Airline ads increasingly include nature imagery to enhance the (wrongfully) perceived greenness of the advertised brand (i.e. executional greenwashing). However, it remains unknown whether executional greenwashing in airline ads distracts consumers from processing the information presented in the ad and from perceivinggreenwashing. This study aims to shed light on consumers’ perceptions of greenwashing in ads, using executional greenwashing, and the role of greenwashing literacy in this context.
In an experimental eye-tracking study (n = 175), the authors manipulated environmental compensation claims, including executional greenwashing, as well as consumers’ greenwashing literacy. They measured fixation count, fixation duration, and perceived greenwashing.
Neither executional greenwashing nor greenwashing literacy influenced consumers’ fixation count and fixation duration of informational text boxes depicted in the ads. However, consumers perceived more greenwashing in ads with nature imagery than without it. Moreover, greenwashing literacy heightened consumers’ perception of greenwashing.
For the first time, this study showed that although gaze behavior was not affected by executional greenwashing consumers were well able to recognize greenwashing attempts.
Travelers worldwide increasingly seek environmentally friendly transportation alternatives and, in many cases, avoid flying to mitigate climate change (e.g. Liu, 2023). This trend poses a potential threat to airlines, as it may reduce consumer demand for air travel (e.g. Gössling et al., 2020). In response, airlines have turned to green marketing to foster the impression that flying can be environmentally responsible (e.g. Guix et al., 2022; Olk, 2020; Pittman et al., 2021a). Among these strategies, compensation claims have become particularly prominent, with airlines promoting environmental offset measures to suggest they neutralize the harm caused by flights (e.g. Air New Zealand, 2023). Yet, such claims frequently omit crucial information and can therefore be classified as greenwashing (e.g. Kangun et al., 1991). Moreover, many airlines complement these claims with pleasant nature imagery designed to enhance their persuasive appeal (e.g. Supran and Hickey, 2022). Given that airlines continue to emit pollutants regardless of offsetting initiatives, such associations between aviation and nature imagery constitute a form of executional greenwashing (e.g. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009).
Prior research has shown that consumers often struggle to recognize greenwashing in marketing and advertising – situations in which companies portray themselves, their products, or their services as more environmentally friendly than they truly are (e.g. Neureiter and Matthes, 2023; Schmuck et al., 2018). Recognition becomes particularly difficult when misleading textual claims are paired with evocative nature imagery (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015). While environmental knowledge can sometimes help consumers identify deceptive textual claims (e.g. Neureiter and Matthes, 2023), it may be insufficient for detecting executional greenwashing (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015). Building on this, we argue that consumers are better able to detect greenwashing when they engage in critical processing of the entire marketing message, including the environmental information presented. For instance, in the case of compensation claims, consumers may recognize that the offsets promoted by an airline constitute a form of greenwashing. Such detection, however, requires deliberate cognitive effort. Executional greenwashing may distract viewers from processing the textual information. This, however, has never been tested in extant research.
Thus, based on the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), we examined consumers’ information processing of compensation claims, including executional greenwashing. The few studies that have investigated consumers’ perceptions of greenwashing in claims, including executional greenwashing, have relied on self-reports that may be biased (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). By combining quota-based eye-tracking data with survey data, this study accounted for consumers’ actual viewing behavior of greenwashed ads. Moreover, this study investigated the potential of greenwashing literacy to contribute to a more sustainable future by combating “greenwashing’s negative effects on public perceptions and behaviors” (Eng et al., 2021, p. 1601). Prior studies that examined greenwashing literacy have focused on (explicit) textual greenwashing claims (e.g. Fernandes et al., 2020). However, this study aims to expand our knowledge of the effectiveness of greenwashing literacy interventions in recognizing greenwashing in implicit claims that use nature imagery (i.e. executive greenwashing).
Greenwashing claims: types and effects
Companies in various sectors promote a wide range of products and services as environmentally friendly, advertise an environmentally conscious lifestyle or a sustainable corporate image (e.g. Pittman et al., 2021b). However, some of these green ads contain greenwashing claims and are, thus, misleading (e.g. Baum, 2012). Kangun et al. (1991) defined three greenwashing claims: vague claims that are ambiguous in meaning, false claims that include a lie and omission claims that neglect important information consumers need to understand the claim. In addition, companies often use nature imagery in their ads to create a positive association between their brands, products or services and nature. Kwon et al. (2023) noted that the majority of green ads include a “green look-and-feel” (p. 11). They use earth colors, symbols related to nature or imagery of landscapes, plants and trees (Kwon et al., 2023). However, companies often (mis)use this positive association with nature, even when the company, its products, or services are completely unrelated to nature. For instance, they visually emphasize their green messages by showing untouched forests, beaches, or oceans when in reality, there is no benefit of the company, products, or services to the environment (e.g. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Supran and Hickey, 2022). This practice is called executional greenwashing (e.g. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009; Parguel et al., 2015).
From a visual semiotics perspective (e.g. Adamus-Matuszyńska et al., 2021; Kassinis and Panayiotou, 2017), executional greenwashing exerts its power by using signs and symbols that carry culturally shared meanings of “environmentally friendly” images of forests, mountain lakes, and oceans, which are signifiers that automatically evoke associations with purity and environmental health. Importantly, executional greenwashing does not need any factual claims.
