversely, for prevention-focused individuals, a large-number frame increases skepticism and discourages environmentally friendly purchase behaviour. Therefore, our findings extend the application of regulatory focus theory to the rescaling of environmental information, thereby contributing to the literature on regulatory fit and the effectiveness of green information.
Practical implications
Research findings provide useful implications for governments and businesses to launch effective communication campaigns by crafting environmental information that matches their target consumers’ motivational state. First, it is suggested that governments and businesses use a moderately large number to illustrate the potential benefits consumers can derive from green products or pro-environmental behaviours. For example, to promote electricity conservation, it would be more effective for the government to highlight the cumulative amount of electricity savings resulting from repeated actions over time (e.g., by 100 times), rather than focusing on the impact of a single instance. This approach maximizes the positive impact of individual contributions and aligns with behavioural expectations for environmental improvement. Similarly, businesses and marketers can emphasize the significant benefits of their eco-friendly products to encourage green purchase behaviours and cultivate a positive corporate image. For instance, Tesla underscores the environmental impact of its green products by stating that their use has collectively enabled owners to avoid emitting over 20 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphereFootnote 1. Likewise, other companies with substantial user bases or products offering long-term cumulative benefits can adopt such strategies for their green products, thereby enhancing the perceived value of these products and the effectiveness of green advertising initiatives.
Second, owing to the double-edged nature of large numbers, the effectiveness of simply expanding the scale of pro-environmental benefit expressions may be limited. Therefore, it is crucial for companies to harness the positive impact of perceived value by enhancing green product design and the manufacturing process. For instance, companies are advised to leverage modern technology and eco-friendly materials to make products that are not only efficient but also environmentally friendly, thereby delivering both environmental benefits and economic savings to consumers. Additionally, businesses and marketers could employ detailed and specific statements to articulate the value attributes of the product, thereby enhancing consumer perception of product value and ultimately promoting purchase intention. Furthermore, businesses and marketers could also actively solicit feedback from consumers and stakeholders to continuously improve the environmental performance and potential value of their products.
Furthermore, given the suppressing effect of consumer skepticism on the positive outcomes associated with the large-number frame, it is recommended that businesses and marketers alleviate consumers’ inference of manipulative intent in product advertising. For instance, when utilizing a large-number frame, businesses and marketers should leverage credible information sources or green certifications to reinforce consumers’ confidence in the potential benefits of green products, thereby stimulating demand and motivating green purchasing behaviour. Additionally, businesses and marketers should closely monitor consumer responses to the communicated benefits and equip sales personnel with specialized knowledge and skills to address any questions, doubts, or suspicions regarding green product statements. This approach will mitigate skepticism and instill confidence in consumers that green products yield benefits for both individuals and the environment.
Last, businesses and marketers should tailor their messaging strategies to align with the motivational states of target consumers. For promotion-focused consumers, emphasizing potential benefits using a large-number frame can enhance perceived product value and stimulate purchase behavior. Conversely, for prevention-focused consumers, highlighting potential benefits through a small-number frame is advisable to mitigate skepticism. Furthermore, businesses may consider leveraging the congruence between large-number frames and promotion-oriented messages, as well as small-number frames and prevention-oriented messages, when designing advertising campaigns and communication initiatives.
Limitations and future research
First, the present study treats behavioural intention as a proxy variable for actual behaviour. Future research should consider employing consumers’ actual purchase behaviour to validate these hypotheses and the research model. Second, the present study adopts a self-reported quantitative approach for data collection. However, it is acknowledged that self-reported outcomes may be influenced by several factors, such as question phrasing, format, and survey context. Therefore, it is recommended that future research employ multiple methodologies to collect data, thereby validating the findings of this study. Finally, this study specifically focused on water-efficient washing machines as experimental stimuli due to their longer lifespan, high usage frequency, and substantial savings achieved through advanced technological innovations. Consequently, consumers are more likely to be influenced by the duration and frequency of product use and advertising appeals that highlight these factors. Nevertheless, this effect may be attenuated in scenarios where green products have a short lifespan or the savings in energy or cost between green products and traditional products are negligible. Therefore, it is suggested for future studies to incorporate additional product categories to examine the generalizability of our findings.
