Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Constructing Emotional Meaning:

A Comparison of the Content and Impact of Environmental Advertising in the
U.S. and China

Ann Crigler, University of Southern California

Lisa Cui, University of Southern California

Emily Gee, University of Southern California

Marion Just, Wellesley College

August 15, 2012

Paper prepared for delivery at the 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science
Association in New Orleans, LA, August 30-September 2. Authors are listed in alphabetical
order.

1
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

ABSTRACT

In the study of emotions, scholars have debated whether emotions are universal or particular
to cultures. The current research explores this question by comparing environmental ads and
emotional responses to these ads by students in the United States and China. We find a
substantial difference in the tone of ads between the two countries and in the emotional
responses. We argue that a constructionist approach explains the role that culture, ideology
and experience play in the design of the ads and the emotional appraisal of them. Following
exposure to American and Chinese ads, Chinese students report more intense emotional
responses, and share more pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors than the American
students. They are more likely to expect to take part in group efforts for the environment. The
American students only exceed the Chinese students in their desire to recycle, which reflects a
long-standing campaign in the U.S. Our findings support a theory of emotional response that is
culturally constructed.

2
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Constructing Emotional Meaning: A Comparison of the Content and Impact of Environmental

Advertising in the U.S. and China1

If emotion responses are universal, we would expect the same response to stimuli across
cultures. Much of the literature supporting a theory of universal emotions relies on
interpretation of facial displays. These researchers find that when people face a situation they
display universal, discrete emotions that can be recognized regardless of culture or language
(Colombetti 2009, Ekman 1987, 1994; Elfenbein, Beaupré, Lévesque, & Hess 2007; Ekman,
Friesen, O'Sullivan, Chan 1987). These discrete emotions, such as anger, fear, joy, or sadness
are tied to the underlying feelings of personal experiences, also known as the core relational
themes (Kuppens 2010, Nezlek, Vansteelandt, Mechelen, & Kuppens 2008, Schmidt, et al.
2010).

Years of media research and other kinds of studies suggest that universality of emotional
reponse is not characteristic for responses to communication. These scholars see emotions as a
construction based on a combination of cultural and experiential influences (Elfenbein &
Ambady 2003; Matsumoto, Olide, Schug, Willingham, & Callan, 2009; Scherer, Ambady, &
Mortillaro 2011; Schimmack, 1996). Appraisal theorists emphasize that emotions arise from
surveillance of the individual’s particular environment (Lazarus 1991; Smith & Kirby 2001).
These researchers find that familiarity of an emotion to which individuals are frequently
exposed in their culture makes it more likely that people will recognize the emotion in others
(Elfenbein & Ambady 2003). Psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Dacher Keltner have also argued
that culture can affect the intensity of the emotion felt by the individual (2000). A linguistics
scholar argues that emotions are embedded in culture and linguistics (Wierzbicka 1999). This
stream of research favors a contextual rather than universalistic expectation about the
emotional responses to communication across cultures. This study puts these opposing views
to the test by comparing environmental ads and emotional responses to environmental ads by
students in the United States and China.

Our analysis of the ads as well as the responses to the ads applies constructionism – a theory in
the contextual tradition. Media research in the constructionist tradition emphasizes the role of
the audience in interpreting media messages depending on the audience’s orientations and
experiences. Likewise constructionists view the crafting of media messages depends on the
prevailing political, economic, cultural, and social context.

CROSS-NATIONAL DIFFERENCES

We examine the physical, cultural and media environments in the U.S. and China. Many global
environmental problems are shared by the United States and China, however, the American
and Chinese students in our samples report different experiences with the environment. The
United States is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world – while China is the second
3
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

(World Bank 2007). In the United States, the Los Angeles metropolitan area, where our survey-
experiment was conducted, ranks first in ozone pollution, third in year-round particle pollution
and fourth in short-term particle pollution, i.e. soot (American Lung Association 2012). Both
ozone and particle pollution levels in the most polluted cities in the U.S. have improved over
the past 25 years, with Los Angeles a leader in reducing smog (American Lung Association
2012).

Environment policy in the United States, however, is a highly divisive issue. There is
disagreement at both the elite and mass levels concerning the causes, the need for remedies
and the appropriate solutions to environmental problems (Pew 2012). American public opinion
on the environment has varied over time, with spikes in environmental awareness
accompanying dramatic events such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico
(Daniels et al. 2011, p. 7). Overall, Americans believe that the world environment has
deteriorated and is getting worse and that policy-makers (President, Congress and business) are
not doing enough to improve the environment. Only 15 to 22 percent of Americans think those
actors are doing “enough” for the environment (Daniels et al. 2011, p. 19).

American environmental advertisements, usually sponsored by government and non-profit

groups, but sometimes businesses -- often feature gruesome pictures of environmental
degradation or dire warnings of impending doom (Dundes, Kulow & Lemke 2009; Green 2008;
Helvarg, 2004, Jhally 2000; Li, X. 2010; Schultz & Zelezy 2003). Both pro-environmental and
oppositional groups are engaged in actively trying to persuade the public that environmental
threats should or should not be a major concern (Daniels et al., p. 8). Fear is reported as a
common emotion in American environmental advertisements (Li, X. 2012). Americans report
far more fear and anger than happiness with respect to the environment (Hornick 1977; Vining
1992).

Chinese students live in a country that has 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in the world
(Lagorio 2010). Chinese citizens face severe droughts, floods, sandstorms, and air and water
pollution on a regular basis (Economy 2005; Chow N.D; Harris 2011; Ho 2001; Lin, Sun & Du
2011; Watts, 2010). Research shows that Chinese citizens have become more aware of
environmental problems, and college students are reportedly the most environmentally
conscious group (Lee, An, Kwan & Kwan, 2000; Ho 2001; Lei, 2011; Watts, 2011; Wong, 2010;
Wong 1996; Wu, 2009). While these results show increased environmental awareness,
researchers also found that most Chinese citizens are aware of local, but not global, problems
(Ho 2001; Kang 2010). Chinese advertisements and public service announcements have
expanded and capitalized on the increased environmental awareness of Chinese citizens (Gao
2003; Tavasolli, 2007). However, advertisers must ensure their messages are not only politically
and culturally sensitive, but also attentive to the Chinese audience’s interpretation of visual and
nonverbal details of the ads (Chan, 2004; Gao 2008; Gao 2003; Li, X. 2010; Lin, 2004). While the
government allows much more advertising today than in the 1970s, there are still stringent
rules and regulations that control the content, style, and composition of ads (Brady 2009; Gao
2008; Kilburn; Kang, 2010).