Further, studies have shown that consumers observe and assess green corporations’ actions, offerings and communication precisely (e.g. Ramirez et al., 2024). For instance, consumers tend to have no problems recognizing false textual claims as greenwashing compared with vague textual claims or executional greenwashing by supposedly green companies (e.g. Schmuck et al., 2018). In addition, environmental knowledge helps consumers to detect greenwashing in false textual claims and executional greenwashing (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). Consumers’ perceptions of greenwashing are detrimental for companies: several studies showed that detecting greenwashing results in negative evaluations of ads and brands as well as decreased purchase intentions (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). Also, perceptions of greenwashing can undermine consumer trust (see Sharma, 2021). Trust is a central dimension of consumer-brand relationships because trust is needed in light of risk. That is, in the context of environmental claims, consumers cannot know if the information reported in a campaign is correct. They must rely on the information that is provided. Yet when there are inconsistencies between the provided information and a company’s actual actions, trust erodes. In fact, once eroded, trust may be difficult to rebuild. Moreover, regaining consumers’ trust after greenwashing is perceived as effortful for corporations, as they must employ emotional, functional and legitimate strategies to address consumer loyalty (e.g. Wang et al., 2020).
Executional greenwashing can also be conceptualized from a cultural perspective (Crane, 1997). The images and visuals are interpreted within a specific cultural context. In some cultures, images of forests, rivers and mountains are clearly associated with sustainability. Yet in other regions, such images may also evoke spirituality. This means that executional greenwashing needs to be interpreted in the context of shared cultural codes, yet these may differ across markets (Yang et al., 2015).
Airlines’ compensation claims and the use of nature imagery
Airlines advertise with compensation claims to create an image that they are environmentally friendly (e.g. Guix et al., 2022). In such ads, airlines promote environmental measures such as planting forests, supporting environmental projects, or funding environmental research to offset the environmental impact of each flight (e.g. Air New Zealand, 2023; KLM, 2019). However, Guix et al. (2022) showed that the majority of the analyzed airline ads offering environmental compensation were misleading. In line with this, Polonsky et al. (2010) referred to compensation claims as “the new greenwash” because environmental compensation measures are “complex arrangements” for which consumers need much more information to understand their actual environmental benefits (Polonsky et al., 2010, p. 49). Thus, based on the categorization by Kangun et al. (1991), we refer to compensation claims as greenwashing claims, omitting important information (i.e. omission claims; see above).
In airline ads, textual claims are often combined with nature imagery (e.g. Supran and Hickey, 2022). For instance, besides textual compensation claims, images of forests are used to highlight that their environmental compensation measures are environmentally friendly and beneficial to nature (e.g. KLM, 2019). Thus, typical supposedly green ads include the main textual claim promoting compensation, an additional informational text box and nature imagery (e.g. Fernandes et al., 2020). Since important information is omitted in compensation claims, the informational text box does not provide sufficient information to help consumers understand the actual extent of the environmental benefit of the promoted environmental compensation measure (or the lack thereof). Instead, in the additional informational text box, the main claim is often repeated in other words.
Theoretical framework
The ELM (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) is used as an overarching framework. The ELM – commonly used in advertising and marketing studies (e.g. Srivastava and Saini, 2022) – suggests two routes of information processing: The central and the peripheral. The former route of information processing represents a systematic and thoughtful elaboration of information with “minimal emotional involvement processing messages” (Morris et al., 2005, p. 84). In contrast, the latter route is characterized by superficial, heuristic information elaboration. Here, the focus is on peripheral cues in persuasive messages, such as visuals and emotions. Research has shown that while negative emotions increase central information processing, positive emotions lead to peripheral information processing (see Morris et al., 2005). Moreover, according to the Affect-Reason-Involvement Model (ARI; Buck et al., 2004), affective mechanisms can override rational cognitive information processing mechanisms (e.g. Schmuck et al., 2018).
The influence of executional greenwashing
Due to social environmental movements that resulted in “flight shame,” journalistic coverage, and environmental protests, the environmentally harmful impact of flying is well known, at least in Europe (e.g. Gössling et al., 2020). Following this logic, advertising that portrays airlines and flying as environmentally harmless or beneficial might be perceived by consumers as surprising, unexpected, and not in line with existing schema (e.g. Homer and Kahle, 1986). According to the Schema Incongruity Theory (e.g. Mandler, 1982), this might result in systematic, effortful processing of the ads. Since greenwashing is more likely to be recognized when ads are processed critically along the central route of the ELM (e.g. Schmuck et al., 2018), the likelihood that consumers will detect greenwashing in these claims increases (e.g. Neureiter and Matthes, 2023).
However, prior studies have shown that pleasant emotions evoked by nature imagery in ads are highly persuasive. Nature imagery not only led to positive emotional states but also to positive attitudes toward the ad and the advertised brand or company (e.g. Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez, 2009). From an evolutionary perspective, positive emotions are associated with heuristic and superficial information processing, characterized by “little attention to detail,” following the peripheral route of the ELM (Nabi, 1999, p. 302). In addition, positive emotions can override rational information processing. For instance, Schmuck et al. (2018) demonstrated that nature imagery in ads that evoked pleasant emotions set aside consumers’ rational perceptions of greenwashing in false claims. Thus, nature imagery accompanied by positive emotion distracted consumers from perceiving greenwashing (Schmuck et al., 2018).
