No, in order to engage those who are uninterested by the typical emotional appeals in social marketing, they will need to be targeted with thoughtful, tailored messages. Emotional appeals are widely used in social marketing in order to elicit feelings that lead to self-efficacy of the viewer. There is a lot of research into optimising advertising factors, such as emotional appeal, to the subject of the advertising campaign. However, the focus is typically just on the general public, which leads to general emotional appeals to a very large and diverse audience. This essay argues that there are too many uncertainties in how an individual will react to a social marketing campaign, as humans are so widely different. As such, general emotional appeals cannot be effective on the self-efficacy of those already uninterested in the climate revolution. Firstly, the reaction to advertising on social media is skewed due to the ‘filter bubble’, so what may seem to be an effective marketing campaign has probably only reached certain groups of people and does not represent the population. Previous misrepresentation regarding the climate revolution can lead to a negative bias towards a pro-environmental advertisement, so a general emotional appeal is unlikely to be effective. Also, the proneness to targeted emotions such as guilt or fear varies in everyone, so there will be some people that certain emotional appeals are not effective on. Finally, an overview of some theories on the different factors in advertising shows how much and how easily a reaction can vary amongst an audience. The research concludes that general emotional appeal ads are not suitable if the target audience is large and varying.
The social marketing advertisements are largely reaching those who already support the message.
The ‘filter bubble’ is a term for a stream of online data, from news or social media, that is tailored to an individual user based on their own interests and beliefs (Nagulendra & Vassileva, 2014). While this creates a comfortable space for a user online, there is also a danger that it creates an ‘echo chamber’ which lacks the input of people with an opposite opinion and in turn blinds the user from the reality of the world. In pro-environmental ‘bubble’, it is likely that the typical emotional appeal marketing campaigns could have large amounts of support, as the ads are being bounced around by people of the same opinion. The positive feedback received can therefore be misrepresentative of reality, with the reality being that only some of the social marketing advertisements are reaching those who are uninterested (Raudeliūnienė et al., 2018). To the environmentally uninterested individuals that the ads do reach, it is unlikely that the same emotional appeals would succeed in promoting self-efficacy as they would for someone already environmentally conscious.
The uninterest of the individuals themselves could be due to the rise of a biased negative opinion that has evolved through misrepresentation of the whole movement by the actions of a few.
Radicals can easily damage the general opinion of a campaign for some people, it could be through physical protest, overtly strong in-your-face opinions, or a lack of cooperation and understanding. Radical activists are seen in many social movements, particularly in the animal rights movement with groups like the Animal Liberation Front and the even more extreme Animal Rights Militia (Green, 2014). The acts of extremism that these groups conduct ultimately can sour the opinion that minimally involved individuals have of the whole movement. This, in part, is due to the sensationalist media that is so prevalent nowadays. Media outlets give little coverage to activists conducting non-violent rallies, instead focusing on the more extreme protests that make big headlines and attract more attention (Sorenson, 2009). Often, activists get framed as terrorists, which immediately diverts attention away from the validity of their cause. With such a range of opinions reaching any individual person about a purpose or cause, it is therefore easy to imagine individuals who have been almost solely subjected to negative news associated with a movement. With these individuals having a negatively biased opinion, it is very possible that they would be wary of being emotionally manipulated by a general piece of environmental social marketing, and thus not accept the message of the advertisement (Lukic, 2009).
Appealing to particular emotions will only effectively increase self- efficacy in those who are prone to the targeted emotions.
Everybody has a different proneness to guilt and shame, two commonly used emotional appeals in social marketing (Tangney, Burggraf & Wagner, 2018). Environmental guilt, that is, feeling a sense of guilt when reminded of the negative impacts on the planet as a result of individual choices, is what drives many people to improve aspects of their lives environmentally. If they experience environmental guilt, and see an environmental advertisement that utilises guilt appeal then they are very likely to have an increased sense of self-efficacy as a result. It is therefore very possible that a weak or non-existent environmental conscience is particularly a result of an individual having a low proneness to guilt. There is little sense of wrongdoing when any waste goes into general waste, lights always remain on, and car’s are left running unnecessarily. Those with a low proneness to guilt have been proven to take part in more antisocial behaviour, lie for financial gain, and engage in business practises that would harm society and/or the environment in return for a promotion and a raise (Cohen, Panter & Turan, 2012). With a low proneness to guilt, it is much easier to make harmful decisions for personal gain (Chédotal et al., 2017). Thus, a feeling of self-efficacy is unlikely to arise from a non-guilt prone person seeing a generalised guilt appeal advertisement.
