拟人的品牌更环保?拟人化沟通对促进绿色消费倾向的影响

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2025.0720

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

越来越多的企业采用品牌拟人化沟通的方式进行品牌传播, 促进绿色消费倾向。本研究将基于习得可评估性理论, 探索品牌拟人化沟通对绿色消费倾向的影响机制及边界条件。本研究共包含4个实验。实验1表明品牌拟人化沟通能够有效促进绿色消费倾向, 构建了从品牌拟人化沟通到习得可评估性到品牌环保价值敏感性再到绿色消费倾向的完整因果链。实验2界定主效应的边界, 发现相比于普通品牌, 主效应在绿色品牌情境中更显著, 再次验证主效应的理论逻辑。实验3分析了消费者动机类型(利己/利他)对主效应的调节作用。结果表明,当消费者利他动机被激发时, 品牌拟人化沟通能够显著地促进绿色消费倾向, 当消费者利己动机被激发时, 品牌拟人化沟通不会影响绿色消费倾向。实验4验证了产品类型(搜索品/体验品)对主效应的调节作用。结果表明当产品类型为搜索品时,品牌拟人化沟通能够显著地促进绿色消费倾向, 当产品类型为体验品时, 品牌拟人化沟通不会影响绿色消费倾向。本研究拓展了品牌拟人化沟通以及绿色消费相关领域的研究。

关键词: 品牌拟人化沟通, 绿色消费倾向, 环保价值敏感性, 习得可评估性理论

Abstract:

As environmental issues become increasingly severe, promoting green consumption has emerged as an important pathway for sustainable development. However, consumers often lack expertise regarding eco-friendly products, which leads to skepticism about their environmental value and the actual impact of their green consumption, resulting in a low willingness to engage in such behaviors. While existing research has examined the influence of the environmental information communicated by brands on consumers' green consumption tendencies, it has frequently overlooked strategies to enhance consumers' effective assessment of this information. With the rise of social media, brands have made notable progress in conveying environmental information through anthropomorphic communication. Nevertheless, further exploration is needed to understand how this approach can positively influence consumers' green consumption tendencies and the underlying mechanisms involved. Drawing on learned evaluability theory, we analyze the impact of brand anthropomorphic communication on green consumption tendencies from a cognitive processing perspective, aiming to provide insights into the future development of green markets.

This research involves four experiments. Experiment 1 validates that brand anthropomorphic communication can effectively promote green consumption tendencies and confirms the mediating role of environmental value sensitivity in the relationship between anthropomorphic communication and green consumption tendencies; this constructs a complete causal chain that links anthropomorphic communication to learned evaluability, then to environmental value sensitivity, and finally to green consumption tendencies. Experiment 2 delineates the boundaries of the main effect, revealing that the impact of anthropomorphic communication on consumption tendencies is more pronounced in the context of green consumption. Experiment 3 examines the moderating effect of consumer motivation type (egoistic vs. altruistic) on the main effect. Experiment 4 investigates the moderating role of product type (search products vs. experience products) on the main effect.

The findings indicate that brands employing anthropomorphic communication can increase consumers' learned evaluability, thereby increasing their sensitivity to the brand's environmental value and ultimately promoting their green consumption tendencies. When consumers' altruistic motivation is activated, anthropomorphic communication significantly increases their green consumption tendencies; conversely, when egoistic motivation is activated, no significant effect is observed. Additionally, when the product is a search product, anthropomorphic communication significantly promotes green consumption tendencies, whereas this effect is not evident for experience products. These insights offer new perspectives on the application of anthropomorphic communication strategies, highlighting the importance of consumer motivation and product type in brand communication.

This study makes a series of theoretical contributions. First, it enriches the literature on the influence of anthropomorphic communication on green consumption tendencies and elucidates how this communication affects such tendencies. Second, this study is the first to apply learned evaluability theory to explain the influence of anthropomorphic communication on green consumption tendencies, revealing a novel process by which environmental value sensitivity is triggered. Furthermore, the findings confirm the moderating effects of product type and motivation type, establishing explicit boundary conditions.

Key words: brand anthropomorphic communication, green consumption tendency, environmental value sensitivity, learned evaluability theory

中图分类号:

B849: F713.55

冯文婷, 薛舒允, 汪涛. (2025). 拟人的品牌更环保?拟人化沟通对促进绿色消费倾向的影响. 心理学报, 57(4), 720-738.

FENG Wenting, XUE Shuyun, WANG Tao. (2025). Anthropomorphic brands are more eco-friendly? The impact of anthropomorphic communication on green consumption tendency. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 57(4), 720-738.