In contrast to negative emotions, prior studies have shown that positive emotions function as signals for security. When positive emotions are prevalent, there is no need to avoid threats. Thus, only a minimum of cognitive resources is invested in information processing (e.g. Nabi, 1999). In line with this, eye-tracking studies have shown that words with positive valence elicited fewer fixations than those with negative valence (e.g. Ferreira et al., 2011). In addition, green ads with positive valence reduced individuals’ total fixation duration compared to ads with negative valence (Gomez-Carmona et al., 2021). Thus, we argue that the positive affective processes evoked by nature imagery distract individuals from processing the ad systematically along the central route of the ELM. This may suppress perceptions of greenwashing. Hence, we derive our first hypothesis:
Executional greenwashing ads lead to a) a shorter fixation duration of the informational text box, b) a lower number of fixations on the informational text box, and c) less perception of greenwashing in comparison to non-executional greenwashing ads.
The influence of greenwashing literacy
In light of the frequent use of greenwashing claims in advertising (e.g. Kwon et al., 2023), advertising literacy has become increasingly important (e.g. Reichert et al., 2007). Advertising literacy is “part of the individual’s personal, practical ability to understand commercial messages and media phenomena” (Malmelin, 2010, p. 139).
Although there is evidence that literacy interventions help protect individuals from the “harmful effects of mass media” (Jeong et al., 2012, p. 464; Reichert et al., 2007), only a few researchers have examined the influence of specific greenwashing literacy that may help consumers gain “the ability to recognize differences between acceptable and deceptive environmental claims” (Fernandes et al., 2020, p. 1121; Eng et al., 2021; Naderer and Opree, 2021). For instance, Fernandes et al. (2020) demonstrated that a literacy intervention improved consumers’ ability to detect greenwashing in misleading environmental advertising claims.
However, prior studies lack a conceptualization of greenwashing literacy grounded in theory. Instead, greenwashing literacy is only vaguely described as “knowledge on how to effectively evaluate” greenwashing claims (Fernandes et al., 2020, p. 1140) or “educational strategies (formal and/or informal) that can empower consumers to recognize and think critically about greenwashing messages” (Eng et al., 2021, p. 1601). To conceptualize greenwashing literacy, we draw on the Persuasion Knowledge Model (PKM; Friestad and Wright, 1994). According to the PKM, knowledge about the topic, the agent and persuasion strategies helps consumers to become aware of persuasion attempts. Thus, we conceptualize greenwashing literacy as a combination of environmental knowledge, knowledge about airlines and knowledge of persuasive tactics used in green advertising and greenwashing strategies.
Since knowledge increases the likelihood that consumers process information via the central route of the ELM, we argue that greenwashing literacy – teaching consumers specific knowledge about compensation ads – leads to systematic processing of the whole ad. However, since the informational text box does not provide further information on the environmental benefits of the measures, we argue that consumers recognize the omission and, as a result, detect greenwashing. Following this logic, we propose our second hypothesis:
Greenwashing literacy leads to a) a longer fixation duration of the informational text box, b) more fixations on the informational text box, and c) more perceptions of greenwashing than no greenwashing literacy.
Executional greenwashing and greenwashing literacy
Although no prior studies have investigated the effects of greenwashing literacy on consumers’ information processing of ads, including executional greenwashing, there is evidence that educational interventions can help consumers protect themselves against its effects. In fact, Parguel et al. (2015) demonstrated that while executional greenwashing increased consumers’ perception that the advertising company is environmentally friendly, a traffic-light label indicating the advertised product’s carbon emissions nullified this effect. Based on their findings, the authors concluded that educational interventions could “counterbalance the executional greenwashing effect” (Parguel et al., 2015, p. 123).
Thus, by making consumers aware of the persuasive effects of nature imagery in airline ads, greenwashing literacy might reduce the distraction effects of executional greenwashing. Instead, a higher involvement (e.g. Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) might increase systematic information processing and perceptions of greenwashing. Hence, we assume:
The effect of executional greenwashing described in H1 a), b), and c) is decreased with increasing levels of greenwashing literacy.
Method
We conducted a 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment using eye-tracking and survey data. We manipulated executional greenwashing and greenwashing literacy. For eye-tracking and stimulus presentation, we used the EyeLogic LogicOne 120 Hz remote eye tracker and the SensoMotoric Instruments (SMI) Experiment Center (Version 3.7.69). Event detection (i.e. fixations, saccades) and definition of areas of interest (AOIs) for our stimulus material were made with the help of the BeGaze software (dispersion-based algorithm of SMI; Version 3.7.60).
Data collection took place between October 2022 and January 2023 in Austria. To recruit a representative sample, we employed various recruiting strategies across five locations, including shopping malls or the university lab located at the Department of Communication at the University of Vienna. Data collection always took place next to the recruitment location in a separate, quiet room that could be darkened. Participants were financially compensated for their time. They each received 20 euros in cash or half of the money and a 10-euro voucher for a restaurant located near the data collection site.
Before data collection, the Institutional Review Board of the Department of Communication at the University of Vienna ethically approved our study (ID: 20220811_042). The experiment was part of a larger project with another study addressing an unrelated topic.
