Psychological reactance in assertive green advertising: addressing the role of individual values

Abstract

Purpose

Grounded in the psychological reactance theory, this study aims to explore more effective strategies to promote environmentally friendly mobility preferences by examining the interplay between individual value orientations, perceived freedom threats, reactance and assertive language in advertisements promoting sustainable mobility on consumers’ attitude toward such ads.

Design/methodology/approach

An online questionnaire was distributed to 400 participants. Covariance-based structural equation modeling was used to test the hypothesized model.

Findings

The study demonstrates that when seeing assertive ads that promote environmentally friendly mobility options, a prevalent biospheric (hedonic) value orientation leads to a significantly lower (higher) perceived threat toward the ad. This was not the case when seeing the non-assertive ad. While assertiveness in ads has a greater positive influence on the relationship between perceived freedom threat and reactance, non-assertiveness has a greater negative effect on the relationship between perceived reactance and attitude toward green ads.

Practical implications

Organizations promoting sustainable mobility should tailor advertisements to audience values. For groups with shared values, direct and assertive messages work. For broader audiences, emphasize message attractiveness over assertiveness.

Originality/value

The study investigates the influence of assertive message framing and individual value orientations on the reactance process in the context of environmentally friendly mobility. It finds individual value orientations to be a significant factor in the reactance process, further extending the psychological reactance theory. Moreover, it revalidates reactance as a construct consisting of anger and negative cognition.

Citation

Freudenreich, T. and Penz, E. (2025), "Psychological reactance in assertive green advertising: addressing the role of individual values", Journal of Consumer Marketing, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 24-37. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-02-2024-6577

Introduction

Multiple environmental challenges have their origins in human actions. Particularly, vehicular emissions serve as major contributors to air pollution and eventually to climate change (Sims et al., 2014). Vehicular emissions have surged by approximately 300% since 1970, with the transportation sector accounting for around 20% of global CO₂ emissions, primarily from road transportation, which contributed about 12% of all global greenhouse gas emissions in 2021, driven mainly by light-duty vehicles like passenger cars (Statista Research Department, 2023). A combination of behavioral, economic, as well as technological changes are needed to reduce pollution. Environmentally friendly transportation has become a critical area of focus, encompassing strategies such as the advancement of e-mobility solutions such as electric vehicles (EVs) and the promotion of public transportation, including trains (Holdway et al., 2010). Environmentally friendly mobility mitigates environmental consequences, improves social fairness and curtails negative social externalities. Besides other measures such as using renewable fuels and advocating for reduced mobility (Høyer, 2000), environmentally friendly transportation modes, such as busses and railways, offer another option to decrease motorized mobility and its detrimental effects on society and the environment (Böhler et al., 2006; Høyer, 2000; Le-Klähn and Hall, 2015; Lucas, 2012).

To instigate this shift, many companies have amended their marketing strategies, incorporating a more pro-environmentally centered theme into their promotional messages, to target potential consumers, particularly environmentally conscious ones, through green advertising (D’Souza and Taghian, 2005; Xue and Muralidharan, 2015; Zinkhan and Carlson, 1995). Nonetheless, such communication efforts are not always successful (Baek et al., 2015). Previous studies have shown that advertising can elicit psychological reactance, an aversive mental state caused by perceived threats to a person’s freedom, which in turn, leads individuals to resist persuasion and avoid further threats to their freedom of choice (Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Edwards et al., 2002; Yoon et al., 2011). Particularly, assertive messages (e.g. “You have to recycle […]”; non-assertive: “You could recycle […]” (Baek et al., 2015)) are often associated with a boomerang effect (Chang, 2021), where individuals not only fail to comply but may also react contrary to the intended message, leading to negative outcomes such as increased noncompliance (Kim et al., 2017). Previous research examined the influence of message features (i.e. assertiveness: “must”, “ought” or “should”; non-assertiveness: “perhaps”, “possibly” or “maybe”) (Grandpre et al., 2003; Miller et al., 2007; Quick and Kim, 2009) and demonstrated reactive behaviors in multiple contexts including environmental protection (Chang, 2021; Dai et al., 2022). Psychological reactance theory (PRT) provides a suitable explanation for this behavior (Brehm, 1966). The theory proposes that reactance is a motivational state occurring when a person’s freedom is compromised or eliminated, suggesting that individuals become motivated to restore their freedom when they perceive it as being restricted or endangered (Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Dillard and Shen, 2005).

