The effect of green influencer message characteristics: Framing, construal, and timing

König, Sarah; Maier, Erik Article — Published Version The effect of green influencer message characteristics: Framing, construal, and timing Psychology & Marketing Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: König, Sarah; Maier, Erik (2024) : The effect of green influencer message characteristics: Framing, construal, and timing, Psychology & Marketing, ISSN 1520-6793, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 41, Iss. 9, pp. 1979-1996, https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22021 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/306197 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Received: 30 November 2023 | Accepted: 30 April 2024 DOI: 10.1002/mar.22021 RESEARCH ARTICLE The effect of green influencer message characteristics: Framing, construal, and timing Sarah König |Erik Maier HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Leipzig, Germany Correspondence Erik Maier, HHL Leipzig Graduate School of Management, Jahnallee 59, 04109 Leipzig, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract This research explores the characteristics of green influencer messages on follower engagement by examining the interplay between message framing (gain vs. loss), construal level (high vs. low), and post timing (weekdays vs. weekends). Green influencers (also: greenfluencers or sustainable influencers) are considered a key agent for a change to more sustainable consumption. A pilot field study of 1000 green influencers, however, indicates that the current communication practices of green influencers (which strongly focus on gain frames, low construal, and posts during the week) are not ideal for maximizing engagement and sustainable behavioral intentions. Two experiments replicate this finding and establish the process through which green influencer posts affect engagement: gain frames increase fluency, which increases engagement; low construal levels decrease psychological distance, which increases engagement. Timing moderates these processes in that weekend posts increase the engagement with gain frames and week posts increase the engagement with low‐construal frames. These findings highlight that there is no silver bullet in green influencer messages, but that green influencers need to adapt the framing and construal of their messages to the posts' timing to increase their contribution to more sustainable lifestyles and the greater good. KEYWORDS day‐of‐the‐week effect, green consumption, greenfluencer, green influencers, influencer marketing, sustainable consumption 1|INTRODUCTION Marketing activities are increasingly used to promote the common good, such as marketing helping to induce more sustainable consumption and lifestyle choices (DeBerry‐Spence et al., 2023). In this, green influencers are an increasingly important stakeholder group (Nonet et al., 2022), as many consumers use social media as an important (sustainable) lifestyle guide (Jans et al., 2018). Green influencers (or: “greenfluencers”) communicate about and promote an ecologically sustainable way of life (Pittman & Abell, 2021). Because green influencers are shaping consumers' intentions to engage in environmentally friendly consumption practices (Pittman & Abell, 2021), adopt greener lifestyles (Chwialkowska, 2019), or even engage in environmental activism themselves (Knupfer et al., 2023), the media even refers to them as “sustainability superheroes”(Townsend, 2022)ora“secret weapon for sustainability” (Ormesher, 2023). Psychol Mark. 2024;41:1979–1996. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/mar | 1979 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2024 The Authors. Psychology & Marketing published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Green influencers design their messages not only to inspire sustainable behavior but also to engage their audience (Kapoor, 2023; Zhu et al., 2022). For instance, green influencers often copy the communication practices of nongreen influencers in using gain frames (i.e., the benefits and agency of sustainable behavior in fighting climate change vs. loss‐framed messages about the dangers of climate change) and messages with low construal levels (i.e., specific recommendations and steps to take vs. high‐level calls for action) that are actionable and create a strong emotional connection (Lee & Theokary, 2021). A post by @sustainabledaisy exemplifies this focus on gain frames and low construal: “[…] Investing in reusable glass containers and refilling them on routine is a way for you to help offset part of this massive waste problem. You've got the power to do a lot of good […]!”(see Supporting Information S1: Table A.1 for details). Additionally, message timing is a key concern for many influencers, as practical guides and recommendations show (e.g., “When is the best time to post on Instagram?”: Gagliardi, 2024). Currently, green influencers time their messages mostly during the week (De Gross & von Wangenheim, 2022; Rutz & Bucklin, 2008; Vries et al., 2012) and not on the weekend, in line with recommendations from the managerial literature (Cooper & Cohen, 2023; Gagliardi, 2024; Lang, 2024). However, these practices and recommendations ignore that timing might interact with other characteristics of a message, namely, the framing and construal level of the message. The present research, therefore, studies how each of the message characteristics (framing and construal) interacts with message timing (weekend vs. week) to optimize engagement and increase the sustainable behavioral intentions of the followers of green influencers. Existing studies about nongreen marketing messages have explored the effectiveness of message characteristics. Message framing and construal feature prominently in extant research (Chang et al., 2015): Gain‐framed messages are viewed as more credible than loss‐framed posts, affecting consumers' behavioral intentions (Bradley et al., 2023). Low (vs. high) construal increases credibility and strengthens the relationship between influencer and follower (Balaji et al., 2021; Bradley et al., 2023). Additionally, extant research