Procedure
All participants were tested in separate sessions by one of five investigators, all female, of similar age and ethnicity. The investigator seated the participant at a computer (Lenovo ThinkPad; 11th Gen Intel(R) Core, TM, 2.80 GHz, 16.0GB RAM; Windows 10 Pro, Version 22H2) with a 22-inch iiyama ProLite monitor (resolution: 1920×1080). Participants were guided through the experiment using standardized instructions structured around an online survey. After answering survey questions regarding the control variables, participants were randomly assigned to either the greenwashing literacy condition (n = 86) or the control condition (n = 89). In both conditions, participants watched a 4-minute YouTube video (see Stimuli below). For the following part of the experiment, the investigator initiated the eye-tracking measurement and performed a five-point calibration test with each participant. Then, participants were randomly assigned to either the executional greenwashing condition (n = 88) or the control condition (n = 87). In both conditions, participants saw eight ads for non-existent airlines, including environmental compensation claims, in a random order (see Stimuli below). Participants decided when they wanted to move on to the next ad themselves. After exposure to the ads, manipulation checks and measures of perceived greenwashing were administered. Finally, we debriefed participants, thanked them for participating in our experiment, and compensated them for their time (see above).
Participants
In total, 201 subjects participated. Two participants had not completed our experiment and were, thus, excluded from our final sample. Due to technical issues (e.g. the eye-tracker slipped, problems with the presentation of experimental stimuli, calibration issues, etc.), we excluded seventeen subjects (n = 17). In addition, we excluded five subjects due to data quality issues (e.g. fake eyelashes, visual impairments, thick glasses; n = 5). Our final sample consisted of 175 participants (Mage = 35.70, SDage = 13.02, minage = 18, maxage = 82; 52.6% female) with diverse educational backgrounds. Educational attainment was categorized as three levels based on the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED; UNESCO, 2012) adapted to Austria: low education (ISCED 0–2; e.g. no formal degree or only compulsory education; 12%), intermediate education (ISCED 3–4; e.g. upper secondary education including apprenticeship, vocational school or high school; 65.7%), and high education (ISCED 5–8; e.g. tertiary education such as a university degree; 22.3%).
Stimuli
To manipulate greenwashing literacy, participants watched our 4-minute informative YouTube video embedded in the online survey (e.g. Reichert et al., 2007). In the video, the lead author explains (1) persuasion strategies used in supposedly green advertising, including omission claims and executional greenwashing, (2) information about airlines and the environmental harm done by them and (3) environmental information about compensation measures. Participants in the control condition saw a similar informative video. However, it addressed an unrelated topic: why it is important to drink enough water. We kept the videos the same except for the content, ceteris paribus.
Further, we created eight ads for different fictional airlines. The ads included textual compensation claims that suggested neutralizing the environmental harm done by flying with compensation measures such as planting trees, supporting environmental projects or financing environmental research. Inspired by existing ads, besides the main claim, we included an additional text box (3–5 lines of additional information) at the bottom of each ad, repeating the main claim in other words. To manipulate executional greenwashing, the ads shown in the executional greenwashing condition featured pleasant nature imagery (e.g. wood, oceans, beaches). In the control condition, the ads included images of urban areas (e.g. city lines, buildings). Except for the background images, we kept the textual claims, fonts, logos, and overall design the same in both conditions.
We have chosen airline ads as our stimuli because supposedly green airline ads are (a) externally valid stimuli, as airlines regularly engage in “green” offsetting claims with nature imagery (e.g. Air New Zealand, 2023), and (b) an excellent example of greenwashing because, after all, sustainable flying is scientifically not possible, at least until now (e.g. Neureiter et al., 2024; Polonsky et al., 2010).
For stimulus material, please see Figure A1 and Figure A2 in the Supplementary material under the OSF: Link to a PDF of the cited article..
Measures
Eye fixations are described as “a period during which the eye is relatively stable” (Hvelplund, 2014, p. 212). Fixations are not only assumed to indicate individuals’ cognitive processing (e.g. Duchowski, 2007), but their frequency and duration are also assumed to provide insights into the depth of information processing (e.g. Rayner, 1998).
We defined the informational text boxes at the bottom of our ads as areas of interest (AOIs). Besides one ad with two AOIs at the bottom, all others had only one. We used fixation count and fixation duration within our AOIs as implicit indicators of the depth of information processing of the information depicted in the informational text boxes (e.g. King et al., 2019). While right- and left-eye movements were recorded, we used only right-eye movements for statistical analysis. This is a common procedure in eye tracking research.
For fixation count, we summed up all fixations per participant within the AOI(s) of each ad (overall ad1-ad8: M = 28.91, SD = 20.77).
For fixation duration, we built a sum of the durations of all fixations within the AOI(s) of each ad in ms (overall ad1-ad8: M = 7201.42, SD = 6073.59). For every ad, some participants (9 ≥ n ≤ 27) never fixated on our AOI(s). For these participants, we set zero for each ad.
To measure perceived greenwashing, we used five items inspired by Chang (2013) and Schmuck et al. (2018). After participants saw all eight ads, we asked them to indicate how strongly they agree to the items ranging from 1 – “does not apply at all” to 7 – “fully applies,” e.g. “The airline ads portray airlines as more beneficial to the environment than they are” (M = 5.28, SD = 1.40; Cronbach’s α = 0.82; McDonald’s Ω = 0.81).
Besides age and gender (dummy-coded) and education (dummy-coded), we controlled for environmental concern and flight frequency. We measured environmental concern with the three items adapted from Schuhwerk and Lefkoff-Hagius (1995) ranging from 1 – “do not agree at all” to 7 – “totally agree”: e.g. “I am willing to make great sacrifices to protect the environment” (M = 4.57, SD = 1.45; Cronbach’s α = 0.79; McDonald’s Ω = 0.80). Finally, we measured flight frequency with one item asking participants how often they fly by air on average (COVID-19 lockdown times excluded) ranging from 1 – “less than once a year” to 5 – “more often than once a month” (M = 2.13, SD = 1.06).