4
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

The Chinese government uses advertising for its own goals, such as building a harmonious
society (和谐社会) through state supported public service announcements (Brady 2008, Li, X.
2010; Stockmann, Esarey and Jie 2011). As a result, many of the advertisements in China are
positive and uplifting to encourage citizens to behave and act accordingly (Brady 2008; Gao
2003, Li, X 2010, Pye 1985). According to the Advertising Law of 1992, advertisers in China are
forbidden to show any content that might clash with the socialist policies of the government,
including ads that elicit emotions of fear (Brady 2009; Gao, 2003; Gao 2008). In fact, political
scientist Dominique Moisi (2007) suggests that Chinese people experiences more of the
emotion of hope than people in other countries. She attributes prevalence of feelings of hope
to the recent rise in China’s economic, technological, and international power. The prevalence
of hope among Chinese people is in part a response the positive growth of the Chinese
economy, even though it is often accompanied by negative environmental impact. There is
evidence, from the ads of international NGO’s advertising in China that the ads are modified
from the apocalyptic Western version to a less threatening version for Chinese audiences (Li, X.
2012).

The differences in the advertising contexts of the United States and China, lead to our first
hypothesis:

H1. U.S. environmental advertising exhibits more messages of anxiety than Chinese ads and,
conversely, Chinese ads convey more messages of collective agency and hope.

American and Chinese students are raised in different environments and if H1 is supported,
they are exposed to different styles of advertisements. Previous researchers have considered
how American advertising affects American views and how Chinese advertising affects Chinese
views, but few have examined whether or not the same advertisements similarly affect people
from different cultures. The more widespread environmental degradation in China coupled with
the prevailing mood of hope contrasts with relatively less day-to-day experience with
environmental degradation in the U.S. combined with the prevalence of American anger and
worry, suggests that emotional responses to the same ads are likely to differ between the two
nations. These criteria lead us to our second hypothesis.

H2. Given Chinese and American differences in exposure to the environmental and to
advertising, of students will report different emotions and different levels of emotions in
response to the same environmental ads.

Overall, people in China have more direct exposure to severe environmental problems than
American students. Appraisal theory suggests that “emotions are elicited when a person
evaluates an event or situation as important for his or her well-being and central concerns”
(Schmidt, Tinti, Levine & Testa 2010). We would expect more intense emotional responses to
direct experiences than to indirect experience. The integration of direct experience into the
reception of advertising is supported by constructionist theory. Researchers in this tradition
emphasize the role of life experience in the interpretation of media messages. Therefore we
expect:

5
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

H2a. Chinese students will have more intense emotional responses to the ads than
American students.

Both appraisal theory and constructionist theory would predict that different emotional
responses to advertising would lead to different attitudinal and behavioral outcomes.
According to Moors’ summary of appraisal theories, emotions are generated in two steps: “the
appraisal of the stimulus or situation on a number of appraisal dimensions and the mapping of
combinations of such appraised meanings to the experience of particular emotions” (Kuppens,
2010; see also, Kuppens, Van Mechelen, & Rijmen 2008; Moors 2009). Appraisal theorists also
argue that the way a person evaluates and responds emotionally to a specific situation depends
on the person’s goals and motives (Bennett, Paul, Lowe & Honey 2003; Just et al 2007; Lazarus
1993; Moor 2009). Some researchers argue that emotions are comprised of five components:
cognitive, feeling, motivational, somatic and motor dimensions. They specifically include
behavior as a component of the experience of emotion (Crigler & Just 2012). Other scholars
argue that emotions are the “gatekeepers of cognition and behavior,” and that emotions can
help change behavior (Poels & Dewitte, 2006). These theoretical underpinnings lead to our
third hypothesis:

H3. A difference in U.S. and Chinese students’ emotional responses to the same ads results in
different impacts on self-reported attitudes and prospective behavioral change.

Of the various behaviors that emotions scholars ascribe to specific emotions, one of the most
widely accepted effects is between anxiety and information-seeking. Affective intelligence
theory argues that feelings of anxiety shake people loose from their standing attitudes and
cause them to survey their environment and look for additional information (Just, Crigler and
Belt 2007; Marcus, Neuman and MacKuen 2000; Neuman Marcus, Crigler and MacKuen 2007).
This leads us to expect that:

H3a. Anxious responses to ads -- as measured by self-reported feelings of worry – are

likely to prompt prospective information-seeking behavior.

Furthermore, other researchers argue that both hope and worry are both future oriented
emotions. Therefore it is not unreasonable to expect that both of these emotions will be
associated with self –reports of prospective action on the environment. Like anxiety, the
underlying appraisal involved in feelings of hope is uncertainty. In fact, Lazarus argues that
hope is a “mixed” emotion because it is almost always accompanied by anxiety – the worry that
the preferred outcome will not occur. In terms of evolution, both hope and fear are tied up
with survival. Fear is responsible for the “fight or flight” reaction, while hope allows people to
face an uncertain future with equanimity. According to psychologist Richard Davidson, hope is
a form of “affective forecasting, i.e. an expectation of a happy future “ (Groopman 2004, 193).
Therefore we expect that:

H3b. Feelings of both hope and worry will be associated with self–reports of prospective
action on the environment.

6
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

In the next section we detail the methods that we used to measure the content differences
between U.S. and Chinese ads on the environment, the support for a contextual interpretation
of the emotional responses to ads among students in both countries, and the consequences of
these responses for the students’ self-reported prospective environmental behaviors.

METHODS

The paper draws on original data collected from content analysis of environmental advertising,
survey experiments and focus group discussions with students from the United States and
China. These multiple methods enable a constructionist analysis of the content of
environmental ads and their interpretation in the U.S. and China.