图/表 12

图1 品牌拟人化沟通对绿色消费倾向的影响机制

图2 实验1环保价值敏感性的中介作用分析

图3 实验1习得可评估性和环保价值敏感性链式中介分析

图4 实验2品牌沟通信息和消费情境交互作用对消费倾向的影响

图5 实验2沟通信息和消费情境交互作用对环保价值敏感性的影响

图6 实验2调节中介分析

图7 实验3沟通信息和动机类型交互作用对绿色消费倾向的影响

图8 实验3沟通信息和动机类型交互作用应对环保价值敏感性的影响

图9 实验3调节中介分析

图10 实验4沟通信息和产品类型交互作用对绿色消费倾向的影响

图11 实验4沟通信息和产品类型交互作用对环保价值敏感性的影响

图12 实验4调节中介分析

参考文献 70

[1]	Aggarwal, P., & McGill, A. L. (2007). Is that car smiling at me? Schema congruity as a basis for evaluating anthropomorphized products. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 468-479.
[2]	Ariely, D., & Loewenstein, G. (2000). When does duration matter in judgment and decision making?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 508-523.
[3]	Bei, L. T., Chen, E. Y., & Widdows, R. (2004). Consumers’ online information search behavior and the phenomenon of search vs. experience products. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 25, 449-467.
[4]	Benlian, A., Titah, R., & Hess, T. (2012). Differential effects of provider recommendations and consumer reviews in e-commerce transactions: An experimental study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 29(1), 237-272.
[5]	Birch, D., Memery, J., & Kanakaratne, M. D. S. (2018). The mindful consumer: Balancing egoistic and altruistic motivations to purchase local food. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 40, 221-228.
[6]	Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., Feinstein, J. A., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 197-253.
[7]	Chen, K. J., & Lin, J. S. (2021). Revisiting the effects of anthropomorphism on brand relationship outcomes: The moderating role of psychological disposition. European Journal of Marketing, 55(8), 2174-2200.
[8]	Chen, Y. S., Lin, C. L., & Chang, C. H. (2014). The influence of greenwash on green word-of-mouth (green WOM): The mediation effects of green perceived quality and green satisfaction. Quality & Quantity, 48, 2411-2425.
[9]	Cheung, M. F., & To, W. M. (2019). An extended model of value-attitude-behavior to explain Chinese consumers’ green purchase behavior. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 50, 145-153.
[10]	Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[11]	Costa Pinto, D., Herter, M. M., Rossi, P., & Borges, A. (2014). Going green for self or for others? Gender and identity salience effects on sustainable consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 540-549.
[12]	De Groot, J. I., & Steg, L. (2009). Mean or green: Which values can promote stable pro-environmental behavior?. Conservation Letters, 2(2), 61-66.
[13]	Elgaaied-Gambier, L., Monnot, E., & Reniou, F. (2018). Using descriptive norm appeals effectively to promote green behavior. Journal of Business Research, 82, 179-191.
[14]	Gleim, M. R., Smith, J. S., Andrews, D., & Cronin Jr, J. J. (2013). Against the green: A multi-method examination of the barriers to green consumption. Journal of retailing, 89(1), 44-61.
[15]	Golubickis, M., & Macrae, C. N. (2023). Self-prioritization reconsidered: Scrutinizing three claims. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 876-886.
[16]	Gupta, A., Dash, S., & Mishra, A. (2019). Self/other oriented green experiential values: Measurement and impact on hotel-consumer relationship. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 83, 159-168.
[17]	Gustafson, C. R., Lybbert, T. J., & Sumner, D. A. (2016). Consumer knowledge affects valuation of product attributes: Experimental results for wine. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 65, 85-94.
[18]	Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86-93.
[19]	Hartmann, P., & Apaolaza-Ibáñez, V. (2012). Consumer attitude and purchase intention toward green energy brands: The roles of psychological benefits and environmental concern. Journal of Business Research, 65(9), 1254-1263.
[20]	Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (p. 507). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.
[21]	He, Y., Zhou, Q., Guo, S., & Xiong, J. (2020). The matching effect of anthropomorphized brand roles and product messaging on product attitude. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 33(4), 974-993.
[22]	Hsee, C. K., Yang, Y., Li, N., & Shen, L. (2009). Wealth, warmth, and well-being: Whether happiness is relative or absolute depends on whether it is about money, acquisition, or consumption. Journal of Marketing Research, 46(3), 396-409.
[23]	Hsee, C. K., & Zhang, J. (2010). General evaluability theory. Psychological Science, 5(4), 343-355.
[24]	Huang, P., Lurie, N. H., & Mitra, S. (2009). Searching for experience on the web: An empirical examination of consumer behavior for search and experience goods. Journal of Marketing, 73(2), 55-69.
[25]	Johnstone, M. L., & Tan, L. P. (2015). Exploring the gap between consumers’ green rhetoric and purchasing behaviour. Journal of Business Ethics, 132, 311-328.