For all items used and more details on measures, please see Table A1 in the Supplementary material.
Randomization and manipulation check
As a manipulation check, we asked all participants five single-choice questions about facts presented in the greenwashing literacy video. We created a greenwashing literacy index by adding up the correct answers (M = 2.30, SD = 1.54). A t-test for independent samples showed that participants exposed to the greenwashing literacy video answered more questions about facts correctly (n = 86; M = 3.45, SD = 1.18) than participants exposed to a video about the importance of staying hydrated (n = 89; M = 1.19, SD = 0.88; t(156.51) = −14.32, p < 0.001).
After exposure to the ads, we asked participants whether the ads they had just seen included images of nature and environment (i.e. meadows, forests, etc.; M = 5.03, SD = 2.43). In the executional greenwashing condition, participants indicated that the ads included images of nature and environment to a greater extent (n = 88; M = 6.92, SD = 0.35) than participants in the control group (n = 87; M = 3.13, SD = 2.13; t(90.50) = −16.41, p < 0.001). In addition, a one-way between-subjects ANOVA showed that participants in the executional greenwashing condition reported stronger positive emotional experiences related to nature (M = 5.06, SD = 1.88) than those in the control condition (M = 2.75, SD = 1.79; F(1, 164) = 67.39, p < 0.001).
A randomization check revealed that there were no significant differences between the executional greenwashing condition and the control condition regarding age (t(173) = −1.34, p = 0.182), environmental concern (t(173) = −0.07, p = 0.941), flight frequency (t(173) = −1.85, p = 0.066), gender (χ2(2) = 0.15, p = 0.928) and education (χ2(5) = 2.81, p = 0.729). Moreover, there was no significant difference between the greenwashing literacy condition and the control condition with regard to age (t(173) = −0.12, p = 0.903), environmental concern (t(173) = −0.47, p = 0.639), flight frequency (t(173) = 1.40, p = 0.164), gender (χ2(2) = 2.95, p = 0.229) and education (χ2(5) = 3.61, p = 0.607).
Statistical model
We used the dplyr package in R (Wickham et al., 2023). For statistical analyses, we used SPSS Statistics (IBM Corp, 2020). For the merged data set, please see the Supplementary material.
To test H1a) and b), H2a) and b) and H3a) and b), we conducted two ANOVAs with repeated measures. While we treated executional greenwashing and greenwashing literacy as between-subjects factors, we treated the ads as a within-subjects factor. In Model 1, we used the fixation count measured for each ad separately as the dependent variable. In Model 2, we added fixation duration as a dependent variable for each ad. Finally, we conducted an additional ANOVA to test H1c), H2c) and H3c). While we added greenwashing literacy and executional greenwashing as independent variables, we treated perceived greenwashing – measured over all eight ads – as a dependent variable. We treated age, gender, education, environmental concern and flight frequency as control variables.
Results
Neither of the between-subjects factors had an effect on fixation count, nor on fixation duration: Executional greenwashing had no effect on the fixation count (F(1, 164) = 0.22, p = 0.639) or fixation duration within the informational text box depicted in the ads (F(1, 164) = 0.32, p = 0.571). Moreover, greenwashing literacy did not affect the fixation count (F(1, 164) = 1.02, p = 0.314) nor the fixation duration within the informational text box (F(1, 164) = 0.55, p = 0.459). Thus, neither H1a) nor H1b), nor H2a) nor H2b) were supported.
Furthermore, there was no interaction effect of executional greenwashing and greenwashing literacy on fixation count (F(1, 164) = 1.54, p = 0.216) and fixation duration (F(1, 164) = 1.32, p = 0.252). Hence, H3a) and H3b) were not supported.
Further, statistical analyses showed that low education (F(1, 164) = 8.10, p = 0.005, η2 = 0.05), intermediate education (F(1, 164) = 10.78, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.06) and age (F(1, 164) = 5.69, p = 0.018, η2 = 0.03) had a positive effect on fixation count. Moreover, female gender (F(1, 164) = 4.73, p = 0.031, η2 = 0.03), medium education (F(1, 164) = 8.69, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.05) and age (F(1, 164) = 3.91, p = 0.050, η2 = 0.02) positively influenced fixation duration.
In addition, we found a main effect of the within-subjects-factor ads on fixation count (F(5.71, 976.23) = 50.99, p < 0.001) and fixation duration (F(5.81, 991.25) = 37.87, p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons indicated that the informational text boxes of some ads were fixated on more often and for longer periods than those of other ads. For instance, fixation counts were higher (MDad1 = 1.59, p = 0.180; MDad2 = 4.19, p < 0.001; MDad3 = 11.59, p < 0.001; MDad4 = 12.64, p < 0.001; MDad5 = 12.28, p < 0.001; MDad6 = 12.64, p < 0.001; MDad7 = 7.49, p < 0.001) and fixation durations were longer (M = 7038.65, SD = 5783.70; MDad1 = 518.72, p = 0.092; MDad2 = 1790.89, p < 0.001; MDad3 = 2658.93, p < 0.001; MDad4 = 3136.92, p < 0.001; MDad5 = 3008.60, p < 0.001; MDad6 = 3391.49, p < 0.001; MDad7 = 2447.17, p < 0.001) for ad number eight than all of the other ads, but ad number one. However, since we found no within-subjects interaction effects, the main effect can be neglected for interpretation.