Content Analysis

We collected current environmental print ads in the United States and China by monitoring
AdWire.com and Chinese newspaper websites during March 2011. We collected 150
environmental advertisements, cartoons and pictures that had been printed or used within the
previous year. Since broadcast ads are not as prevalent in China, we did not include TV or radio
advertising so that the samples would be comparable across the two countries. We drew a
random sample of 80 advertisements (40 American and 40 Chinese) for content analysis. Two
of the authors coded the ads for: tone, issue focus, visual images, use of color, emotional
appeals, and calls to action. Emotional appeals were measured on a 0 to 5 scale (0 = No
Emotional Appeal, 5 = Extreme Emotional Appeal).2 These categories were adapted from
Brader (2006).

Survey-Experiments and Focus Groups

We conducted survey experiments followed by focus groups in the U.S. and China to compare
emotional responses to environmental ads. The United States sample included 225 students
from Southern California universities, who participated during the fall 2011 semester. In China,
211 students from universities in Wuxi, Beijing, and Northern China participated from May 22
to June 14, 2011. In all locations, students were randomly assigned to experimental conditions
and focus groups. Students viewed one of 5 advertisements and then completed a survey
which averaged 30 minutes in length. Immediately afterwards, students participated in an
hour-long focus group.

The 5 advertisements consisted of two American and two Chinese ads, with one threatening
and one non-threatening ad from each country. The fifth ad was visual without words used as a
control. Although all of the ads were pretested with students in Southern California including
foreign-born Chinese students, we had to abandon the control ad because so many of the
Chinese students in our sample misinterpreted the content. See the Appendix for all of the ads
including the anomalous control, which consisted of the ocean ad without words. The Chinese
students in China were inclined to view that ad not as a beach with an ocean, but as a desert.

7
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

The same protocols were used in both countries, although they were adapted for language and
ease of administration. The U.S. studies were conducted in English. The Chinese studies were
conducted in Mandarin in Wuxi and Northern China, but at the request of the Beijing students,
their study was conducted in English. The survey experiments were administered electronically
in the U.S. and on paper in China. We conducted a small experiment in the U.S. utilizing paper
and electronic versions of the survey and found no statistically significant differences between
the two.

We started each focus group by welcoming the students, giving them a “thank you” gift for
coming and explaining the procedures for the focus group. Each session in both countries began
with the same icebreaker -- a 5-minute introduction of each person through motion and
memory. The first person made a gesture or motion, and then the next person had to repeat
the previous person's movement and create a new movement. We hoped that the icebreaker
would help the students to feel comfortable participating. After the introduction, we asked the
same six questions outlined in the appendix. In the United States our focus groups averaged
10 participants, while in China the groups happened to be somewhat larger, with 15 to 20
students.

Constraints on the Study

There were some limitations to our comparisons in the U.S. and China. Because the American
survey was administered by computer, students were able to type their responses whereas the
Chinese students wrote open-ended responses in longhand. Some Chinese responses were so
illegible they had to be excluded. While electronic surveys eliminated the problem of illegibility,
some American students left large sections of their survey blank and we also had to exclude
those surveys as well.

We had hoped to ask many more questions about students’ political and cultural views, but at
the Jiang Nan University in Wuxi, we were told that those questions could not be asked,
presumably for political reasons. We had to eliminate those questions from the surveys.

We used various recruitment tools in both countries to obtain the largest possible samples. In
China, faculty recruited the students. In the U.S. we recruited students from faculty teaching
various classes and supplemented the sample through emails. Although our Chinese sample
consisted of students from universities in different regions, in the U.S. our resources did not
permit our going beyond the Los Angeles area. The U.S. sample is, therefore vulnerable to
particular local environmental influences. We relied on the randomization of the students in
both countries to ensure experimental validity.

8
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

RESULTS

H1. U.S. environmental advertising exhibits more messages of anxiety than Chinese ads and,
conversely, Chinese ads will convey more messages of collective agency and hope.

We turn first to the results of our content analysis of the sampled ads in the United States and
China. As previous literature as well as the distinctly different political contexts would lead us
to expect, H1 was confirmed. Chi Square statistics for all of the coded emotions and content
indicators were significant at .05 or better, except for enthusiasm and color scheme. We
discovered that our Chinese translation “enthusiasm” or perhaps the concept simply did not
convey a similar meaning in China as in the U.S. As a result we have dropped enthusiasm from
our subsequent analysis for lack of comparability. Color scheme turned out to be quite similar
in the ads in the U.S. and China. The remaining variables: anger, fear, urgency, emotion, logic
communal or individual orientation were significantly different in the two country ad samples.
See Table 1.

[INSERT TABLE 1 HERE]

Table 1 demonstrates that U.S. and Chinese students have been exposed to very different
environmental advertising campaigns. American students have seen primarily anger and fear
inducing messages, while Chinese students have seen hopeful and communal messages. As
scholars have found, people will draw on the most prevalent messages and emotions in their
social repertoire. The advertising context, however, is not the only nor is it the most important
experiential difference between the U.S. and Chinese students. Actual confrontation with
environmental problems also diverges between the two countries.

Our survey included an open-ended question about the impact of environmental problems on
the students’ personal lives. Of the 221 American students, only 21 students, or 10 percent,
reported direct negative contact with the environment. The Chinese students had more direct
negative contact with the environment. Of the 186 Chinese students, fully 86, or 42 percent,
stated that they had first-hand experience with environmental problems. American students –
drawn from the Los Angeles area – all cited the same problem: air pollution causing bad air
days. Chinese students gave more diverse and more detailed answers. Chinese students faced
water pollution, noise pollution, air pollution and in serious cases cancer, lung disease, tumors,
and various other illnesses due to unclean water and industrial waste. For example, one
student wrote, “there is a recycling plant that would often burn the plastic, when we pass it,
the smell is unbearable; my grandfather was affected by the carcinogens from the plant,
developed cancer and died.” Another wrote, “I live near River Huai, when I was little, there
were industrial plants upriver that would often pollute the river, and cause the river to become
black and smelly, there would be massive die offs of fish and shrimp, it was heart breaking.”
The written portion of the Chinese surveys indicates that students faced many serious problems
that their American counterparts did not report.

As a result of the differences in media exposure and personal experience with environmental
problems, we posited that:
9
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

H2. Given the differences in the experiences of Chinese and American students, they will
report different emotions and different levels of emotions in response to the same
environmental ads.