Triggering emotional responses is so dependant on a range of factors within the social marketing strategy that an emotional appeal that is effective on one type of individual can easily elicit no response from another.
One important factor in attaining message acceptance is its’ regulatory focus. A 2×2 experiment indicated the correlation between emotional appeal (shame and guilt), and regulatory focus (promotion versus prevention) on the effectiveness of a public service announcement (PSA) about using a mobile phone while driving (Pounders, Lee & Royne, 2017). The results showed that a guilt appeal paired with a promotion focused message resulted in a much higher feeling of self-efficacy than with a prevention focused message. As mentioned earlier, guilt often elicits the need for reparative action (Tracy, Robins & Tangney, 2007). This paired with the promotion focused message aids the now guilty individual with positive reinforcement to follow through with more prosocial behaviours. Shame, on the other hand, typically results in a whole host of negative emotions: lowered self-esteem, anger, anxiety, and often lowered self-efficacy (Passanisi et al., 2015). However, in this study the use of shame appeal paired with a prevention focused message actually resulted in a higher self-efficacy to change the individual’s bad habits than the guilt-promotion message did. Shame has previously been regarded as a negative advertising emotion (as opposed to fear and guilt) which could result when trying to trigger guilt-full responses (Bennett, 1998). The study on the effects of regulatory focus suggests that shame could actually be an effective way of nurturing self-efficacy, however, only if the message is paired with an effective prevention focused message, and is not triggered unintentionally. A brief look at the role of regulatory focus in advertising demonstrates that the types of reactions that can be triggered through emotional appeals are extremely complex and would differ from person to person. Repeated misalignment between the conveyed message and the response of the individual could lead to a gradual disassociation with the cause.
Another example of the complexity of message acceptance is a study that aimed to find the most effective formula of issue proximity and environmental consciousness in guilt appeals (Chang, 2012). The study found that a non-guilt appeal was significantly more effective than a guilt appeal in people with a high environmental conscience when the issue proximity was high. However, the exact opposite applied when studying people with a low environmental conscience, where the guilt appeal was much more effective. This clearly demonstrates how, dealing with a given issue, one type of advertisement is very suitable to one group and not at all suitable to another.
In a study concerning behavioural attitude to a PSA about high risk drinking behaviour, some insights into the correlation between regulatory focus, social distance, and involvement in the risky behaviour were found (Park & Morton, 2015). For someone who has low-involvement with the issue (a minimal offender), and the subject of the advertisement (people affected) are distant, then a promotion focused message is effective on increasing self-efficacy. However, if the subject is of close proximity (family), then a prevention focused message results in increasing self-efficacy. This suggests that an individual gains self-efficacy from the desire to improve oneself when they feel less obliged to close family or friends. Conversely, an individual also gains self-efficacy when they feel a responsibility to protect themselves and save their family from suffering. Overall, the study suggested that the prevention-focused ad messages were not as influential as were expected, and this was due to the issue of high-risk drinking behaviour having negative consequences being of significantly less importance when compared to other potential health risks. From this, it could be extrapolated that if an environmental problem does not feel so immediate, it may be more effective to promote people to pursue gains and improve personal environmentally friendly habits. However, to a environmental problem that is looming, people may benefit from a prevention-focused ad message.
Overall, appealing to people’s emotions to engage them with climate change is a hugely complex subject, and therefore cannot be generalised if targeting a wide audience. In the 2017 article Reassessing emotion in climate change communication they highlight that “it is important to develop authentic, honest communications strategies that meet intended audiences where they are rather than attempting to socially engineer emotional appeals” (Chapman, Lickel & Markowitz, 2017).
