Impacting Emotions for Pro-environmental Consumption: Literature Analysis and Empirical Evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For environmental innovation, people’s knowledge is necessary to protect the environment. However, just knowing the importance of environmental protection does not lead to effective actions for environmental innovation (Kong & Lee, 2016). For knowledge to become action, it is important for people to be emotionally motivated. To study the emotional factor for environmental innovation, this study analyzes the literature on how emotions influence people’s purchase actions and proposes the idea of using arts to influence consumer's emotion and induce pro-environmental consumption (Kong & Lee, 2016). This research first reviews literature on the role of emotion for pro-environmental consumption. Then it explores if arts can induce consumer’s emotion to make decisions to buy green products or to participate in environmental protection. To seek empirical evidence, this research measures the willingness of a group of consumers to participate in a tree planting program before and after the participants are exposed to a piece of artwork. The preliminary findings of this study are valuable for understanding how to increase the adoption of certain innovative products or services of social value (Kong & Lee, 2016).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".