While previous research has mainly focused on how to promote or deter behaviors concerning one’s own well-being (e.g. exercising more, emphasizing dental hygiene, practicing safe sex, drinking less alcohol, smoking less, etc.) through assertive messages (Cheek et al., 2022; De Meyer et al., 2016; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Grandpre et al., 2003; Quick and Considine, 2008; Quick and Stephenson, 2007; Weinstein et al., 2020), our study examines how to promote behavior benefitting the general public by means of environmentally friendly mobility, particularly through the use of trains. We are following the call to examine reactance within a more realistic context and investigate how individual variables (i.e. guiding principles such as value orientations) and relevant message characteristics (i.e. assertive and non-assertive messaging) influence the effectiveness of ads (i.e. promoting environmentally friendly behavior), with a primary focus on unintended outcomes, such as threat to freedom and reactance, and a common intended outcome, such as attitude (Xu, 2019). By including perceived threat to one’s freedom, we are also able to further examine the overall reactance process toward assertive ads promoting environmentally friendly behavior. Additionally, by incorporating value orientations, which have been found to affect environmentally friendly behavior (Steg et al., 2014), into the reactance process, we do not only explore the influence of message assertiveness on one’s values but also look at the role of individual value orientation in psychological reactance, which is novel.

Therefore, we ask the following research questions to examine the interrelationship between individual value orientations, perceived threat to freedom, reactance and assertive language in advertisements promoting environmental mobility and analyze how these factors impact attitudes toward such ads in the context of the psychological reactance theory (Dillard and Shen, 2005; Shen, 2015):

RQ1.

What effect does message (non)assertiveness in green advertisements, advocating environmentally friendly mobility, have on the psychological reactance process of consumers?

RQ2.

Will individual value orientations influence how assertive green advertisements that promote environmentally friendly mobility are perceived?

Besides extending the psychological reactance theory by adding an individual difference variable to the overall reactance process, we also demonstrate how to target and approach individuals to promote environmentally friendly mobility options progressing the green advertising as well as mobility literature. Moreover, the study shows that by simultaneously considering anger and negative cognition, we can successfully capture psychological reactance, further validating the ‘intertwined model’ (Dillard and Shen, 2005; Matarazzo and Diamantopoulos, 2022; Reynolds-Tylus et al., 2021) in the context of assertive green advertising.

Theoretical background

Message assertiveness and reactance

The reactance theory provides an explanation for why message assertiveness causes negative responses. It is argued that every force that restricts an individual’s freedom poses a threat to their freedom (Brehm, 1966; Brehm and Brehm, 1981). A threat to freedom is likely to be induced by messages urging the audience to act in a certain manner. When individuals experience freedom threats, they demonstrate reactance (i.e. an aversive mental state), which incites individuals to avoid forces that possibly endanger their freedom of choice (Baek and Morimoto, 2012; Brehm and Brehm, 1981; Cheek et al., 2022; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Knowles and Linn, 2004). Previously, Brehm and Brehm (1981) argued that reactance could not be directly measured but could only be inferred from its effect. However, Dillard and Shen (2005) examined four potential ways to evaluate state reactance, which included focusing solely on cognitions, solely on anger, anger and cognition as individual constructs, or anger and cognition as one construct. Through their study of using forceful language in advertisements, they found that reactance is better captured as a construct including both anger and negative cognitions (i.e. ‘intertwined model’; Dillard and Shen, 2005). By combining self-reported cognitive and emotional measures, a somewhat direct measure of reactance can be formed (Dillard and Shen, 2005). This approach is based on the combined variables’ ability to mediate the impact of perceived threat to freedom on attitude (Dillard and Shen, 2005; Shen, 2015). Furthermore, the intertwined model not only enables reactance and its effects to be empirically examined but also to explain the persuasive communication process in general (Kim et al., 2013; Quick, 2012; Reynolds-Tylus, 2019).

Previous studies have examined the influence of language features and found that threats to choice messages were positively related to psychological reactance (Quick and Stephenson, 2007). Further, the use of dogmatic, forceful, or intense language, limiting one’s choice, may lead to a heightened perceived threat to freedom, greater perceived reactance and, ultimately, to a boomerang effect (Buller et al., 2000; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Worchel and Brehm, 1970). This boomerang effect can occur in multiple ways including the adoption of varying attitudes toward the message, disparaging the credibility of the source of the message, acting contrary to what the message recommends or seeing others behave in a contrary manner (Byrne and Hart, 2009; Katz et al., 2017; Miron and Brehm, 2006; Rains, 2013).