shows that the timing of influencer messages matters, in that posts on weekends increase engagement (Hughes et al., 2019). It is, however, difficult to transfer these findings from nongreen marketing messages and “normal”influencers to green influencers. First, audience expectations might differ: Greenfluencers are expected to promote environmental sustainability, which could require a different message‐framing strategy (e.g., a more loss‐framed message in the face of environmental crises). Second, environmental topics might require a higher construal level, as the issues are global and consequences of individual actions are relatively temporally and spatially distant (Reczek et al., 2018); on the other hand, a more low construal messaging might be necessary to initiate direct action (vs. more abstract nongreen influencer messages: Kapoor et al., 2023). Finally, we lack an understanding of the interaction of message framing and timing as well as of construal level and timing. Specifically, posting on the weekend (vs. during the week) might require different message construal and frames—which has not been investigated. Our research studies the effect of green influencer messages with changing framing (loss vs. gain), construal (low vs. high), and timing (week vs. weekend). We suggest that fluency and psychological distance mediate the effect of the message characteristics framing and construal for (green) influencers (Reczek et al., 2018; White et al., 2011). Additionally, we theorize that existing levels of fluency and psychological distance are perceived differently on the weekend (vs. the week): consumers on the weekend tend to favor fluent messages, while they appreciate low distance during the week. This, in turn, influences the engagement with different messages through a moderated mediation. Apilotfieldstudyandtwoexperimentsfindthatgreen influencers currently employ messages that are suboptimal regarding followers' engagement and, in turn, environmental behavioral intentions. Our pilot field study shows that green influencers mostly focus on gain‐framed, low‐construal messages on the weekend (47% of all posts), while loss‐framed, low‐ construal messages create more engagement during the week in our field and experimental studies. At the same time, green influencers rarely post on the weekend (21% of all posts), and then mostly with gain‐framed, low construal messages—our data, in contrast, consistently show the gain‐framed, high construal messagestobemoreeffectiveontheweekend.Theseeffectsare mediated through fluency and psychological distance, whose effect is moderated by timing (weekend vs. week). Our study contributes threefold to extant research: First, by establishing the effect of message framing and construal for green influencers; second, by showing that engagement with influencers is mediated by fluency and psychological distance and moderated by the timing of the message; and, finally, by providing an overview of current communication practices of green influencers. 2|CHARACTERISTICS OF INFLUENCER MESSAGES IN EXTANT RESEARCH Extant research established the positive effect of influencers on sustainable behavioral intentions (e.g., Johnstone & Lindh, 2022; Kapoor et al., 2023; König & Maier, 2024; Pittman & Abell, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021). In this, different characteristics of green influencer posts are increasingly in focus, such as the level of bragging of a post (Pittman & Milfeld, 2023), or the calibration of a post concerning ethical or monetary goals (Jacobson & Harrison, 2022 or informational (vs. entertaining) content (Zhao et al., 2024). This research focuses on how message characteristics that have been established as highly relevant for influencer marketing, namely, message framing and construal, each interact with the timing of the green influencer messages, because consumers' perception of consequences of framing and construal level are likely moderated by the timing of the message (Dai & Gong, 2024; see Figure 1). 1980 | KÖNIG AND MAIER 2.1 |Message framing Prospect theory suggests that people's responses to messages can vary based on whether they emphasize benefits (gain‐framed) or disadvantages (loss‐framed; e.g., Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). For instance, by framing a product as a solution to a problem (gain frame), consumers may be more likely to purchase it. As Table 1highlights, also the framing of influencer messages alters consumers' responses to a message. Balaji et al. (2021) find that gain‐framed messages of (nongreen) influencers are perceived as more credible than loss‐ framed posts, positively affecting consumers' behavioral intentions. Message framing also matters among green influencers. Green influencers' gain frames highlight the enjoyability and positive potential of sustainable behavior (e.g., “[…] By embracing thrifting as a way of life, you can […] make a difference in the world.”by @allitav, see Supporting Information S1: Table A.1), while loss frames focus on the negative implications of nonaction (e.g., “We can't fix our environmental issues if we don't stop them at the source. e.g., we'll never recycle our way out of our #plasticpollution crisis […].”by @green4ema). While most greenfluencers use gain framing (Townsend, 2022), there are examples of loss framing, such as the activist and influencer Greta Thunberg, who mainly uses negative sentiments and words (e.g., “climate crisis”: Ballestar et al., 2022). To the best of our knowledge, no studies to date investigate the effect of message framing in green influencer messages. 