| Literature DB >> 35627356 |
Wei Li1, Si Chen1, Zhihao Wang1, Guomin Li1, Xiaoguang Liu1.
Abstract
With serious environmental problems increasing, waste separation has drawn much attention. Message framing is an important way to popularize separation knowledge and increase people's separation willingness. Message framing was classified into positive and negative frames in this study, and then based on moral identity theory from the social cognitive perspective, two dimensions of moral identity were introduced as mediating variables to construct a mechanism model of the influence of message framing on waste separation willingness. After a comparative study of three groups of subjects (N = 604), the following conclusions were drawn: (1) message framing positively influenced moral identity and waste separation willingness; (2) both positive and negative message framing positively influenced waste separation willingness through the partial mediating role of moral identity symbolization and internalization; and (3) the mediating role of symbolization was stronger in the effect of positive message framing on waste separation willingness, while the mediating role of internalization was stronger in the effect of negative message framing on waste separation willingness. The findings provide significant information for organizations to effectively carry out message strategies.Entities:
Keywords: message framing; moral identity; waste separation willingness
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627356 PMCID: PMC9141611 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19105812
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Research framework.
Descriptive statistics of demographic variables.
| Variables | Items | No Viewing | Positive Frame | Negative Frame | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | Frequency | Percentage | ||
| Gender | Male | 94 | 47.0 | 97 | 48.0 | 99 | 49.0 |
| Female | 106 | 53.0 | 105 | 52.0 | 103 | 51.0 | |
| Age | Under 25 | 52 | 26.0 | 61 | 30.2 | 59 | 29.2 |
| 26–35 | 53 | 26.5 | 52 | 25.7 | 54 | 26.7 | |
| 36–45 | 53 | 26.5 | 48 | 23.8 | 47 | 23.3 | |
| Above 45 | 42 | 21.0 | 41 | 20.3 | 42 | 20.8 | |
| Education level | Junior high school or below | 4 | 2.0 | 3 | 1.5 | 5 | 2.5 |
| High school or technical secondary school | 21 | 10.5 | 17 | 8.4 | 19 | 9.4 | |
| Junior college | 42 | 21.0 | 40 | 19.8 | 46 | 22.8 | |
| University | 106 | 53.0 | 114 | 56.4 | 102 | 50.5 | |
| Master’s degree or above | 27 | 13.5 | 28 | 13.9 | 30 | 14.9 | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | Below 3000 | 35 | 17.5 | 46 | 22.8 | 37 | 18.3 |
| 3001–5000 | 61 | 30.5 | 60 | 29.7 | 68 | 33.7 | |
| 5001–8000 | 70 | 35.0 | 54 | 26.7 | 61 | 30.2 | |
| 8001–12,000 | 26 | 13.0 | 33 | 16.3 | 29 | 14.4 | |
| Above 12,000 | 8 | 4.0 | 9 | 4.5 | 7 | 3.5 | |
Mean, standard deviation, and correlation.
| Variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Gender | 1 | |||||||||
| 2 Age | 0.008 | 1 | ||||||||
| 3 Education level | 0.027 | −0.339 ** | 1 | |||||||
| 4 Monthly income | −0.054 | 0.434 ** | 0.069 | 1 | ||||||
| 5 Not viewing | 0.014 | 0.032 | −0.020 | 0.022 | 1 | |||||
| 6 Positive frame | 0.000 | −0.021 | 0.037 | −0.014 | −0.499 ** | 1 | ||||
| 7 Negative frame | −0.014 | −0.011 | −0.017 | −0.008 | −0.499 ** | −0.502 ** | 1 | |||
| 8 Internalization | 0.076 | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.010 | −0.217 ** | −0.063 | 0.280 ** | 1 | ||
| 9 Symbolization | 0.008 | 0.033 | 0.030 | −0.016 | −0.234 ** | 0.270 ** | −0.036 | 0.687 ** | 1 | |
| 10 Separation willingness | 0.026 | 0.005 | −0.001 | −0.046 | −0.371 ** | 0.118 * | 0.252 ** | 0.783 ** | 0.786 ** | 1 |
| Mean | 1.520 | 2.374 | 3.680 | 2.522 | 0.331 | 0.334 | 0.334 | 3.971 | 3.907 | 3.705 |
| Standard deviation | 0.500 | 1.104 | 0.899 | 1.083 | 0.471 | 0.472 | 0.472 | 0.599 | 0.584 | 0.590 |
N = 604, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
ANOVA test of separation willingness under different message framing.