Generally, the use of assertive language (e.g. “Buy now”) can lead to negative ad and brand evaluations, as well as lower purchase intent (Zemack-Rugar et al., 2017). Assertive language can result in lower compliance by individuals who perceive the topic as insignificant to them (Baek et al., 2015; Kronrod et al., 2012). Endeavors to promote various beneficial habits including exercising, dental flossing, practicing safe sex, as well as using sunblock or discourage harmful behaviors such as binge drinking, smoking or unhealthy eating, were found to backfire if they excessively imperiled personal freedom leading to contrary, undesired behavior (Cheek et al., 2022; De Meyer et al., 2016; Dillard and Shen, 2005; Grandpre et al., 2003; Quick and Considine, 2008; Quick and Stephenson, 2007; Weinstein et al., 2020).

Assertive language in advertising, when used in messages promoting environmentally friendly behavior, showed its effectiveness across multiple domains including water conservation (Kronrod et al., 2012), energy-saving behavior (Dai et al., 2022), recycling (Dai et al., 2022; Kronrod et al., 2012; Xu et al., 2024) and sustainable tourism (Skeiseid et al., 2019). This leads to the following hypotheses:

H1.

Message assertiveness in green advertisements, promoting environmentally friendly mobility, leads to higher reactance toward such ads than message non-assertiveness.

H2.

Message assertiveness in green advertisements, championing the use of environmentally friendly mobility options, results in more negative attitudes toward such ads than message non-assertiveness.

Role of value orientations in perceived threat to freedom

Early risk perception research, motivated by the discovery of cognitive heuristics and focused on individual judgment and decision-making (Kahneman et al., 1982), initiated the identification of factors affecting risk perception (Slovic, 1987). Later, the role of emotions was recognized, leading to “dual-process” theories suggesting that people understand risk in two different ways, analytically and experimentally, with these modes often working together (Chaiken and Trope, 1999; Epstein, 1994; Marx et al., 2007; Sloman, 1996; Van Der Linden, 2014). However, these theories faced criticism for ignoring cultural, political, as well as social contexts, arguing that risk perception is also affected by cultural worldviews and values (Dake, 1992; Douglas and Wildavsky, 1982; Van Der Linden, 2017).

Despite values and worldviews being distinct concepts (Koltko-Rivera, 2004; Van Der Linden, 2016), they overlap conceptually because cultures are fundamentally defined by their underlying value structures (Corner et al., 2014; Koltko-Rivera, 2004; Schwartz, 1992). Further, while worldviews are broad, stable orientations, values are fundamental guiding principles, which are more specific, stable and precede worldviews (Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz and Bilsky, 1987; Stern et al., 1999). Values are also not mutually exclusive, allowing individuals to simultaneously express different values but prioritize them differently (Steg and de Groot, 2012). Values can aid individuals in navigating uncertainty and shaping their risk perception (Zammitti et al., 2021). Researchers often distinguish between egoistic (i.e. maximizing individual outcomes), hedonic (i.e. focusing on improving one’s feelings and minimizing effort), altruistic (i.e. showing concern for others), as well as biospheric value orientations (i.e. showing concern for the environment) (De Groot and Steg, 2008, 2009, 2010; Steg et al., 2014; Stern, 2000; Stern et al., 1993; Van Der Linden, 2015).

In the context of environmentalism, values have been identified as an important antecedent of pro-environmental beliefs, intentions, as well as behaviors such as car usage or recycling (De Groot and Steg, 2008, 2010; Steg et al., 2014). Although altruistic and biospheric values are often correlated (Van Der Linden, 2015, 2017), they can diverge (e.g. individuals’ concern for others and the environment can differ drastically) (De Groot et al., 2013). Previous studies demonstrated that biospheric values serve as a predictor of climate change risk perception, where individuals with more biospheric values consistently exhibited stronger risk perception than those with less biospheric values. For instance, climate change may negatively affect the goals (i.e. environment conservation) of individuals with a more biospheric orientation (Bellard et al., 2012; Weiskopf et al., 2020). Thus, those individuals perceive climate change as more threatening than those who do not prioritize environmental conservation (Bouman et al., 2020). Environmental concern and materialistic values can also occur simultaneously (Gatersleben et al., 2009), and individuals who prioritize immediate pleasure and personal sensory gratification (i.e. having a hedonic value orientation) are less likely to perceive the environment as a threat (Kaptan et al., 2013).

In this study, we focus on perceived threat to freedom, as previous research has shown that when situational changes are framed as avoidance goals, they are perceived as restrictive, which, in turn, threatens personal autonomy and increases reactance as well as perceived risk (Kayser et al., 2016).