Interestingly, results indicated that greenwashing literacy had a positive effect on perceived greenwashing (F(1, 164) = 5.17, p = 0.024, η2 = 0.03). Moreover, executional greenwashing increased perceptions of greenwashing (F(1, 164) = 9.22, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.05). However, there was no interaction between greenwashing literacy and executional greenwashing (F(1, 164) = 0.001, p = 0.970). Thus, H1c) and H2c) were supported; however, H3c) cannot be supported.
For a visualization of the main between-subjects effects, please see Figure 1. For detailed results, please see Tables 1–3.
The horizontal axis compares greenwashing literacy with no greenwashing literacy. The vertical axis plots perceived greenwashing from 1 to 7 in increments of 1. The executional greenwashing line decreases from about 5.8 for greenwashing literacy to about 5.4 for no greenwashing literacy. The executional greenwashing control line decreases from about 5.2 for greenwashing literacy to about 4.7 for no greenwashing literacy. The executional greenwashing condition remains about 0.6 to 0.7 points above the control condition across both literacy categories.Main effects of greenwashing literacy and executional greenwashing on perceived greenwashing
Source: Authors’ own work
The horizontal axis compares greenwashing literacy with no greenwashing literacy. The vertical axis plots perceived greenwashing from 1 to 7 in increments of 1. The executional greenwashing line decreases from about 5.8 for greenwashing literacy to about 5.4 for no greenwashing literacy. The executional greenwashing control line decreases from about 5.2 for greenwashing literacy to about 4.7 for no greenwashing literacy. The executional greenwashing condition remains about 0.6 to 0.7 points above the control condition across both literacy categories.Main effects of greenwashing literacy and executional greenwashing on perceived greenwashing
Source: Authors’ own work
Results of model 1: ANOVA with repeated measures
| Fixation duration | df | Mean square | F | p | Partial eta2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between-subjects effect | |||||
| Executional greenwashing | 1 | 40313608.7 | 0.32 | 0.571 | 0.002 |
| Greenwashing literacy | 1 | 68692869.4 | 0.55 | 0.459 | 0.003 |
| Executional greenwashing × greenwashing literacy | 1 | 164897367 | 1.32 | 0.252 | 0.008 |
| Age | 1 | 487880423 | 3.91 | 0.050 | 0.023 |
| Female | 1 | 590444365 | 4.73 | 0.031 | 0.028 |
| Diverse | 1 | 15073435.7 | 0.12 | 0.729 | 0.001 |
| Low education | 1 | 424665278 | 3.40 | 0.067 | 0.020 |
| Intermediate education | 1 | 1.084E + 9 | 8.69 | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Environmental concern | 1 | 197576026 | 1.58 | 0.210 | 0.010 |
| Flying frequency | 1 | 285790360 | 2.29 | 0.132 | 0.014 |
| Error | 164 | 124785413 | |||
| Between-subjects effect | |||||
| Ads | 5.81 | 332105357 | 37.87 | < 0.001 | 0.181 |
| Ads × executional greenwashing | 5.81 | 6147294.76 | 0.70 | 0.644 | 0.004 |
| Ads × greenwashing literacy | 5.81 | 11623513.6 | 1.33 | 0.244 | 0.008 |
| Ads × executional greenwashing × greenwashing literacy | 5.81 | 6072461.84 | 0.69 | 0.659 | 0.004 |
| Error (ads) | 991.25 | 8769261.93 | |||
Results of model 2: ANOVA with repeated measures
| Fixation count | df | Mean square | F | p | Partial eta2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between-subjects effect | |||||
| Executional greenwashing | 1 | 305.62 | 0.22 | 0.639 | 0.001 |
| Greenwashing literacy | 1 | 1407.43 | 1.02 | 0.314 | 0.006 |
| Executional greenwashing × greenwashing literacy | 1 | 2130.29 | 1.54 | 0.216 | 0.009 |
| Age | 1 | 7867.83 | 5.69 | 0.018 | 0.034 |
| Female | 1 | 4889.29 | 3.54 | 0.062 | 0.021 |
| Diverse | 1 | 146.67 | 0.11 | 0.745 | 0.001 |
| Low education | 1 | 11192.21 | 8.10 | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Intermediate education | 1 | 14901.45 | 10.78 | 0.001 | 0.062 |
| Environmental concern | 1 | 1835.75 | 1.33 | 0.251 | 0.008 |
| Flying frequency | 1 | 4424.55 | 3.20 | 0.075 | 0.019 |
| Error | 164 | 1381.83 | |||
| Between-subjects effect | |||||
| Ads | 5.71 | 5941.26 | 50.99 | < 0.001 | 0.230 |
| Ads × executional greenwashing | 5.71 | 78.77 | 0.68 | 0.662 | 0.004 |
| Ads × greenwashing literacy | 5.71 | 93.01 | 0.81 | 0.566 | 0.005 |
| Ads × executional greenwashing × greenwashing literacy | 5.71 | 51.24 | 0.44 | 0.844 | 0.003 |
| Error (ads) | 976.23 | 116.51 | |||
Results of model 3: ANOVA
| Perceived greenwashing | df | Mean square | F | p | Partial eta2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Between-subjects effect | |||||
| Executional greenwashing | 1 | 16.77 | 9.22 | 0.003 | 0.053 |
| Greenwashing literacy | 1 | 9.40 | 5.17 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Executional greenwashing × greenwashing literacy | 1 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.970 | 0.000 |
| Age | 1 | 1.25 | 0.69 | 0.409 | 0.011 |
| Female | 1 | 1.93 | 1.06 | 0.304 | 0.006 |
| Diverse | 1 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.920 | 0.000 |
| Low education | 1 | 5.27 | 2.91 | 0.091 | 0.017 |
| Intermediate education | 1 | 2.20 | 1.21 | 0.273 | 0.007 |
| Environmental concern | 1 | 3.46 | 1.90 | 0.170 | 0.011 |
| Flying frequency | 1 | 0.51 | 0.27 | 0.602 | 0.002 |
| Error | 164 | 1.82 | |||
| Total | 175 | ||||
Discussion