Data availability
An anonymized participant-level dataset—including 302 samples with all variables employed in the analyses—has been uploaded as a supplementary file. The dataset is accessible via supplementary files, in full compliance with institutional data governance policies and applicable ethical standards for human participants research and personal data protection.
References
Aguirre-Rodriguez A (2013) The effect of consumer persuasion knowledge on scarcity appeal persuasiveness. J Advert 42(4):371–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2013.803186
Albayrak T, Caber M, Moutinho L, Herstein R (2011) The influence of skepticism on green purchase behavior. Int J Bus Soc Sci 2(13):189–197
Alenazi SA (2015) The effects of statement persuasiveness, statement strength, and regulatory focus on manipulative intent inference. J Bus Econ Manag 13(1):43–48. https://doi.org/10.19030/jber.v13i1.9078
Ates H (2020) Merging theory of planned behavior and value identity personal norm model to explain pro-environmental behaviors. Sustain Prod Consump 24:169–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2020.07.006
Bagchi R, Davis DF (2016) The role of numerosity in judgments and decision-making. Curr Opin Psychol 10:89–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.12.010
Bambauer-Sachse S, Mangold SC (2009) Are temporally reframed prices really advantageous? A more detailed look at the processes triggered by temporally reframed prices. J Retail Consum Serv 16(6):451–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2009.06.005
Bambauer-Sachse S, Grewal D (2011) Temporal reframing of prices: when is it beneficial?. J Retail 87(2):156–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2011.02.002
Bär D, Feuerriegel S, Li T, Weinmann M (2023) Message framing to promote solar panels. Nat Commun 14(1):7187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42904-0
Basu S, Ng S (2020) $100 a month or $1,200 a year? Regulatory focus and the evaluation of temporally framed attributes. J Consum Psychol 31(2):301–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcpy.1199
Bi C, Jin SJ, Li SZ, Li YN (2023) Can green advertising increase consumers’ purchase intention of electric vehicles? An experimental study from China. J Clean Prod 419: 138260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138260
Bonett DG, Wright TA (2015) Cronbach’s alpha reliability: Interval estimation, hypothesis testing, and sample size planning. J Organ Behav 36(1):3–15. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1960
Bonner C, Newell BR (2008) How to make a risk seem riskier: the ratio bias versus construal level theory. Judgm Decis Mak 3(5):411–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1930297500000437
Cadario R, Parguel B, Benoit-Moreau F (2016) Is bigger always better? The unit effect in carbon emissions information. Int J Res Mark 33(1):204–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2015.10.002
Camilleri AR, Larrick RP (2014) Metric and scale design as choice architecture tools. J Public Policy Mark 33(1):108–125. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.12.151
Camilleri AR, Larrick RP (2019) The collective aggregation effect: aggregating potential collective action increases prosocial behavior. J Exp Psychol Gen 148(3):550–569. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000563
Campbell MC (1995) When attention-getting advertising tactics elicit consumer inferences of manipulative intent: the importance of balancing benefits and investments. J Consum Psychol 4(3):225–254. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0403_02
Casalegno C, Candelo E, Santoro G (2022) Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable purchase behaviour: a comparison among different generations. Psychol Mark 39(5):1007–1021. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21637
Chaiken S (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Personal Soc Psychol 39(5):752–766. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
Coelho F, Cruz L, Pereira MC, Simões P, Barata E (2022) How regulatory focus shapes pro-environmental behaviour: evidence from Portugal. J Mark Manage 39(3-4):167–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2022.2092195
Chatterjee S, Malshe AV, Heath TB (2010) The effect of mixed versus blocked sequencing of promotion and prevention features on brand evaluation: the moderating role of regulatory focus. J Bus Res 63(12):1290–1294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2009.09.003
Cheng ZH, Chang CT, Lee YK (2020) Linking hedonic and utilitarian shopping values to consumer skepticism and green consumption: the roles of environmental involvement and locus of control. Rev Manag Sci 14(1):61–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-018-0286-z