Nonetheless, to the best of our knowledge, there is no clear evidence about the relationship between perceived threat to freedom and individual value orientations. We argue that egoistic, hedonic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations may differ in their impact on perceived threat to freedom. Individuals with strong egoistic value orientations may see assertive language as a threat to their freedom and self-interest. They may view it as a means for others to achieve their goals at their expense. In contrast, those with strong hedonic values may perceive assertive language as a threat to their freedom, feeling it limits their ability to make their own pleasure-oriented decisions (Bouman et al., 2018; De Groot and Steg, 2008). In contrast, individuals with strong altruistic values may perceive assertive language positively, if it appears as a way to benefit others or achieve mutually beneficial goals (Bouman et al., 2018). Similarly, people with strong biospheric values are more likely to view assertive language in advertisements positively when it highlights environmental issues and promotes environmentally friendly behavior (Bouman et al., 2018). Overall, this leads to the following hypotheses regarding the influence of individual value orientations on perceived threat to freedom:

H3.

When viewing assertive advertisements that promote environmentally friendly mobility, having a hedonic value orientation will have a negative influence, leading to higher perceived threat toward such ads than non-assertive advertisements.

H4.

When viewing assertive advertisements that promote environmentally friendly mobility, having an egoistic value orientation will have a negative influence, leading to higher perceived threat toward such ads than non-assertive advertisements.

H5.

When viewing assertive advertisements that promote environmentally friendly mobility, having an altruistic value orientation will have a positive influence, leading to lower perceived threat toward such ads than non-assertive advertisements.

H6.

When viewing assertive advertisements that promote environmentally friendly mobility, having a biospheric value orientation will have a positive influence, leading to lower perceived threat toward such ads compared to non-assertive advertisements.

We make use of these theoretical premises of research to propose a conceptual model to examine differences in reactance toward assertive green advertising, specifically, the influence of individual value orientations (i.e. hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric) on perceived threat to freedom (see Figure 1).

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through the online research platform Prolific in August 2022. In total, 400 participants filled in an online questionnaire, of which 200 were female, 199 male and one “Other”. All participants resided in the UK. The mean age was 41.1 years (SD = 13.5) (see Table 1).

Procedure and measures

The questionnaire (see Appendix 1) was developed through a literature review, and the construct items were selected from previously validated scales. A pilot study with 100 respondents, recruited through Prolific, was conducted to identify the accuracy, appropriateness, as well as understanding of the questionnaire and subsequent modifications were made as required. The mean age was 38.5 years (SD = 11.7).

We manipulated the level of assertiveness by randomly dividing the sample into two groups. While completing the questionnaire, participants viewed either an assertive or a non-assertive green advertisement (Appendix 2 and 3). The ad included a headline copy, an image of an environmentally friendly mobility option (i.e. train) and a paragraph advocating the use of such an option (i.e. assertive: “You must start now! Travel green and clean!”; non-assertive: “It’s worth starting now! Travel green and clean”). To identify (un)sustainable transportation modes, a pre-test using a seven-point Likert scale was conducted (n = 21) with various forms of transportation (e.g. busses, EVs, planes, trains, trams, etc.). The test revealed trains as sustainable, and cars and planes as unsustainable mobility options.

The construct of reactance was modeled as a combination of anger and negative cognitions (Dillard and Shen, 2005). The construct of anger was captured by four items (“irritated”, “angry”, “annoyed” and “aggravated”) measured on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “none of this feeling” and 7 = “a great deal of this feeling”.

To measure negative cognitions, we applied an open-ended approach, as recommended by Dillard and Shen (2005) and Shen (2015). Participants wrote down whatever was on their minds after they finished reading the (non-)assertive green advertisement. Data was coded in a four-step sequence by three independent coders working in inter-locking pairs. Firstly, the coders segmented the responses into psychological thought units. A thought unit is the smallest meaningful statement that has a clear start and finish, generally being a simple sentence or an independent clause (Hatfield and Weider‐Hatfield, 1978). Secondly, affective responses were identified and removed, since we used anger as the only emotional component in explaining reactance. Coders used a list of emotion-related words compiled by Shaver and colleagues (1987), supplemented by additional emotional words found in the data. Next, the coders evaluated whether the cognitive responses were relevant to the message (i.e. topic, issue and task) and only the relevant responses were considered for the following step. This step aimed to remove irrelevant cognitions to decrease the amount of noise in the data. Finally, the remaining data was coded as either being supportive (i.e. agreeing with the message or its source), neutral (i.e. being non-evaluative) or negative (i.e. disagreeing or disliking the message or source), where ultimately, only the negative cognitions were used in the subsequent data analyses due to their role in capturing psychological reactance. In the case of disagreement, the raters afterward discussed each statement until an agreement was reached. In the study, participants generated an average of 0.67 negative thoughts (SD = 0.84).