Drawing on previous research on the role of emotions in information processing (e.g. Buck et al., 2004; Nabi, 1999), we examined whether persuasive pleasant-nature imagery – triggering positive emotions – distracts consumers from critically processing the entire ad, including informational text boxes, and affects perceptions of greenwashing. Unexpectedly, the findings indicated no difference between compensation ads featuring nature imagery and those featuring urban pictures in terms of consumers’ attention to the informational text box depicted in the ads. Consumers neither fixated on the informational text boxes less often, nor did they fixate on the boxes for shorter periods when nature imagery was included. Since prior research suggested that attention might be scattered in the presence of images that generate positive emotions, this finding is unexpected. Generally, positive emotions signal that everything is all right, and thus, do not require cognitive resources to be directed toward the information (e.g. Ferreira et al., 2011; Gomez-Carmona et al., 2021). Although most studies show that positive emotions are perceived as cues for peripheral processing (e.g. Morris et al., 2005; Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), there is also evidence that nature imagery in ads increased consumers’ systematic elaboration of the ad (Hartmann et al., 2013). In more detail, Hartmann et al. (2013) found that when consumers were exposed to ads featuring nature imagery, they fixated on the text depicted in the ads more often and for longer than when exposed to ads featuring urban scenery. However, unlike in our study design, the textual claims were not green advertising claims. Thus, we argue that consumers may have perceived an incongruity between the textual claim and the nature imagery. Thus, not the presence of nature imagery, but the incongruence between the textual claim and the imagery could have led to greater attention to it (e.g. Mandler, 1982).
Yet, most interestingly, we found that compensation claims in combination with executional greenwashing led to more explicit perceptions of greenwashing. This finding suggests that, in the case of airline ads, nature imagery does not distract consumers from perceiving greenwashing, as originally assumed. On the contrary, it seems that nature imagery makes it even easier for consumers to assess compensation claims as greenwashing. This can possibly be explained by perceptions of incongruence between environmentally harmful airlines and supposedly green ads (e.g. Mandler, 1982). In the case of airline ads that combine compensation claims and executional greenwashing, incongruence might be perceived even more strongly. To conclude, the persuasive effects of pleasant nature imagery observed in other studies do not appear to apply to airline ads (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015).
Moreover, based on the PKM (Friestad and Wright, 1994) and the ELM (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986), we tested the effect of a greenwashing literacy intervention on the depth of consumers’ information processing of compensation claims and their perceptions of greenwashing. Contrary to our assumptions, findings showed that greenwashing literacy did not affect consumers’ gaze behavior within the informational text box. This contradicts theoretical assumptions (e.g. Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) by suggesting that involvement with the topic of the ads, built by greenwashing literacy, did not increase the elaboration likelihood of the ad. However, perceptions of greenwashing increased with the greenwashing literacy intervention. This finding could be explained by the design of our greenwashing literacy intervention. It included topic knowledge, awareness that the environmental benefits of compensation measures are uncertain; agent knowledge, including knowledge about the environmental harm caused by airlines; and persuasion knowledge, including facts about greenwashing strategies. It was tuned to the ads shown afterward and thus might have functioned as a primer. Since consumers are cognitive misers (e.g. Simon, 1956), they might have used cues from the literacy intervention to detect greenwashing in airline ads. It might be that consumers relied on the greenwashing literacy intervention to detect compensation claims of airlines as greenwashing without having a closer look at the ads.
Finally, we assumed that the distraction effect of executional greenwashing is reduced as greenwashing literacy increases. Contrary to our assumptions, consumers did not fixate on the informational text box in executional ads more often or longer when they received a greenwashing literacy intervention. Further, they did not report greater greenwashing perceptions for executional ads than for non-executional ads after a greenwashing literacy intervention. This suggests that once greenwashing is perceived through a literacy intervention, it does not matter whether it is present (due to perceived incongruency or compensation claims omitting information) or omnipresent (due to executional greenwashing on top).
Limitations and future research
A number of limitations need to be addressed. First, we only examined ads from airlines – an inherently environmentally unfriendly industry. However, due to rising societal awareness that airlines are environmentally unfriendly (e.g. Gössling et al., 2020), the environmental harm caused by airlines could be more obvious than that of other companies that are less carbon-intensive (e.g. Mandler, 1982). Therefore, the findings could differ for other companies using compensation ads. Future research is needed to determine whether individuals have greater difficulty perceiving greenwashing in ads for products, brands or services whose environmental harm is less well-known.
Second, the current study is limited by the absence of control groups that were shown no pictures or no green ads. Future research should include a control group, including neutral pictures instead of pleasant urban imagery. Moreover, a control group without any green ads is important for drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of the literacy intervention in recognizing greenwashing in everyday contexts where individuals are exposed to a wide range of ads, not just supposedly green ones.