[26]	Kamalanon, P., Chen, J. S., & Le, T. T. Y. (2022). “Why do we buy green products?” An extended theory of the planned behavior model for green product purchase behavior. Sustainability, 14(2), 689.
[27]	Kapur, S., Craik, F. I., Tulving, E., Wilson, A. A., Houle, S., & Brown, G. M. (1994). Neuroanatomical correlates of encoding in episodic memory: Levels of processing effect. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 91(6), 2008-2011.
[28]	Kiang, M. Y., Ye, Q., Hao, Y., Chen, M., & Li, Y. (2011). A service-oriented analysis of online product classification methods. Decision Support Systems, 52(1), 28-39.
[29]	Laporte, S., & Laurent, G. (2014). More prizes are not always more attractive: Factors increasing prospective sweepstakes participants’ sensitivity to the number of prizes. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(3), 395-410.
[30]	Lembregts, C., & Bergh, B. V. D. (2019). Making each unit count: The role of discretizing units in quantity expressions. Journal of Consumer Research, 45(5), 1051-1067.
[31]	Leenaars, C. H., Zant, J. C., Aussems, A., Faatz, V., Snackers, D., & Kalsbeek, A. (2016). The Leeds food preference questionnaire after mild sleep restriction—A small feasibility study. Physiology & Behavior, 154(1), 28-33.
[32]	Lin, J., Lobo, A., & Leckie, C. (2017). The role of benefits and transparency in shaping consumers’ green perceived value, self-brand connection and brand loyalty. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 35, 133-141.
[33]	Lu, X., & HSEE, C. K. (2018). Joint evaluation versus single evaluation: A field full of potentials. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 50(8), 827-839. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00827
	[路西, HSEE.(2018). 联合评估和单独评估:富有潜力的助推手段. 心理学报, 50(8), 827-839.] doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2018.00827
[34]	Luan, J., Yao, Z., Zhao, F., & Liu, H. (2016). Search product and experience product online reviews: An eye-tracking study on consumers' review search behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 420-430.
[35]	Luchs, M. G., Naylor, R. W., Irwin, J. R., & Raghunathan, R. (2010). The sustainability liability: Potential negative effects of ethicality on product preference. Journal of Marketing, 74(5), 18-31.
[36]	Messick, D. M., Wilke, H., Brewer, M. B., Kramer, R. M., Zemke, P. E., & Lui, L. (1983). Individual adaptations and structural change as solutions to social dilemmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(2), 294-309.
[37]	Moreale, E., & Watt, S. (2004). An agent-based approach to mailing list knowledge management. In International Symposium AMKM 2003, Stanford, CA, USA, March 24-26, Revised and Invited Papers (pp. 118-129). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
[38]	Morewedge, C. K., Preston, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Timescale bias in the attribution of mind. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 1-11. pmid: 17605584
[39]	Muehling, D. D., Sprott, D. E., & Sprott, D. E. (2004). The power of reflection: An empirical examination of nostalgia advertising effects. Journal of Advertising, 33(3), 25-35.
[40]	Nelson, P. (1970). Information and consumer behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 78(2), 311-329.
[41]	Niu, Z. H., Jiang, S., Qiu, J. J., Shen, Z. M., & Zhang, F. (2010). The effect of social distance on representation of others’ behavior: The role of valence of the content of evaluation. Chinese Journal of Applied Psychology, 16(4), 291-300.
	[牛忠辉, 蒋赛, 邱俊杰, 申之美, 张锋. (2010). 社会距离对他人行为表征的影响: 评价内容效价的作用. 应用心理学, 16(4), 291-300.]
[42]	Peattie, K. (2010). Green consumption: Behavior and norms. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 35, 195-228.
[43]	Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 135-146.
[44]	Rauschnabel, P. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2014). You’re so lovable: Anthropomorphism and brand love. Journal of Brand Management, 21(5), 372-395.
[45]	Ricci, E. C., Banterle, A., & Stranieri, S. (2018). Trust to go green: An exploration of consumer intentions for eco-friendly convenience food. Ecological Economics, 148, 54-65.
[46]	Rosillo-Díaz, E., Blanco-Encomienda, F. J., & Crespo- Almendros, E. (2020). A cross-cultural analysis of perceived product quality, perceived risk and purchase intention in e-commerce platforms. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 33(1), 139-160.
[47]	Rossi, C., & Rivetti, F. (2023). Young consumers’ purchase behaviour of sustainably-labelled food products. What is the role of scepticism?. Food Quality and Preference, 105, 104772.
[48]	Sawyer, Alan G. & Dickson, Peter R. (1984). Psychological perspectives on consumer response to sales promotion. In J. Katherine (Ed.), Research on sales promotion: Collected papers (pp. 1-21). Cambridge, MA: Marketing Science Institute.