Figure 1 demonstrates that our expectations were strongly borne out. There are substantial
and significant differences in emotional responses to the same ads between the American and
the Chinese student samples. One result stands out from Figure 1; almost all of the emotions
registered by the Chinese student sample are stronger than the American sample. The only
statistically significant exception was that the American students reported feeling more proud
than the Chinese students after seeing the “Ocean with Words” ad. This is not surprising given
the close proximity of the beach that epitomizes the Southern California lifestyle.

[INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE]

Not only does this figure show differences, it strongly supports sub-hypothesis H2a. In
addition to the difference in the media environment as demonstrated by our content analysis
of ads, our survey shows that Chinese students have more direct- and more negative --
environmental experiences than American students. Therefore we are not surprised to find
that the data bear out our emotional intensity hypothesis:

H2a. Chinese students will have more intense emotional responses to the ads than
American students.

Looking at the right hand side of each graph in Figure 1, we note that Chinese students
generally register more intense responses on all of the emotions. American students’ emotional
responses are closest to the Chinese students with respect to negative emotions – ashamed,
sadness, anger and worry. Figure 1 also shows that feelings of hopefulness are far greater
among Chinese students than U.S. students.

Americans students simply did not report as intense emotions as Chinese students and
therefore generally did not exceed Chinese students on these measures. The only exceptions
were the car pollution ad where there was no significant difference between the two countries
on levels of reported worry and the “ocean with words” ad where the American students felt
more proud than the Chinese sample.

The “Ocean with Words” ad elicited the greatest difference between the American and Chinese
students for the negative emotions of anger, ashamed, sad and worried. The “Car Pollution” ad
elicited the largest difference for the more positive emotions of hope and pride. This was
primarily due to the American students’ reports of low levels of hope and pride after seeing the
“Car Pollution” advertisement. The groups of students were equally worried, and the American
students were almost as sad and angry as the Chinese students. Given the American students’
single-minded responses to the open-ended survey question, (i.e. that they personally
encountered air pollution or smog in Los Angeles), it is not surprising that the car pollution ad
elicited such a strong negative response from the American audience.

10
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

In fact, the intensity of the American students’ responses to the “car pollution” ad and the
“ocean with words” ad lends further support to the thesis that direct, personal experience is
critical to the audience’s construction of the meaning and appraised emotional response to ads.
This finding substantiates the constructionist view that the audience actively interprets the
meaning of messages based on their experiences, both individual and social.

We are able to shed some light on these differences with data from our surveys in the U.S. and
China. A short answer section asked students about their beliefs concerning the environment
and possible solutions to environmental problems. See Table 2. The answers to these
questions reveal striking and significant differences for all of the questions except the
“condition of the natural environment in the world today” and “Do you think America does
more or less than other countries to address the environment.” On those two questions, the
answers of American and Chinese students were virtually identical. Otherwise, the differences
are highly significant. The American students thought China did a great deal less than other
countries (Mean 3.8), whereas the Chinese students thought their own country did only
somewhat less to address the environment (Mean =2.92). Although American students were
significantly more likely than Chinese students to believe that problems in the environment are
caused by “things people do,” Chinese students are far more likely to believe that they have
some control over solving environmental issues. The results of the survey confirm that
American students are highly pessimistic about the efforts of various actors – government,
business, and people generally -- in solving environmental problems. American students
expressed a level of powerlessness that was significantly greater than Chinese students.

[INSERT TABLE 2 HERE]

Chinese students were far more likely than American students to say that the government,
people and even businesses were “helpful in solving environmental issues.” It is interesting to
note that a particular phrase recurred in many of the Chinese students’ open-ended responses:
“while I cannot do much, I can influence the people around me.” Students in all three regions
in China used almost the exact same phrase when describing what they could do about the
environment. We consulted with several international Chinese students in Los Angeles about
the meaning of this phrase. They told us that the concept of working with others was part of
the general education students receive from an early age. The phrase is so ingrained that it is
almost an automatic response to solving social problems (Also see Li, X. 2012). We are aware
that the response may also be the safest political answer that Chinese students can give to such
a question.

Given the observed differences in the two countries’ environmental experiences and attitudes,
we expected to see significant and consistent differences in self-reports of behaviors following
exposure to the ads. The mean scores on the behavioral measures reported in Table 3 support
these expectations.

[INSERT TABLE 3 HERE]

11
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

All of the behavioral questions exhibited highly significant differences of means. Not all the
means were greater for China than the U.S. American students were more likely than Chinese
students to want to own their own automobiles and to engage in greater efforts to recycle. It
may very well be that the car culture of Los Angeles, where public transportation is still modest,
is responsible for the Americans’ desire for owning their own automobiles, in spite of their
direct experience with smog and bad air days in Los Angeles. We note that the American
students were also less likely than the Chinese students to take public transportation, again
likely reflecting car dependence and inadequate public transportation options in Los Angeles.
Automobiles are still more out of reach for Chinese students than for American students. It is
not clear that if more automobiles become available, Chinese students will not follow their
American counterparts in coveting their own cars. As for the Americans’ greater enthusiasm
for recycling, it has been drummed into American students since childhood, but is relatively
new in China. Recycling in the U.S. is ubiquitous, with many products bearing recycling labels
and recycling trash programs becoming common in American localities, including Los Angeles.
Recycling may therefore be more accessible as a behavior in the U.S. than in China.

On all of the rest of our behavioral measures, Chinese students were more likely to project
environmental behaviors than U.S. students. In tandem with more pro-environmental
attitudes, Chinese students were more likely than their U.S. counterparts to state that they
would make lifestyle changes to help the environment, volunteer and participate in city-wide
clean-up efforts, seek more information, become more engaged in environmental issues, take
public transportation and try to reduce their carbon footprint. Notably, Chinese students were
more likely to engage in communal activities than American students, which is not surprising
given the difference in social norms. The eagerness to engage with environmental concerns
among Chinese students may reflect their direct experiences with serious environmental
problems.

We now turn to the question that follows on these findings. Do emotional responses to
advertisements make any difference in terms of prospective behavior? Our main hypothesis on
the behavioral dimensions is:

H3. A difference in U.S. and Chinese students’ emotional responses to the same ads
results in different impacts on prospective behavioral change.