| Group | Separation Willingness | |
|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| Not viewing | 3.786 | 0.674 |
| Positive frame | 3.917 | 0.589 |
| Negative frame | 4.207 | 0.432 |
| F | 28.348 *** | |
| LSD | 0 < 1 < 2 | |
*** p < 0.001.
ANOVA of moral identity under different message framing.
| Group | Internalization | Symbolization | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | Standard Deviation | Mean | Standard Deviation | |
| Not viewing | 3.786 | 0.674 | 3.713 | 0.689 |
| Positive frame | 3.917 | 0.589 | 4.129 | 0.478 |
| Negative frame | 4.207 | 0.432 | 3.878 | 0.486 |
| F | 28.348 *** | 28.261 *** | ||
| LSD | 0 < 1 < 2 | 0 < 2 < 1 | ||
*** p < 0.001.
Mediation model test.
| Separation Willingness | Separation Willingness | Internalization | Symbolization | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Positive frame | 0.693 | 7.482 *** | 0.256 | 4.948 *** | 0.221 | 2.313 * | 0.713 | 7.446 *** |
| Negative frame | 0.884 | 9.548 *** | 0.467 | 9.084 *** | 0.706 | 7.395 *** | 0.286 | 2.985 ** |
| Gender | 0.028 | 0.744 | −0.008 | −0.333 | 0.082 | 2.086 * | 0.006 | 0.151 |
| Age | 0.046 | 0.997 | 0.003 | 0.242 | 0.003 | 0.072 | 0.079 | 1.654 |
| Education level | 0.013 | 0.306 | −0.009 | −0.599 | 0.004 | 0.088 | 0.050 | 1.155 |
| Monthly income | −0.057 | −1.318 | −0.022 | −1.780 | 0.017 | 0.378 | −0.047 | −1.047 |
| Internalization | 0.392 | 12.684 *** | ||||||
| Symbolization | 0.492 | 15.927 *** | ||||||
| R | 0.384 | 0.875 | 0.305 | 0.301 | ||||
| R2 | 0.148 | 0.765 | 0.093 | 0.091 | ||||
| F | 17.220 *** | 242.174 *** | 10.213 *** | 9.929 *** | ||||
*** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05.
The total effect, direct effect, and mediating effect of positive message framing.
| Effect | BootSE | BootLLCL | BootULCI | Relative Effect Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total effect | 0.409 | 0.058 | 0.295 | 0.523 | ||
| Direct effect | 0.151 | 0.032 | 0.089 | 0.216 | 36.93% | |
| Mediating effect | IN 1 | 0.051 | 0.025 | 0.004 | 0.104 | 12.51% |
| SY 2 | 0.207 | 0.031 | 0.147 | 0.269 | 50.46% | |
1 Internalization, 2 Symbolization.
The total effect, direct effect, and mediating effect of negative message framing.
| Effect | BootSE | BootLLCL | BootULCI | Relative Effect Value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total effect | 0.522 | 0.057 | 0.414 | 0.635 | ||
| Direct effect | 0.276 | 0.028 | 0.222 | 0.330 | 52.80% | |
| Mediating effect | IN 1 | 0.163 | 0.025 | 0.117 | 0.215 | 31.30% |
| SY 2 | 0.083 | 0.030 | 0.026 | 0.141 | 15.90% | |
1 Internalization, 2 Symbolization.