Chou HY (2019) Units of time do matter: how countdown time units affect consumers’ intentions to participate in group-buying offers. Electron Commer Res Appl 35: 100839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2019.100839
Choi D, Johnson KK (2019) Influences of environmental and hedonic motivations on intention to purchase green products: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. Sustain Prod Consump 18:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.02.001
Choi TR, Choi JH, Sung Y (2019) I hope to protect myself from the threat: the impact of self-threat on prevention-versus promotion-focused hope. J Bus Res 99:481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.03.010
Codini AP, Miniero G, Bonera M (2018) Why not promote promotion for green consumption? The controversial role of regulatory focus. Eur Bus Rev 30(5):554–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-09-2016-0118
Das G, Spence MT, Agarwal J (2021) Social selling cues: the dynamics of posting numbers viewed and bought on customers’ purchase intentions. Int J Res Mark 38(4):994–1016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2021.01.001
De Groot JIM, Steg L (2008) Value orientations to explain beliefs related to environmental significant behavior: how to measure egoistic, altruistic, and biospheric value orientations. Environ Behav 40(3):330–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506297831
Do Paço AMF, Reis R (2012) Factors affecting skepticism toward green advertising. J Advert 41(4):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.10672463
Fazeli Z, Shukla P, Perks K (2020) Digital buying behavior: the role of regulatory fit and self-construal in online luxury goods purchase intentions. Psychol Mark 37(1):15–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21276
Fecher A, Robbert T, Roth S (2019) Same price, different perception: measurement-unit effects on price-level perceptions and purchase intentions. J Retail Consum Serv 49:129–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.03.017
Filieri R, Javornik A, Hang HM, Niceta A (2021) Environmentally framed eWOM messages of different valence: the role of environmental concerns, moral norms, and product environmental impact. Psychol Mark 38(3):431–454. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21440
Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Gabisch JA, Milne GR (2013) Self-disclosure on the web: rewards, safety cues, and the moderating role of regulatory focus. J Res Interact Mark 7(2):140–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIM-11-2012-0051
Garvey AM, Bolton LE (2017) Eco-product choice cuts both ways: how pro-environmental licensing versus reinforcement is contingent on environmental consciousness. J Public Policy Mark 36(2):284–298. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.16.096
Gaston-Breton C (2006) The impact of the euro on the consumer decision process: theoretical explanation and empirical evidence. J Prod Brand Manag 15(4):272–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420610679656
Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W (2011) Heuristic decision making. Annu Rev Psychol 62:451–482. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120709-145346
Guha A, Biswas A, Grewal D, Verma S, Banerjee S, Nordflt J (2018) Reframing the discount as a comparison against the sale price: does it make the discount more attractive?. J Mark Res 55(3):339–351. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.16.0599
Han H, Hwang J, Lee MJ (2017) The value–belief–emotion–norm model: investigating customers’ eco-friendly behavior. J Travel Tour Mark 34(5):590–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1208790
Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Mark Sci 43:115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hibbert S, Smith A, Davies A, Ireland F (2007) Guilt appeals: persuasion knowledge and charitable giving. Psychol Mark 24(8):723–742. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20181
Higgins ET (1997) Beyond pleasure and pain. Am Psychol 52(12):1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins ET (1998) Promotion and prevention: regulatory focus as a motivational principle. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 30:1–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
Hou CX, Sarigöllü E (2022) Is bigger better? How the scale effect influences green purchase intention: the case of washing machine. J Retail Consum Serv 65: 102894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102894
Isaac MS, Grayson K (2017) Beyond Skepticism: can accessing persuasion knowledge bolster credibility?. J Consum Res 43(6):895–912. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucw063
Jackson T (2005) Live better by consuming less?: is there a “double dividend” in sustainable consumption?. J Ind Ecol 9(1-2):19–36. https://doi.org/10.1162/1088198054084734