In particular, does the greater intensity of emotional response among Chinese students that we
found translate into a greater inclination for action? Our first sub-hypothesis addresses that
point specifically:

H3a. Anxious responses to ads -- as measured by self-reported feelings of worry – are

likely to prompt prospective information-seeking behavior.

H3b. Feelings of both hope and worry will be associated with self–reports of prospective
action on the environment.
12
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Table 4 reports regression of emotions on behaviors. We combined the ads in an effort to

highlight the most consistent results. Unfortunately, combining the ads resulted in canceling
out many results. We found significant results for three behaviors across all of the ads – recycle
(China), volunteer (China) and engage with the environment (U.S.). For these behaviors, hope
was common to two of them – volunteering and engaging with the environment. The more
hopeful Chinese students felt, the more they said they would volunteer their time or attend a
city wide clean-up. Both hope and worry significantly affected the American students’
becoming more engaged with the environment. It is possible that “becoming engaged” is
related to information seeking, but the direct question on this behavior did not elicit a
significant result. Neither the American nor the Chinese students reported an increased
likelihood to seek information based on feelings of worry. In fact, the F tests for the regressions
indicated that emotions did not significantly predict information seeking behavior.

[INSERT TABLE 4 HERE]

CONCLUSION

Our results support a constructionist theory of emotional responses to environmental messages

across cultures. The cross-national findings give little comfort to universalistic theories, rather
they favor culturally specific theories of emotional responses to environmental messages.
Different personal, media and social experiences with the environment lead to different
emotional appraisals of specific ads. Direct negative experience heightens emotional response
to problems.

In our study, American students, who live in an open society where citizen activism is not
officially inhibited, are more pessimistic about their ability to influence environmental policy
than students in the more constrained political system of China. It is not clear how much the
tenor of U.S. environmental advertising – which has been called “apocalyptic” in tone --
contributes to Americans’ pessimism. American students’ cynical attitude towards
environmental change may also arise from accurate assessments of global environmental risks
and/or their assessment of the roles of government and business in making environmental
policies. The students’ assessments of major actors in the U.S. policy process are gloomy.

We found Chinese students were consistently more hopeful and more worried than the
American students in 3 out of 4 ads (See Figure 1). (We note that American students were as
worried as the Chinese students in response to an ad about car pollution). Hope also influenced
Chinese students’ projected volunteer behavior in terms of the environment. And, hope and
worry shaped the American students’ engagement with the environment. The explanatory
power of hope supports Lazarus’ view (1999) that people use hope as a coping mechanism
when facing threats. Answers to our survey showed why Chinese students were more hopeful
than American students. They had a greater sense of government, business, and popular ability
to address environmental problems.

13
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Worry worked in tandem with hope for the American students and this fits with appraisal
theory’s view of hope and worry as prospective looking emotions that are part of the coping
process that stimulates behavioral action. American students are more worried (at least about
car pollution) and cynical about the future of the environment than Chinese students. Further
research is needed regarding American students’ attitudes and motivations towards
environmental change, particularly their sense of powerlessness. Future research should also
consider multiple sources for Chinese students’ sense of hopefulness and their ability to
influence change. While we can hypothesize that hopefulness comes from the positive
advertisements and education, there may be other political or cultural factors that influence
these attitudes.

Comparative research can illuminate the impact of particular types of messages across cultures.
We found that emotional meaning is constructed not universally but particularly and based on
a combination of experience and mediated messages. Our results demonstrate a linkage
among emotions, attitudes and action. It is logical to expect that our findings will apply to a
variety of policy concerns. The tools of comparative analysis using a constructionist approach
can help us to understand international responses to shared global problems.

14
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

15
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Table 1: Content Analysis of Advertisement Content in the U.S. and China

Emotion: Anger Fear Urgency Emotion Logic Communal† Individual† N

Mean U.S.: 1.5 3.58 3.33 3.53 3.53 .73 .7 40

Mean China: 2.9 3.08 3.55 2.93 3.15 1.0 .43 40

Probability .000 .000 .038 .029 .004 .000 .041

of
PearsonChi-
Square

† Values 0 or 1. All other variables are on a scale of 0 to 5.

16
 Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors
Table 2. Comparison of Means for Environmental Attitudinal Questions: U.S. and China

Country
US CHINA
N Mean N Mean T value and
Significance
I'm pessimistic for the future of the 180 3.27 148 2.53 -5.814***
environment. (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly
Agree)
The environment is not as important as 182 2.38 149 1.64 -7.164***
economic growth. (1=Strongly Disagree,
5=Strongly Agree)
In tough economic times, protecting jobs is 179 3.20 150 2.00 -11.506***
more important than protecting the
environment.
How would you rate the condition of the 182 3.88 149 3.87 -.153
natural environment in the world today?
(1=Very Good, 5=Very Bad)
I believe that the current environmental 182 1.86 151 1.52 -3.594***
situation is caused by 1=Things People Do, 5=
Natural Causes
How helpful is the government in solving 180 2.55 152 3.58 9.476***
environmental issues? (1=Not Helpful, 5 =Very
Helpful)
How helpful are businesses in solving 180 2.36 152 3.20 6.845***
environmental issues? (1=Not Helpful, 5 =Very
Helpful)
How helpful are citizens in solving 177 3.14 152 3.63 4.123***
environmental issues? (1=Not Helpful, 5 =Very
Helpful)
Do you feel you have any control over solving 180 2.83 152 3.16 3.192**
environmental issues? (1= No Control, 5= Total
Control)
Do you think China does more or less than 180 3.86 152 2.89 -8.596***
other countries to address the environment?
(1= A Great Deal More, 2=Somewhat more,
3=somewhat less, 4=a great deal less, 5=Not
Sure)
Do you think America does more or less than 180 3.15 152 3.03 -.662
other countries to address the environment?
(1= A Great Deal More, 2=Somewhat more,
3=somewhat less, 4=a great deal less, 5=Not
Sure)
17
 Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Table 3. Comparison of Means for Environmental Behaviors Questions: U.S. and China

Country
US CHINA
N Mean N Mean T value and
Significance
If you would like more information about 183 1.69 146 1.07 -15.604***
the environmental / issues discussed in this
message, please circle: (1=yes, 2=no)