Threat to freedom (e.g. “The message of the advertisement tried to manipulate me”) as well as attitude toward the advertisement (e.g. “I agree with what the advertisement recommends”) were measured by four 7-point scale items anchored at 1 = “strongly disagree” and 7 = “strongly agree” (Dillard and Shen, 2005).

Value orientations (hedonic, e.g. “pleasure: joy, gratification of desires”; egoistic, e.g. “social power: control over others, dominance”; altruistic, e.g. “equality: equal opportunities for all”; and biospheric, e.g. respecting the earth: harmony with other species”) were measured using the 16-item scale anchored at −1 = “opposed to my values”, 3 = “important”, as well as 7 = “of supreme importance, as suggested by Steg et al. (2014) and Wang et al. (2021). Owing to the length of the questionnaire, we included attention check and manipulation questions, which were found to be successful. To assess statistical differences between the group that saw the assertive green ad, and the second group that saw the non-assertive green ad, a Welch two-sample t-test was conducted to compare the means of the assertive (Mean = 6.14, SD = 1.16) and non-assertive (Mean = 3.92, SD = 1.81) groups. Normality was examined using the Shapiro–Wilk test, showing significant deviations from normality in both groups (assertive: W = 0.74, p < 0.001; non-assertive: W = 0.93, p < 0.001). An F-test demonstrated unequal variances (F = 0.41, p < 0.001), so Welch’s t-test was used, revealing a significant difference between the groups, t(339.83) = 14.61, p < 0.001, with a 95% confidence interval for the mean difference of [1.92, 2.52]. Owing to normality violations, a Mann–Whitney U test was also conducted, confirming a significant difference (W = 33,916, p < 0.001).

Data analysis

Exploratory factor analysis

The scales were first refined using a reliability analysis and exploratory factor analysis. Four constructs were examined: threat to freedom, reactance, attitude, as well as hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric value orientations. Items exhibiting significant loading on the intended factor, and no substantial cross-loadings were retained (including negative cognition, which despite loading inadequately was kept because of its role in explaining the construct of reactance (Dillard and Shen, 2005)). We removed one item from the egoistic value orientation list (i.e. “wealth: material possessions, money”) because of cross-loading. Reliability checks proved satisfactory, revealing Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.784 to 0.942 (Table 2).

Reliability and validity assessment

In line with the common procedure, convergent and discriminant validity of the measurement model were assessed next. As suggested by Ylinen and Gullkvist (2014), convergent validity can be evaluated by examining the composite reliability (CR) and the average variance extracted (AVE). The CRs of the constructs were well above the recommended cut-off value of 0.60 (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988) ranging from 0.759 to 0.937. The AVEs ranged from 0.453 to 0.789. According to Fornell and Larcker (1981), even though some AVEs were below the minimum threshold of 0.50, we can still assume the convergent validity of the model construct, if the CRs are greater than 0.60, which was the case (Table 2). We can also assume discriminant validity because the square root of every AVE value belonging to each latent construct was greater than any correlation among any pair of latent constructs (Table 3).

Confirmatory factor analysis

This set of items was then subjected to a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using AMOS 28. The CFA results of the final measurement model indicated that the model had an acceptable fit to the data: χ2 (329) = 636.045 (p < 0.001) and χ2/df ratio of 1.933. Other fit statistics were as follows: RMSEA = 0.048, IFI = 0.962, TLI = 0.956 and CFI = 0.961.

Structural model

The SEM results indicated that the model (with the level of message assertiveness) revealed an acceptable fit: χ2 (544) = 986.632 (p < 0.001) and χ2/df ratio of 1.814. Other fit statistics were as follows: RMSEA = 0.045, IFI = 0.923, TLI = 0.914 and CFI = 0.922.

To test the moderating effects of level of message assertiveness (versus non-assertiveness) on the relationship between individual value orientations (i.e. hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric), a multi-group analysis was used. To test the hypotheses, the sample was divided into two sub-groups: assertive (n = 200) and non-assertive (n = 200). The results revealed that significant differences were found between message assertiveness levels (Δ χ2 = 100.272, Δdf = 18, p < 0.001). It is also noted that chi-square statistics are sensitive to sample size (Bollen, 1989).

Results

As per the estimates of the model, in both conditions (i.e. assertiveness and non-assertiveness), perceived threat to freedom had a positive, significant effect on reactance (assertiveness: β = 0.849, p < 0.001; non-assertiveness: β = 0.438, p < 0.001) with viewing assertive green advertisements that advocated environmentally friendly mobility having a greater influence on this relationship. Thus, H1 was found to be supported.