Third, the pleasant nature imagery might not have evoked strong enough positive emotions to influence consumers’ motivation to process information along the central route of the ELM (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986). It could be that, in the context of airline ads associated with tourism and vacation, pictures were automatically perceived as artificially preserved by humans as tourist destinations and thus might not have evoked pleasant nature emotions. Future studies should measure positive emotions in the form of virtual nature experiences. Finally, we not only showed participants the ads in an artificial setting that differed from everyday exposure to future research should increase external validity by exposing participants to ads in a dynamic media context, in a more natural setting (see Schnauber-Stockmann et al., 2025), and by using professional ads.
Implications
This study holds conclusions for consumers’ detection of greenwashing in ads. However, as we tested the effects of airline ads, the implications are first and foremost formulated for them. For other sectors – not that inherently environmentally unfriendly as the airline sector – the findings should be interpreted with caution, as the implications may differ due to sector- and business-specific factors.
Our findings show that regardless of exposure to a greenwashing literacy intervention, participants could detect greenwashing in airlines’ executional greenwashing claims. Prior research, not airline-specific, has shown that consumers have difficulty with greenwashing ads that include nature imagery and that they are distracted by pleasant emotions associated with nature imagery (e.g. Parguel et al., 2015; Schmuck et al., 2018). However, in the case of airline ads, consumers tend to easily recognize that ads including compensation claims combined with nature imagery are greenwashed. Moreover, in line with prior research (e.g. Fernandes et al., 2020), greenwashing literacy interventions can empower consumers to label airlines’ compensation claims as greenwashing.
Moreover, broadly speaking, the findings of this study imply that companies should be careful when using nature imagery in their green ads. Since this study showed that participants detect more greenwashing in ads featuring nature imagery, companies should consider whether nature imagery fits their advertisements. Inherently environmentally unfriendly companies, such as airlines, where the incongruence between the company and the eco-image is obvious, should refrain from using nature imagery to avoid the adverse effects of perceived greenwashing.
Further, the findings can be used to improve greenwashing literacy interventions. In addition to knowledge about persuasion, agent and topic (e.g. Friestad and Wright, 1994), they should also attend to critical information-processing skills that motivate consumers to invest cognitive effort in ads to perceive greenwashing. To achieve this, greenwashing literacy interventions should be designed in a compelling, engaging way. As (online) advertising is a very dynamic field with quickly changing trends, traditional on-site literacy interventions might be too inflexible and rigid to address new green(washing) trends in advertising in a timely manner. Thus, online literacy courses disseminated on social media platforms reaching young consumers are recommended. Since any literacy intervention requires user attention and motivation, quiz-based interactive elements and gamification should be implemented to keep users engaged, potentially leading to long-term effects (e.g. Naderer and Opree, 2021). Further, literacy interventions should be implemented at the time of exposure. For instance, Fernandes et al. (2020) suggest developing an online greenwashing mobile app to help consumers, at the point of purchase, make more critically informed decisions in real time. In the same vein, greenwashing literacy interventions (in the form of prompts, labels, or warnings) should be implemented on social media platforms “just-in-time” when users see supposedly green ads or (paid) content from greenfluencers. In addition, greenfluencers on social media could be used to communicate how to critically evaluate supposedly green ads and detect greenwashing.
In terms of actionable marketing advice, our findings support the following three points: First, marketers should avoid executional greenwashing. Airlines and other high-emission industries should refrain from pairing “green visuals” with compensation messages, as consumers may easily detect this. Still, positive nature imagery may work in categories naturally linked to sustainability (e.g. organic food), but not for sectors perceived as environmentally harmful. Industry context may be key. Second, instead of symbolic imagery, marketers should use clear, concrete and verifiable information (e.g. specific data on CO2-reduction measures and third-party certifications). This may reduce potentially harmful perceptions of greenwashing. Third, marketers should be aware of the level of greenwashing literacy in their target audience. With rising awareness driven by media reports and NGO campaigns, public literacy in greenwashing may grow further. Marketers should anticipate that audiences become better equipped to spot misleading tactics.
Conclusion
The findings of this study offer a mixed picture. On the positive side, consumers appear capable of detecting greenwashing in compensation claims that use executional greenwashing – at least in ads from inherently environmentally unfriendly companies, such as airlines. Moreover, greenwashing literacy interventions strengthen their ability to recognize such deceptive practices. However, consumers did not adjust their gaze behavior toward compensation ads as strongly as expected when confronted with greenwashing. While their visual attention was not distracted by nature imagery, they also did not process compensation ads more systematically or critically after receiving a greenwashing literacy intervention.
This study was supported by the Vienna Doctoral School of Social Sciences and the Advertising Research Fund of the DGPuK (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Publizistik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft), Advertising Communication Division (Fachgruppe Werbekommunikation). The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The authors hereby confirm that this work is original and that the article is not currently being considered for publication by any other journal [1].
Note
We measured positive emotional experiences related to nature with the following three items derived from Hartmann and Apaolaza-Ibáñez (2009) and Schmuck et al. (2018) on a scale ranging from 1 – “do not agree at all” to 7 – “totally agree”: “The flight advertisements create the feeling that I am close to nature”; “The flight advertisements make me think of nature, fields, forests and mountains”; “The flight advertisements evoke the feeling of being in nature”.
References
Supplementary material
The supplementary material for this article can be found online.