I want to change my lifestyle to help the 182 3.77 149 4.07 3.294***
environment (1=Strongly Disagree,
5=Strongly Agree)

I want to own my own automobile. 181 5.19 150 3.29 -15.643***

(1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

I want to be more engaged with 178 3.57 151 4.40 9.894***

environmental issues. (1=Strongly Disagree,
5=Strongly Agree)

I am likely to attend a city clean up or 181 3.36 150 4.17 8.898***

volunteer. (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly
Agree)

I am likely to recycle. (1=Strongly Disagree, 180 4.34 150 4.04 -3.704***

5=Strongly Agree)

I / am likely to take public transportation 180 2.73 150 4.30 15.318***

more often.(1=Strongly Disagree,
5=Strongly Agree)

I actively try to reduce my carbon footprint. 180 3.27 150 4.15 9.119***
(1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree)

18
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P
1 Table 4: Regressions of Emotions on Intended Behavior by Country for All Ads Combined
2 U.S. China
3 R Significance f B S.E. t p of t R Significance
f B S.E. t p of t
4
5 Behavior: Recycle
6 Emotion: Not Significant 0.335 Significant
7 Angry -0.181 0.068 -2.644 0.009*
8 Ashamed 0.143 0.057 2.515 0.013*
9 Hopeful 0.067 0.054 1.244 0.216
10 Proud -0.002 0.043 -0.052 0.959
11 Sad 0.163 0.073 2.251 0.026*
12 Worried -0.037 0.058 -0.638 0.524
13
14 Behavior: Volunteer
15 Emotion: Not Significant 0.364 Significant
16 Angry -0.037 0.069 -0.539 0.591
17 Ashamed 0.098 0.057 1.724 0.087
18 Hopeful 0.152 0.054 2.808 0.006*
19 Proud 0.078 0.043 1.794 0.075
20 Sad 0.015 0.073 0.205 0.838
21 Worried 0.043 0.058 0.739 0.461
22
23 Behavior: More Engaged With The Environment
24 Emotion: 0.328 Significant Not Significant
25 Angry -0.042 0.065 -0.646 0.519
26 Ashamed -0.003 0.080 -0.043 0.966
27 Hopeful 0.161 0.078 2.069 0.04*
28 Proud -0.002 0.089 -0.028 0.978
29 Sad 0.017 0.083 0.205 0.838
30 Worried 0.181 0.079 2.302 0.023*
31
32 Not Significant Behaviors: Lifestyle, Footprint, Own Automobile, Public Transportation and See Information

19
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

References

American Lung Association. (2012). State of the Air. Accessed June 21, 2012.
http://www.stateoftheair.org/2012/city-rankings/most-polluted-cities.html

Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2003). “The Ethicality of Using Fear for Social Advertising.”
Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 11(1), 12-27. doi: 10.1016/S1441-3582(03)70115-
3

Battor, R. J., & Cialdini, R. B. (2000). “The Application of Persuasion Theory to the Development
of Effective Pro-environmental Public Service Announcements.” Journal of Social Issues,
56, 527-541.

Beattie, G. (2010). Why Aren't We Saving the Planet?: A Psychologist's Perspective. New York,
NY: Routledge.

Bennett, P., Lowe, R., & Honey, K. (2003). “Brief Report.” Cognition & Emotion, 17(3), 511-520.

Brader, T.(2006). Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Poltical Ads
Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brady, A. (2009). “The Beijing Olympics as a Campaign of Mass Distraction.” The China
Quarterly, 197, 1. doi: 10.1017/S0305741009000058

Brooks, M. E., & Highhouse, S. (2006). “Familiarity Breeds Ambivalence.” Corporate Reputation
Review, 9(2), 105-113. doi: 10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550016

Chan, R. (2004). “Consumer Responses to Environmental Advertising in China.” Marketing

Intelligence & Planning, 22(4), 427-437. doi: 10.1108/02634500410542789

Chow, G. (2008). “China’s Energy and Environmental Problems and Policies.” Asia-Pacific
Journal of Accounting & Economics, vol 15 (1). 55-70.

Cialdini, R. B. (2003). “Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the Environment.” Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 12(4), 105-109. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.01242

Colombetti, G. (2009). “From Affect Programs to Dynamical Discrete Emotions.” Philosophical

Psychology, 22(4), 407-425. doi: 10.1080/09515080903153600

Crigler, A. and M. R. Just. (2012) “Measuring Affect, Emotion and Mood in Political
Communication” in H. Semetko and M. Scammel, Ed. The Sage Handbook of Political
Communication. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Daniels, David P. J.A. Krosnick, M. P. Tichy, & T. Tompson (2011). Public Opinion on
Environmental Policy in the United States. (PDF) Accessed June 21, 2012.

20
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

http://comm.stanford.edu/faculty/krosnick/docs/2011/Environmental%20Attitudes%20
Lit%20Review.pdf

DeLuca, Kevin M. and Anne T. Demo. (2000). “Imaging Nature: Watkins, Yosemite, and the birth
of environmentalism.” Critical studies in mass communication 17: 241-260.

Dundes, L., Kulow, A., & Lemke, D. (2009). “Energy Conservation Strategies among American
College Students.” Energy Efficiency, 2(3), 233-241. doi: 10.1007/s12053-009-9047-9

Economy, E. (2005). “China's Environmental Challenge.” Current History, 104:September, 278-

283.