Furthermore, in both conditions (i.e. assertiveness and non-assertiveness in green advertisements), one’s reactance also had a negative, significant effect on attitude toward green ads (assertiveness: β = −0.529, p < 0.001; non-assertiveness: β = −0.712, p < 0.001) with viewing non-assertive green advertisements that promoted sustainable mobility having a greater influence on this relationship. Thus, H2 was found to be unsupported.

To test the moderating effects of level of message assertiveness on the relationships between individual value orientation (i.e. hedonic, egoistic, altruistic and biospheric) and perceived threat to freedom, a multi-group analysis was employed. In either condition (assertiveness or non-assertiveness), neither egoistic (assertiveness: β = −0.127, p = 0.178; non-assertiveness: β = 0.166, p = 0.086) nor altruistic (assertiveness: β = 0.048, p = 0.660; non-assertiveness: β = −0.131, p = 0.375) value orientation had a significant effect on perceived threat to freedom originating from a green ad. Thus, H4 and H5 were not found to be supported.

A prevalent hedonic value orientation had a positive, significant effect on one’s perceived threat to freedom when viewing an assertive green advertisement that advocated environmentally friendly mobility via train (β = 0.208, p = 0.025), while this was not the case when viewing a non-assertive green ad (β = −0.033, p = 0.743). Thus, H3 was supported.

Further, biospheric value orientation had a negative, significant effect on perceived threat toward green ads, when the message was stated in an assertive manner (β = −0.195, p = 0.046). Again, similar results were not found when seeing a non-assertive ad (β = 0.136, p = 0.289). Thus, H6 was supported (see Figure 2).

General discussion

This study empirically examined whether the interplay between personal value orientations, perceived threats to freedom, reactance and assertive language in ads that promoted environmentally friendly mobility affected consumers’ attitude toward such ads. We were able to demonstrate that, when individuals had a prevailing biospheric (hedonic) value orientation, this disposition positively (negatively) affected how individuals perceived assertive ads. Moreover, the results demonstrated that message assertiveness had a greater positive impact on the relationship between perceived threat to freedom and reactance toward green advertisements advocating environmentally friendly mobility through trains, while the opposite was the case for the relationship between people’s reactance toward green advertisements and their attitude toward such ads, where non-assertive messages led to stronger negative attitudes.

Theoretical implications

In the context of persuasive communication, especially in regards to assertive green advertising that promotes the use of environmentally friendly mobility options, this research contributes to the intersection of three domains: Psychological reactance theory, message assertiveness and individual value orientation. A particular focus of this study was to examine the interrelationship between personal value orientations, perceived threats to freedom, reactance, as well as assertive language in advertisements promoting sustainable mobility on consumers’ attitude toward such ads.

We were able to partly confirm past research on the role message assertiveness plays in reactance (Kim et al., 2017; Zemack-Rugar et al., 2017) and demonstrate that message assertiveness has a stronger influence on the relationship between individuals’ perceived threat to freedom and reactance toward assertive green advertising compared to non-assertive messages. Interestingly, non-assertive green advertising had a stronger influence on the relationship between reactance and attitude toward assertive ads, complementing existing literature that shows negative responses can be triggered not only by assertive language but also by more subtle, passive forms of communication, which can still evoke discomfort or resistance (Grandpre et al., 2003; Miron and Brehm, 2006; Quick and Considine, 2008; Rains and Turner, 2007).

It further validates the “intertwined model” (Dillard and Shen, 2005) as an effective approach to measure individuals’ reactance as a combination of anger and negative cognition, addressing recurring critique over its suitability in adequately measuring reactance (Matarazzo and Diamantopoulos, 2022).

Furthermore, by considering the influence of value orientations (i.e. biospheric and hedonic values), we were able to demonstrate that these value orientations have a significant positive (negative) influence on perceived threat to freedom when viewing assertive green ads, but not when viewing non-assertive green ads. We might explain this behavior by arguing that individuals with a more hedonic value orientation, who tend to exhibit a preference for personal gratification in the form of enjoyment and pleasure, might feel that their liberty of choice and person freedom is compromised by the forcefulness of the advertisement (De Groot and Steg, 2008, 2010; Savani et al., 2008; Schwartz et al., 2000), while people with a more biospheric value orientation (i.e. focusing on the preservation of the planet) are more willing to accept such limitations or sacrifices for the overall benefit of the environment. Hence, they do not perceive assertiveness in messages or advertisements as restrictions to their perceived individual freedom (Bouman and Steg, 2019; De Groot and Steg, 2009).