[49]	Schmuck, D., Matthes, J., Naderer, B., & Beaufort, M. (2018). The effects of environmental brand attributes and nature imagery in green advertising. Environmental Communication, 12(3), 414-429.
[50]	Schneider, S., Häßler, A., Habermeyer, T., Beege, M., & Rey, G. D. (2019). The more human, the higher the performance? Examining the effects of anthropomorphism on learning with media. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 57-72. doi: 10.1037/edu0000273
[51]	Shin, S., & Lim, Y. (2021). A study on consumer confusion, value, and price sensitivity of eco-friendly fashion product. The Research Journal of the Costume Culture, 29(1), 48-64.
[52]	Sivapalan, A., von der Heidt, T., Scherrer, P., & Sorwar, G. (2021). A consumer values-based approach to enhancing green consumption. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 28, 699-715.
[53]	Sun, H., Teh, P. L., & Linton, J. D. (2018). Impact of environmental knowledge and product quality on student attitude toward products with recycled/remanufactured content: Implications for environmental education and green manufacturing. Business Strategy and the Environment, 27(7), 935-945.
[54]	Sun, Y., Li, T., & Wang, S. (2022). “I buy green products for my benefits or yours”: Understanding consumers’ intention to purchase green products. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 34(8), 1721-1739.
[55]	Tacikowski, P., Freiburghaus, T., & Ehrsson, H. H. (2017). Goal-directed processing of self-relevant information is associated with less cognitive interference than the processing of information about other people. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, 93-100.
[56]	Testa, F., Pretner, G., Iovino, R., Bianchi, G., Tessitore, S., & Iraldo, F. (2021). Drivers to green consumption: A systematic review. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 23, 4826-4880.
[57]	Touré-Tillery, M., & McGill, A. L. (2015). Who or what to believe: Trust and the differential persuasiveness of human and anthropomorphized messengers. Journal of Marketing, 79(4), 94-110.
[58]	Tripathi, A., & Pandey, N. (2018). Does impact of price endings differ for the non-green and green products? Role of product categories and price levels. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 35(2), 143-156.
[59]	Vitale, S., Biondo, F., Giosuè, C., Bono, G., Okpala, C. O. R., Piazza, I.,... Pipitone, V. (2020). Consumers’ perception and willingness to pay for eco-labeled seafood in Italian hypermarkets. Sustainability, 12(4), 1434.
[60]	Wang, J., Bao, J., Wang, C., & Wu, L. (2017). The impact of different emotional appeals on the purchase intention for green products: The moderating effects of green involvement and Confucian cultures. Sustainable Cities and Society, 34, 32-42.
[61]	Wang, T., Xie, Z. P., & Cui, N. (2014). Have a good chat with the brand: The impact of personified brand communication on consumer brand attitude. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 46(7), 987-999. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2014.00987
	[汪涛, 谢志鹏, 崔楠. (2014). 和品牌聊聊天——拟人化沟通对消费者品牌态度影响. 心理学报, 46(7), 987-999.]
[62]	Wheeler, M., Sharp, A., & Nenycz-Thiel, M. (2013). The effect of ‘green’ messages on brand purchase and brand rejection. Australasian Marketing Journal, 21(2), 105-110.
[63]	White, K., Habib, R., & Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to shift consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. Journal of Marketing, 83(3), 22-49.
[64]	White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other- benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109-124.
[65]	Widya, P. R., & Mursalin, A. (2023). The role of brand anthropomorphism in shaping brand love and brand loyalty to European car consumers in Indonesia. Journal Research of Social, Science, Economics, and Management, 2( 6), 1022-1034.
[66]	Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's understanding of deception. Cognition, 13(1), 103-128. pmid: 6681741
[67]	Yang, D., Lu, Y., Zhu, W., & Su, C. (2015). Going green: How different advertising appeals impact green consumption behavior. Journal of Business Research, 68(12), 2663-2675.
[68]	Zhang, M., Li, L., Ye, Y., Qin, K., & Zhong, J. (2020). The effect of brand anthropomorphism, brand distinctiveness, and warmth on brand attitude: A mediated moderation model. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 19(5), 523-536.
[69]	Zheng, C., Ling, S., & Cho, D. (2023). How social identity affects green food purchase intention: The serial mediation effect of green perceived value and psychological distance. Behavioral Sciences, 13(8), 664.
[70]	Zhu, Y., Zhang, J., Wu, J., & Liu, Y. (2022). AI is better when I'm sure: The influence of certainty of needs on consumers' acceptance of AI chatbots. Journal of Business Research, 150, 642-652.