Ekman, P. (1992). “An Argument for Basic Emotions.” Cognition & Emotion, 6(3), 169-200. doi:
10.1080/02699939208411068

Ekman, P., Friesen, W. V., O'Sullivan, M., Chan, A., & Et al. (1987). “Universals and Cultural
Differences in the Judgments of Facial Expressions of Emotion.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53(4), 712-717. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.53.4.712

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). “Cultural Similarity's Consequences: A Distance

Perspective on Cross-Cultural Differences in Emotion Recognition.” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 34(1), 92-110. doi: 10.1177/0022022102239157

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). “Universals and Cultural Differences in Recognizing
Emotions.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 159-164. doi:
10.1111/1467-8721.01252

Elfenbein, H. A., & Ambady, N. (2003). “When Familiarity Breeds Accuracy: Cultural exposure
and Facial Emotion Recognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2),
276-290. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.276

Elfenbein, H. A., Beaupré, M., Lévesque, M., & Hess, U. (2007).”Toward a Dialect Theory:
Cultural differences in the Expression and Recognition of Posed Facial Expressions.”
Emotion, 7(1), 131-146. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.1.131

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). The Online Resource for Professionals and Everyday
People Who Care about the Environment. Retrieved from
http://eponline.com/Home.aspx

Gao, Z. (2003). “What’s in a Name? On China’s Search for Socialist Advertising.” Advertising &
Society Review, 8(1). doi: 10.1353/asr.2003.0014

Gao, Z. (2007). “The Evolution of Chinese Advertising Law: A Historical Review.” Advertising &
Society Review, 8(1). doi: 10.1353/asr.2007.0032

21
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Geller, E. S. (1995). “Actively Caring for the Environment: An Integration of Behaviorism and
Humanism.” Environment and Behavior, 27(2), 184-195. doi:
10.1177/0013916595272004

Green, H. (2008). “The Greening of America’s Campuses.” Business Week. April 9, 62-66.

Groopman, Jerome. (2004). The Anatomy of Hope: How People Prevail in the Face of Illness. New
York: Random House.

Hager, L. (2011). “Tools for Teaching Cognitive Psychology: Using Public Service Announcements
for Education on Environmental Sustainability.” Teaching of Psychology, 38.

Harris, P. G. (2008). “Green or Brown? Environmental Attitudes and Governance in Greater

China.” Nature and Culture, 3(2), 151-182. doi: 10.3167/nc.2008.030202

Hornik, Robert C. (1977). “Mass Media Use and the “Revolution of Rising Frustrations”: A
Reconsideration of the Theory.” Communication Research 4: 387-414.

Hofstede, G. (n.d.). “China”. Professor Emeritus. Retrieved May 1, 2012, from http://geert-
hofstede.com/

Helvarg, David. 2004. The War Against the Greens: The “Wise-Use” Movement, the New Right,
and the Browning of America. Colorado: Johnson Books.

Herzberg, L. (2009). “Direction, Causation, and Appraisal Theories of Emotion.” Philosophical

Psychology, 22(2), 167-186. doi: 10.1080/09515080902802777

Ho, P. (2001). “Greening Without Conflict? Environmentalism, NGOs and Civil Society in China.”
Development and Change, 32(5), 893-921. doi: 10.1111/1467-7660.00231

Just, M., Crigler, A., & Belt, T. (2007). “Don’t Give Up Hope: Emotions, Candidate Appraisals, and
Votes.” The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (W. R.
Neuman, et al. Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jhally, Sut. 2000. “Advertising at the Edge of the Apocalypse.” Critical Studies in Media
Commercialism. Ed. Robin Anderson and Lance Strate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kang, S.. Hong Dayong 洪大用. (2010). “Zhongguo minjian huanbao liliang de chengzhang
中國民間環保力量的成長 (The Growing Nongovernmental Forces for Environmental
Protection in China).” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International
Journal, 4(3), 457-460. doi: 10.1007/s12280-010-9149-7

Killburn, D. (2001). “Chasing Chinese Consumers.” Campaign. 30, 27.

Kuppens, P. (2010). “From Appraisal to Emotion.” Emotion Review, 2(2), 157-158. doi:
10.1177/1754073909355010

22
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Kuppens, P., Van Mechelen, I., Smits, D. M., De Boeck, P., & Ceulemans, E. (2007). “Individual
Differences in Patterns of Appraisal and Anger Experience.” Cognition & Emotion, 21(4),
689-713. doi: 10.1080/02699930600859219

Lagorio, Christine. (2010) “The Most Polluted Places On Earth” CBS News. January 8. Accessed
on June 21, 2012. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-18563_162-2895653.html

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). “Emotion and Adaptation.” New York: Oxford University Press.

__________. (1999.). Hope: An Emotion And A Vital Coping Resource Against Despair. Retrieved
May 1, 2011, from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=97807926

Lee, J. C., An, B., Kwan, C., & Kwan, T. (2000). “Students’ Environmental Concerns and Opinions:
A Chinese Perspective.” The Environmentalist, 20, 144-150.

Lei, X. (2011). “China's Environmental Activism in the Age of Globalization.” Asian Politics &
Policy, 3(2), 207-224.

Lerner, J. S., & Keltner, D. (2000). “Beyond Valence: Toward a Model of Emotion Specific
Influences on Judgment and Choice.” Cognition and Emotion, 14, 473-493.

Li, F., & Shooshtari, N. H. (2007). “Multinational Corporations' Controversial Ad Campaigns in

China--Lessons from Nike and Toyota.” Advertising & Society Review, 8(1). doi:
10.1353/asr.2007.0033.

Li, X. (2010). "Communicating the "incommunicable green": a Comparative Study of the

Structures of Desire in Environmental Advertising in the United States and China."
dissertation, University of Iowa. http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/699.

Lin, J. S. (2004). “Assessing the Dragon's Choice: The Use of Market-Based Instruments in
Chinese Environmental Policy.” Georgetown International Environmental Law Review,
16(4), 617-655.

Lin, S., Shun, X., & Du, L. (2011). “Case Comparisons of Public Service Advertising between China
and West.” Business Management and Electronic Information (BMEI).

Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R. and MacKuen, M. (2000) Affective Intelligence and Political
Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Matsumoto, D., & Assar, M. (1992). “The Effects of Language on Judgments of Universal Facial
Expressions of Emotion.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 16(2), 85-99. doi:
10.1007/BF00990324

Matsumoto, D., Olide, A., Schug, J., Willingham, B., & Callan, M. (2009). “Cross-Cultural
Judgments of Spontaneous Facial Expressions of Emotion.” Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 33(4), 213-238. doi: 10.1007/s10919-009-0071-4

23
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Merchant, C. (1993). Major Problems in American Environmental History: Documents and

Essays. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Moisi, D. (2007). “The Clash of Emotions Fear, Humiliation, Hope, and the New World Order.”
Foreign Affairs. 86(1), 8-12.

Moors, A. (2009). “Theories of Emotion Causation: A Review.” Cognition & Emotion, 23(4), 625-
662.