Joshi Y, Uniyal DP, Sangroya D (2021) Investigating consumers’ green purchase intention: examining the role of economic value, emotional value and perceived marketplace influence. J Clean Prod 328: 129638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129638
Kahneman D (2003) Maps of bounded rationality: psychology for behavioral economics. Am Econ Rev 93(5):1449–1475. https://doi.org/10.1257/000282803322655392
Khan SN, Mohsin M (2017) The power of emotional value: exploring the effects of values on green product consumer choice behavior. J Clean Prod 150:65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.187
Kirmani A, Zhu R (2007) Vigilant against manipulation: the effect of regulatory focus on the use of persuasion knowledge. J Mark Res 44(4):688–701. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.44.4.688
Lee AY, Keller PA, Sternthal B (2010) Value from regulatory construal fit: the persuasive impact of fit between consumer goals and message concreteness. J Consum Res 36(5):735–747. https://doi.org/10.1086/605591
Lee SE, Lee KH (2024) Environmentally sustainable fashion and conspicuous behavior. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-02955-0
Lee SS, Kim Y, Roh T (2023) Pro-environmental behavior on electric vehicle use intention: integrating value-belief-norm theory and theory of planned behavior. J Clean Prod 418: 138211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138211
Lee SY, Jung S, Jung HY, Choi ST, Oh S (2019) Imagination matters: do consumers’ imagery processing and self-regulatory goals affect the persuasiveness of metaphor in advertising?. Int J Advert 38(8):1173–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2019.1596445
Lembregts C, Van den Bergh B (2019) Making each unit count: the role of discretizing units in quantity expressions. J Consum Res 45(5):1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucy036
Leonidou CN, Skarmeas D (2017) Gray shades of green: causes and consequences of green skepticism. J Bus Ethics 144(2):401–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2829-4
Li GX, Yang LF, Zhang BJ, Li XX, Chen FY (2021) How do environmental values impact green product purchase intention? The moderating role of green trust. Environ Sci Pollut Res 28(33):46020–46034. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-13946-y
Lin TTC, Bautista JR (2020) Content-related factors influence perceived value of location-based mobile advertising. J Comput Inf Syst 60(2):184–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2018.1432995
Liu X, Zheng XY (2024) The persuasive power of social media influencers in brand credibility and purchase intention. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 11(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02512-1
Lockwood P, Jordan CH, Kunda Z (2002) Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(4):854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854
Luan J, Filieri R, Xiao J, Han QQ, Zhu B, Wang T (2023) Product information and green consumption: an integrated perspective of regulatory focus, self-construal, and temporal distance. Inf Manag 60(2):103746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2022.103746
Lunardo R, Mbengue A (2013) When atmospherics lead to inferences of manipulative intent: its effects on trust and attitude. J Bus Res 66(7):823–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.06.007
Mo ZY, Liu MT, Liu YD (2018) Effects of functional green advertising on self and others. Psychol Mark 35(5):368–382. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21092
Monga A, Bagchi R (2012) Years, months, and days versus 1, 12, and 365: the influence of units versus numbers. J Consum Res 39(1):185–198. https://doi.org/10.1086/662039
Munerah S, Koay KY, Thambiah S (2021) Factors influencing non-green consumers’ purchase intention: a partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach. J Clean Prod 280: 124192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124192
Neuwirth K, Frederick E, Mayo C (2002) Person-effects and heuristic-systematic processing. Commun Res 29(3):320–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650202029003005
Ohlwein M (2022) Same but different—the effect of the unit of measure on the valuation of a unit price. J Retail Consum Serv 66: 102896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102896
Pandelaere M, Briers B, Lembregts C (2011) How to make a 29% increase look bigger: the unit effect in option comparisons. J Consum Res 38(2):308–322. https://doi.org/10.1086/659000
Park J, Son JY, Suh KS (2022) Fear appeal cues to motivate users’ security protection behaviors: an empirical test of heuristic cues to enhance risk communication. Internet Res 32(3):708–727. https://doi.org/10.1108/INTR-01-2021-0065
Pekkanen TL, Pätäri S, Albadera L, Jantunen A (2018) Who cares about product sustainability information at the moment of purchase? Consumer evidence from three countries. Sustain Dev 26(3):229–242. https://doi.org/10.1002/SD.1697