Conclusion
Although there is little empirical evidence, it seems highly unlikely that those who are uninterested will experience an increase in self-efficacy from a social marketing ad using a general emotional appeal. There are too many uncertainties in the audience, as all people have a different experience with what the climate revolution means. The marketing strategies used are likely ineffective on many people but this is hidden by the success they see within certain ‘bubbles’ on social media. There will be people out there who have incredibly negative bias towards the climate revolution and certainly will not be affected by the messages of very general social marketing. The same will result in those with a low proneness to guilt. The incredibly common guilt appeal ads will not spark a feeling of self-efficacy if they are not already interested in the climate revolution. In conclusion, tailored messages will be the way to meet certain individuals specific emotional needs, in turn triggering emotions which increase self-efficacy and result in positive change. With social media advertising now offering the ability to reach extremely specific audiences, effective messages can be tailored to those who, for whatever reason, do not take to the environmental revolution as easily as others.
References
Bennett, R. (1998). Shame, guilt & responses to non-profit & public sector ads. International Journal of Advertising, [online] 17(4), pp.483-499. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/02650487.1998.11104734 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Chang, C. (2012). Are guilt appeals a panacea in green advertising?. International Journal of Advertising, [online] 31(4), pp.741-771. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277512672_Are_guilt_appeals_a_panacea_in _green_advertising_The_right_formula_of_issue_proximity_and_environmental_consci ousness [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Chapman, D., Lickel, B. and Markowitz, E. (2017). Reassessing emotion in climate change communication. Nature Climate Change, [online] 7(12), pp.850-852. Available at: https://ezramarkowitz.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/chapman-lickel-markowitz- 2017.pdf [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Chédotal, C., Berthe, B., de Peyrelongue, B. and Le Gall-Ely, M. (2017). Using guilt appeals in communication. Recherche et Applications en Marketing (English Edition), [online] 32(4), pp.91-110. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317125936_Using_guilt_appeals_in_communi cation [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Cohen, T., Panter, A. and Turan, N. (2012). Guilt Proneness and Moral Character. Current Directions in Psychological Science, [online] 21(5), pp.355-359. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721412454874 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Green, J. (2014). The animal rights movement: the challenge for corporate resilience. [online] Available at: https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do;jsessionid=C95378855DE9FFD0D6ED170E8ECD41 AD?uin=uk.bl.ethos.664864 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Lukic, D. (2009). Emotional Appeals in Social Marketing—a comparative analysis of positive and negative appeals in two types of social marketing campaigns. [online] Available at: http://pure.au.dk/portal/files/7341/Emotional_appeals_in_social_marketing [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Nagulendra, S. and Vassileva, J. (2014). Understanding and controlling the filter bubble through interactive visualization. Proceedings of the 25th ACM conference on Hypertext and social media, HT ’14. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266660926_Understanding_and_controlling_t he_filter_bubble_through_interactive_visualization_A_user_study [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Park, S. & Morton, C. (2015). The Role of Regulatory Focus, Social Distance, and Involvement in Anti-High-Risk Drinking Advertising: A Construal-Level Theory Perspective. Journal of Advertising, [online] 44(4), pp.338-348. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00913367.2014.1001503?needAccess=tru e [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Passanisi, A., Sapienza, I., Budello, S. & Giaimo, F. (2015). The Relationship Between Guilt, Shame and Self-Efficacy Beliefs in Middle School Students. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, [online] 197, pp.1013-1017. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877042815042962?via%3Dihub [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Pounders, K., Lee, S. and Royne, M. (2017). The Effectiveness of Guilt and Shame Ad Appeals in Social Marketing: The Role of Regulatory Focus. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, [online] 39(1), pp.37-51. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10641734.2017.1372322?needAccess=tru e [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Raudeliūnienė, J., Davidavičienė, V., Tvaronavičienė, M. & Jonuška, L. (2018). Evaluation of Advertising Campaigns on Social Media Networks. Sustainability, [online] 10(4), p.973. Available at: https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i4p973- d138211.html [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Sorenson, J. (2009). Constructing terrorists: propaganda about animal rights. Critical Studies on Terrorism, [online] 2(2), pp.237-256. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17539150903010715?needAccess=true [Accessed 8 Jan. 2019].
Tangney, J., Burggraf, S. and Wagner, P. (2018). Shame-proneness, guilt-proneness, and psychological symptoms. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232561258_Shame-proneness_guilt- proneness_and_psychological_symptoms [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Tracy, J., Robins, R. and Tangney, J. (2007). Putting the Self Into Self-Conscious Emotions: A Theoretical Model. The Self-Conscious Emotions. Theory and Research, [online] 15(2), pp.103-125. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079795_The_Self- Conscious_Emotions_Theory_and_Research [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
New Minds Eye 