Neuman, W. R., Marcus, G. E., Crigler, A. N. and MacKuen, M. (2007) “Theorizing Affect’s
Effects.” The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (W. R.
Neuman, et al. Ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 1–20.

Nezlek, J. B., Vansteelandt, K., Van Mechelen, I., & Kuppens, P. (2008). “Appraisal-emotion
Relationships in Daily Life.” Emotion, 8(1), 145-150. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.8.1.145

Pew Research Center for People and the Press. (2012) “Partisan Polarization Surges in Bush,
Obama Years: Trends in American Values: 1987-2012.” Accessed June 21, 2012.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-surges-in-bush-obama-
years/

Poels, K., & Dewitte, S. (2006). “How to Capture the Heart? Reviewing 20 Years of Emotion
Measurement in Advertising.” Journal of Advertising Research, 46(1), 18. doi:
10.2501/S0021849906060041

Scherer, K. K., Ambady, C., & Mortillaro, M. (2011). “In the Eye of the Beholder? Universality
and Cultural Specificity in the Expression and Perception of Emotion.” Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 34, 92nd ser., 401-435.

Schmidt, S., Tinti, C., Levine, L. J., & Testa, S. (2010). “Appraisals, Emotions and Emotion
regulation: An Integrative Approach.” Motivation and Emotion, 34(1), 63-72. doi:
10.1007/s11031-010-9155-z

Schimmack, U. (1996). “Cultural Influences on the Recognition of Emotion by Facial Expressions:

Individualistic or Caucasian Cultures?”Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 27(1), 37-50.
doi: 10.1177/0022022196271003

Schultz, P. W., & Zelezny, L. (2003). “Reframing Environmental Messages to be Congruent with
American Values.” Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 126-136.

Sierra Club Home Page. (n.d.). Sierra Club Home Page: Explore, Enjoy and Protect the Planet.
Retrieved from http://www.sierraclub.org

Smith, C A. and L. S. Kirby (2001) “Toward Delivering on the Promise of Appraisal Theory.”
Appraisal Processes and Emotion: Theory, Methods, Research, Ed. K. R. Scherer, A.
Schorr, & T. Johnstone. Pp. 121-37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Stockmann, D., A. Esarey, Z. Jie. (2011). “Advertising Chinese Politics: How Public Service
Announcements Prime and Change Political Trust in China.” Paper delivered at the 2011
Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington.

Tavassoli, N. T. (2007). “That Which We Call a Rose in Chinese Would Smell as Sweet?”
Advertising & Society Review, 8(1). doi: 10.1353/asr.2007.0035

The World Fact Book. (2012). CIA World Fact Book. Retrieved from
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/

Vining, J.(1992) “Environmental Decisions and Emotions: A Comparison of the Emotions and
Expectations of Forest Managers, an Environmental Group and the Public” Environment
and Behavior, 24, 1: pp. 3-34.

Watts, J. (2011). When a billion Chinese jump: Voices from the frontline of climate change.
London: Faber and Faber.

Wierzbicka, Anna. (1999). Emotions across Languages and Culture: Diversity and Universals.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wong, K. (2003). “The Environmental Awareness of University Students in Beijing, China.”

Journal of Contemporary China, 12(36), 519-536. doi: 10.1080/10670560305472

Wong, K., & Chan, H. S. (1996). “The environmental Awareness of Environmental Protection
Bureaucrats in the People's Republic of China.” The Environmentalist, 16(3), 213-219.
doi: 10.1007/BF01324762

World Bank. (2007). The Little Green Data Book. Washington, D. C. Pp. 6-7 (PDF) Accessed June
21, 2012. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTDATASTA/64199955-
1178226923002/21322619/LGDB2007.pdf

Wu, F. (2009). “Environmental Politics in China: An Issue Area in Review.” Journal of Chinese
Political Science, 14(4), 383-406.

Zhou, S., Zhou, P., & Fei, X. (2005). “Visual differences in U.S. and Chinese television
commercials.” Journal of Advertising, 34.

1
This research was funded in part by grants from USC Dornsife College.
2
Contact authors for the complete coding. Inter-coder reliability tests were conducted on a
sub-sample of 20 ads, with 83 to 100 percent agreement on all binary and most scaled
variables. For the six-category emotion variables the inter-coder reliability test was 66.7
percent. When, however, these scales were reduced to 0,1 the inter-coder reliability was 100
percent.

25
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

APPENDIX A: Advertisements Shown

Happy Globe

Ocean With Words

26
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Car Pollution

Sad Globe

27
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Appendix B: Focus Group Questions

Question 1:
What do you think are some of the biggest problems that face our generation?

Question 2:
Now, talking specifically about the environment, what do you think are some of the biggest
problems facing the environment?

Question 3:
How do you become aware of these problems?
(i.e. friends, family, ads,)

Question 4:
Have you ever seen a compelling environmental ad that made you want to help the
environment?

Question 5:
Here are two different environmental ads. They are both sponsored by the same company,
however one is targeted towards Americans and the other is targeted in China. Which one do
you like and why?

Question 6:
Which one do you think is targeted at Americans and which one is targeted towards the
Chinese?

Question 7:
What do you dislike about these advertisements?

Question 8:
What is the first thing you notice when you see these advertisements?

Question 9:
If you could change something about these ads to make them compelling, what would you
change?

Question 10:
If you made your own environmental ad to promote awareness about climate change, what
images would you use?

28
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

APPENDIX C: Experiment Survey Form

Survey is available from the authors.

29
Draft: Not for Quotation without Permission of the Authors

Appendix D: Emotion Questions Following Exposure to Ads

Advertisement
Please answer the following questions after looking at the environmental message placed in
front of you

What is your ethnicity? _____________________________________________

What did this message convey to you? _________________________________

Have you seen this advertisement before? ____YES ____NO

How does this advertisement make you feel?

Please Circle how the advertisement made you feel. 1 being no emotion and 5 being the most
emotion

None Some Extreme

1. Angry 1 2 3 4 5

2. Worried 1 2 3 4 5

3. Sad 1 2 3 4 5

4. Hopeful 1 2 3 4 5

5. Enthusiastic 1 2 3 4 5

6. Ashamed 1 2 3 4 5

7. Proud 1 2 3 4 5

30