Pelham BW, Sumarta TT, Myaskovsky L (1994) The easy path from many to much: the numerosity heuristic. Cogn Psychol 26(2):103–133. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1004
Podsakoff PM, Organ DW (1986) Self-reports in organizational research: problems and prospects. J Manag 12(4):531–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638601200408
Punzo G, Panarello D, Pagliuca MM, Castellano R, Aprile MC (2019) Assessing the role of perceived values and felt responsibility on pro-environmental behaviours: a comparison across four EU countries. Environ Sci Policy 101:311–322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.09.006
Roh T, Seok J, Kim Y (2022) Unveiling ways to reach organic purchase: green perceived value, perceived knowledge, attitude, subjective norm, and trust. J Retail Consum Serv 67: 102988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2022.102988
Romani S (2006) Price misleading advertising: effects on trustworthiness toward the source of information and willingness to buy. J Prod Brand Manag 15(2):130–138. https://doi.org/10.1108/10610420610658965
Saayman A, Li S, Fourie A, Scholtz M (2022) Money illusion under tourists: deceived by larger numbers?. Curr Issues Tour 25(5):792–807. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2021.1887825
Saini M, Prakash G, Yaqub MZ, Agarwal R (2024) Why do people purchase plant-based meat products from retail stores? Examining consumer preferences, motivations and drivers. J Retail Consum Serv 81: 103939. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103939
Schley DR, Lembregts C, Peters E (2017) The role of evaluation mode on the unit effect. J Consum Psychol 27(2):278–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2016.07.001
Schmuck D, Matthes J, Naderer B, Beaufort M (2018) The effects of environmental brand attributes and nature imagery in green advertising. Environ Commun 12(3):414–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1308401
Shah AK, Oppenheimer DM (2008) Heuristics made easy: an effort-reduction framework. Psychol Bull 134(2):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.207
Shen PY, Nie X, Tong CC (2025) Does disclosing commercial intention benefit brands? Mediating role of perceived manipulative intent and perceived authenticity in influencer hidden advertising. J Res Interact Mark 19(4):673–693. https://doi.org/10.1108/jrim-01-2024-0052
Shi TF, Huang R, Sarigöllü E (2022) Consumer product use behavior throughout the product lifespan: a literature review and research agenda. J Environ Manag 302: 114114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114114
Siddiqui RA, Monga A, Buechel EC (2018) When intertemporal rewards are hedonic, larger units of wait time boost patience. J Consum Psychol 28(4):612–628. https://doi.org/10.1002/JCPY.1019
Singh J, Crisafulli B, Xue MT (2020) To trust or not to trust’: the impact of social media influencers on the reputation of corporate brands in crisis. J Bus Res 119:464–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.039
Song J, Qu H (2019) How does consumer regulatory focus impact perceived value and consumption emotions?. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 31(1):285–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-03-2017-0136
Steinhorst J, Klöckner CA, Matthies E (2015) Saving electricity–for the money or the environment? Risks of limiting pro-environmental spillover when using monetary framing. J Environ Psychol 43:125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.05.012
Suri R, Monroe KB, Koc U (2013) Math anxiety and its effects on consumers’ preference for price promotion formats. J Acad Mark Sci 41(3):271–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-012-0313-6
Teng CC, Lu ACC, Huang TT (2018) Drivers of consumers’ behavioral intention toward green hotels. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 30(2):1134–1151. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-04-2017-0203
Van Reijmersdal EA, Lammers N, Rozendaal E, Buijzen M (2015) Disclosing the persuasive nature of advergames: moderation effects of mood on brand responses via persuasion knowledge. Int J Advert 34(1):70–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2014.993795
Wang JM, Li YQ, He ZX, Gao J, Wang JG (2022) Scale framing, benefit framing and their interaction effects on energy-saving behaviors: evidence from urban residents of China. Energ Policy 166: 113005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113005
Webb DJ, Mohr LA, Harris KE (2008) A re-examination of socially responsible consumption and its measurement. J Bus Res 61(2):91–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.05.007
Wei Q, Bao A, Lv D, Liu S, Chen S, Chi Y, Zuo J (2024) The influence of message frame and product type on green consumer purchase decisions: an ERPs study. Sci Rep 14(1):23232. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-75056-2