Practical implications

These findings provide important insights concerning two levels of assertiveness (high and low) and the influence of various value orientations on the reactance process for advertisers and managers of (non-) profit organizations promoting engagement in environmentally friendly behaviors, particularly sustainable mobility.

Managers should understand that message assertiveness is an important tool for communication efforts, especially when it comes to promoting environmentally friendly services, such as using trains, but the used language might lead to unwanted outcomes. Message assertiveness can cause a strong negative reaction to a company’s green ad, while non-assertive messages can weaken consumers’ attitude toward the ad, creating a “lose-lose” situation. For example, if a company forcefully tells consumers to engage in environmentally friendly mobility to save the planet, they might resist, but if the message is too weak, they might not care, resulting in poor outcomes regardless.

Managers should always keep in mind the overall objective of advertisement campaigns. When the objective is to discourage certain behaviors such as environmentally unfriendly traveling, governmental agencies or organizations such as NGOs should strategically employ assertive language in their marketing activities. Assertive advertising may reduce the attractiveness of the undesired behavior, but also elicit greater perceived threat and trigger stronger reactance toward the advertisement. Nevertheless, our study also shows that the use of non-assertive language in advertisements can have an even greater detrimental effect on the attractiveness of the ad, jeopardizing the overall success of the campaign.

When organizations opt to use assertive language in their advertising campaigns, it is important to clearly identify the target value segments. Different individual value orientations can yield contrary effects on perceived threat. Assertive green ads tend to be perceived as a significant threat by consumers with hedonic value orientations, as these types of ads may disrupt their prevailing preference for pleasure and comfort. On the other hand, individuals who care about the environment may interpret the same ad as less restrictive and more aligned with their value orientation (Bouman and Steg, 2019). Therefore, marketers need to conduct in-depth market segmentation to understand their audience’s value orientations. This enables them to create appealing campaigns without alienating key segments. For instance, to promote sustainable mobility, companies can target both pleasure-seeking and environmentally conscious consumers. For the former, companies may highlight the enjoyment of sustainable choices, while for the latter, the focus should be on the environmental impact, such as reduced carbon footprint. When promoting trains as a sustainable transportation option, companies can highlight comfort and relaxation for pleasure-seekers and low emissions or environmentally friendly technology for eco-conscious individuals, combining personal benefits with sustainability to drive broader adoption. This strategy can be successful even when using assertive language, as long as it aligns with the value orientations of the target audience.

When targeting a homogenous group, such as environmental activists, organizations should use assertive language in their communication efforts because this approach resonates well with their pronounced environmental value orientation. However, when addressing a more diverse audience, marketers should emphasize, for instance, the enjoyable and rewarding elements of traveling, to mitigate the perceived threat posed by the ad. By doing so, marketers can create a more appealing and less intimidating message that caters to more individuals with their values and preferences.

Limitations and future research

Despite its contributions, this study is subject to various limitations, opening up further research opportunities. As the context of this study was the promotion of environmentally friendly mobility, further research is warranted to examine the effectiveness of assertive ads championing other forms of sustainable behaviors such as energy-saving or waste reduction (Bang et al., 2021; Kim et al., 2017; Kronrod et al., 2012).

Another avenue for research would be to evaluate country-specific differences. As the data in this study was collected from individuals currently residing in the UK, a rather liberal country (Freedom House, 2024), further research is expected to be conducted in more conservative/authoritarian countries to assess the influence of assertiveness in a more regulated countries and to reassess whether the existing findings (i.e. the influence of hedonic and biospheric values on the perceived threat to freedom originating from assertive green ads) can either be replicated, the importance and influence of other value orientations emerge (i.e. egoistic and altruistic value orientation), or whether the prevalent stricter constitution of a country has any influence on people’s value orientation or the way in which they perceive forceful messages.

Finally, while individuals’ value orientations directly influenced one’s perceived threat to freedom, other aspects of the self, such as personality traits (Seemann et al., 2005), may also significantly influence consumers’ process of reactance. Thus, we expect future research to test for other individual variables and their role in the psychological reactance framework.