Xie GX, Kronrod A (2012) Is the devil in the details? The signaling effect of numerical precision in environmental advertising claims. J Advert 41(4):103–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2012.10672460
Yang XC, Chen SC, Zhang L (2020) Promoting sustainable development: a research on residents’ green purchasing behavior from a perspective of the goal-framing theory. Sustain Dev 28(5):1208–1219. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2526
Yang JH, Long RY, Chen H, Sun QQ (2022) Identifying what shapes the words and actions of residents’ environmentally friendly express packaging: evidence from a two-stage payment model. J Environ Manage 307: 114496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.114496
Yao J, Oppewal H (2016) Unit pricing increases price sensitivity even when products are of identical size. J Retail 92(1):109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2015.09.002
Yao J, Wang D, Martin BA (2024) The regulatory fit effect on consumer preferences for price discounts and bonus packs. Psychol Mark 41(11):2884–2895. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22090
Yi MR, Lee H (2024) A study on the regulatory fit effects of influencer types and message types. Int J Hum–Comput Int 40(18):5161–5173. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2023.2232213
Yu J (2020) Consumer responses toward green advertising: the effects of gender, advertising skepticism, and green motive attribution. J Mark Commun 26(4):414–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2018.1514317
Yuan R, Liu MJ, Blut M (2022) What’s in it for You? Examining the roles of consumption values and Thaler’s acquisition–transaction utility theory in Chinese consumers’ green purchase intentions. Eur J Market 56(4):1065–1107. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-08-2020-0609
Zhang XJ, Chen K, Li SA (2024) The effects of green advertising appeal and message type on purchase intention. J Retail Consum Serv 81: 104007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104007
Zundel S, Stieß I (2011) Beyond profitability of energy-saving measures—attitudes towards energy saving. J Consum Policy 34(1):91–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-011-9156-7
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (72402214 and 72274175); the Youth Fund for Humanities and Social Sciences Research of Ministry of Education in China (22YJC630032); the Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province, China (LQ22G020008); the Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project of Zhejiang Province, China (24NDJC217YBM); the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2023QG128); the Shandong Philosophy and Social Science Research Project (23CGLJ01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Chenxuan Hou: Conceptualization and original draft preparation. Tingting Li: Investigation and data collection. Yanzhang Gu: Methodology and data analysis. Chunjia Hu: Writing—reviewing and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical approval
This study received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Zhejiang University of Technology. The approval (Approval number: ZJUT-SOM-2401) was granted on January 5, 2024, which covers the entire research process, including participant recruitment, data collection, potential ethical issues, and measures to address them. All research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the relevant guidelines/regulations of the aforementioned IRB.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants prior to their participation in the survey conducted on January 12, 2024. A comprehensive informed consent statement was presented at the beginning of the online survey; therefore, a separate written consent form was not used. Participants were provided with clear and comprehensive information regarding the study’s objectives, methodology, potential risks, and anticipated benefits. Participants were informed that by proceeding to the questionnaire after reading the statement—specifically by clicking the “Next” button to start the survey—they were providing their implied consent. They were assured of anonymity and explicitly informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty or adverse consequences. Furthermore, they were granted access to the study results and provided consent for the publication of the data and findings.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Hou, C., Li, T., Gu, Y. et al. How to use advertising appeals to promote green purchase behaviour —The double-edged sword effect of a large usage-based scale frame. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 13, 268 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06633-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06633-1