Figures

Figure 1

Conceptual model (hypothesized)

Figure 2

Model (tested)

Figure A1

Assertive green advertisement

Figure A2

Non-assertive green advertisement

Table 1

Sample characteristics

Characteristics	Count	% age
Gender
Females	200	50
Males	199	49.75
Others	1	0.25
Education
Less than high school	4	1
High school graduate	98	24.5
Trade/technical/vocational training	49	12.25
Bachelor’s degree	165	41.25
Master’s degree	60	15
Professional degree	16	4
PhD or higher	8	2
Employment status
Unemployed	38	9.5
Employed	279	69.75
Self-employed	25	6.25
Other	58	14.5
Annual household income
Less than £10,000	21	5.25
£10,000–24,999	92	23
£25,000–49,999	146	36.5
£50,000–74,999	91	22.75
£75,000–100,000	33	8.25
More than £100,000	17	4.25
n = 400

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 2

Summary of measures and descriptive statistics

Constructs	Mean	SD	Factor loading
Threat to freedom (TF) (CR = 0.929; Cronbach’s α = 0.932; AVE = 0.667)
TF1	3.15	2.02	0.754
TF2	3.99	2.10	0.965
TF3	3.69	2.02	0.826
TF4	4.14	2.16	0.941
Reactance (R) (CR = 0.904; Cronbach’s α = 0.907; AVE = 0.667)
R1	0.67	0.85	0.391
R2	2.71	2.02	0.924
R3	2.09	1.60	0.860
R4	2.67	1.97	0.927
R5	2.39	1.81	0.854
Attitude (ATT) (CR = 0.937; Cronbach’s α = 0.942; AVE = 0.789)
ATT1	5.24	1.45	0.924
ATT2	5.33	1.39	0.919
ATT3	5.01	1.52	0.827
ATT4	4.95	1.47	0.880
Hedonic value orientation (HV) (CR = 0.793; Cronbach’s α = 0.784; AVE = 0.565)
HV1	4.59	1.55	0.880
HV2	5.28	1.41	0.701
HV3	3.73	1.75	0.654
Egoistic value orientation (EV) (CR = 0.770; Cronbach’s α = 0.768; AVE = 0.463)
EV1	0.63	1.50	0.691
EV2	1.51	1.78	0.769
EV3	2.28	1.84	0.737
EV4	3.87	1.85	0.488
Altruistic value orientation (AV) (CR = 0.759; Cronbach’s α = 0.789; AVE = 0.453)
AV1	5.12	1.70	0.839
AV2	5.34	1.62	0.480
AV3	4.75	1.77	0.769
AV4	4.67	1.52	0.536
Biospheric value orientation (BV) (CR = 0.919; Cronbach’s α = 0.916; AVE = 0.738)
BV1	4.67	1.69	0.914
BV2	4.08	1.92	0.846
BV3	4.71	1.73	0.865
BV4	4.53	1.77	0.809

Source: Authors’ own work

Table 3

Discriminant validity

Constructs	TF	R	ATT	HV	EV	AV	BV
TF	0.876
R	0.655	0.817
ATT	−0.345	−0.443	0.888
HV	0.112	0.099	0.081	0.751
EV	0.062	0.071	−0.005	0.372	0.680
AV	0.032	−0.015	0.317	0.306	0.249	0.673
BV	−0.022	−0.085	0.420	0.189	0.134	0.547	0.876

Source: Authors’ own work

Appendix 1. Questionnaire items

1. Perceived threat to freedom (Dillard and Shen, 2005):

   • The message of the advertisement threatened my freedom to choose.

   • The message of the advertisement tried to make a decision for me.

   • The message of the advertisement tried to manipulate me.

   • The message of the advertisement tried to pressure me.

2. Reactance (Dillard and Shen, 2005; Shen, 2015):

   • Negative cognition:

Please use the box below to list whatever was on your mind when you finished reading the advertisement:

• Anger:

Irritated, angry, annoyed, aggravated.

• 3

  Attitude (Dillard and Shen, 2005):

  • I agree with what the advertisement recommends.

  • I support what the advertisement advocates.

  • I am in favor of the position in the advertisement.

  • I endorse the claims made in the advertisement.

• 4

  Hedonic value orientation (Steg et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021):

  • Pleasure (joy, gratification of desires).

  • Enjoying life (enjoying food, sex, leisure, etc).

  • Self-indulgent (doing pleasant things).

• 5

  Egoistic value orientation (Steg et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021):

  • Social power (control over others, dominance)

  • Authority (the right to lead or command)

  • Influential (having an impact on people and events)

  • Ambitious (hard working, aspiring)

  • Wealth (material possessions, money)

• 6

  Altruistic value orientation (Steg et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021):

  • Equality (equal opportunities for all)

  • A world at peace (free of war and conflict)

  • Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak)

  • Helpful (working for the welfare of others)

• 7

  Biospheric value orientation (Steg et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021):

  • Respecting the earth (harmony with other species)

  • Unity with nature (fitting into nature)

  • Protecting the environment (preserving nature)

  • Preventing pollution (protecting natural resources)

Source: Authors’ own work

Appendix 2

Appendix 3