2.2 |Construal level The Construal level theory describes how psychological distance from an object or event (temporal, spatial, social, and hypothetical) influences consumer behavior (Bar‐Anan et al., 2006). High‐level construals involve a big‐picture perspective, focusing on overarching ideas, while low‐level construals delve into details and differences. As FIGURE 1 Conceptual model and hypotheses. TABLE 1 Extant research on influencer message characteristics (framing, construal, and timing)—research on different message characteristics not included. Reference Framing (gain vs. loss) Construal (high vs. low) Timing (day of the week) Sustainability focus Mediator Balaji et al. (2021)√√ Message credibility Ballestar et al. (2022)√√— Lee and Theokary (2021) √Influencer expertise Bradley et al. (2023)√— Kapoor et al. (2023)√√Message authenticity and sustainability image Hughes et al. (2019)√— Chung et al. (2023)√— Our contribution √√√ √Fluency, psychological distance KÖNIG AND MAIER | 1981 Table 1highlights, the construal level of influencer messages alters consumers' responses to a message. Most research finds that specific, low‐construal messages create favorable consumer reactions (e.g., Lee & Theokary, 2021), for instance by allowing influencers to build intimate, trusting relationships with their followers (Bradley et al., 2023). Lower construal messages of green influencers can involve specific and easy‐to‐implement calls for action (e.g., “[…] Wear secondhand and slow down your purchases. […] Get into nature and get off screens […],”by @rocket_science), see Supporting Information S1: Table A.1), while high‐level‐of‐construal messages involve abstract calls for a behavior change (e.g., “[…] We may be separated, but remember: We are all in this together, and we're all on this planet together. […] We are connected by our challenges and a fierce and urgent determination to overcome them […],”by @sustainabledaisy. Green influencers frequently use low levels of construal messages, potentially presenting objective and context‐specific sustainability information that can showcase their expertise (Knight et al., 2022). There is limited research on message construal level with regard to sustainability: Kapoor et al. (2023) find that low‐level messages in green influencer communication were more effective in driving sustainable consumption, due to the higher perceived authenticity of the message and the improved image of the product's sustainability. Also for sustainability messages beyond influencer communication, detailed, specific, and vivid information have been shown to raise consumers' authenticity perceptions (Alhouti et al., 2016; Pérez et al., 2020). Authenticity, in turn, is a key factor in shaping consumers' views on and intentions toward sustainable products (Akbar & Wymer, 2017; Joo et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2022). 2.3 |Timing: Day of the week The day‐of‐the‐week effect (French, 1980) has been documented across many research areas. For instance, websites focusing on business are busier during the week and entertainment websites on weekends, implying that consumers focus on serious, utilitarian matters during the week and more hedonic pursuits on the weekend (Bussière, 2015). Twitter messages reveal that people tend to be in a better mood during the weekends (Mayor & Bietti, 2021). Findings on engagement and behavioral effects of the timing of social media effects are mixed: On the one hand, research establishes that social media and advertising messages during the week receive more engagement, potentially because on weekends consumers spend more time on leisure activities, friends, and family (Rutz & Bucklin, 2008; Vries et al., 2012). On the other hand, other research finds that influencer posts on the weekend generate more engagement and increase consumers' behavioral response, as consumers tend to allocate more time to social media activities during the weekends (Chung et al., 2023; Hughes et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2023). The mixed findings of message effectiveness on the weekend (vs. week) point to a potential interaction of message timing with variables that extant studies on message timing have not addressed (e.g., framing or construal). To the best of our knowledge, there is no research on green influencer message timing, but an interaction between message characteristics (e.g., framing) and timing is likely (Dai & Gong, 2024). In summary, extant research has not yet investigated how framing, construal level, and the timing of messages interact. While some studies consider only a single message construct (e.g., Florence et al., 2022), extant research calls for a joint investigation of framing and construal levels in driving consumer behavior (Chen et al., 2020; White et al., 2011). Furthermore, there is very limited research that studies message characteristics in the context of green influencers, where consumer behavior might differ from nongreen topics. Finally, there is limited transparency on the psychological process through which framing and construal levels drive consumer behavior and the way message timing affects this process. 3|THEORY We suggest that message framing and construal level influence engagement and, in turn, sustainable behavioral intentions, through two mediation processes (fluency and and psychological distance), which are moderated by message timing (see Figure 1). 3.1 |Message framing and fluency Several studies establish the positive behavioral effects of gain frames in advertising messages (e.g., Yan et al., 2010). We suggest that also the effect of message framing in green influencer messages is mediated by fluency (see Figure 1, upper part). Gain frames might enable more fluent processing: Eye‐movement measurement has shown evidence of a shorter total reading time for gain‐framed messages, while loss frames were perceived as more complex; consequently, positively framed messages were easier processed, leading to improved recall (Liu et al., 2021). Furthermore, gain framing encourages people to specific behaviors such as donating to a good cause (Tugrul & Lee, 2018).Wesuggestthatalsogain‐framed messages from green influencers should increase fluency. Additionally, research also highlights the importance of a fit between message framing and content (e.g., White et al., 2011)inincreasing message fluency and, in turn, improving downstream consequences such as persuasiveness (Lee & Aaker, 2004)orpurchaseintentions(Labroo& Lee, 2006). When a message is designed in a way that aligns with a user's expectations, it becomes easier to process the information (regulatory fit theory: Higgins, 1997). This fit is given when green influencers communicate about sustainability issues (Boerman et al., 2022). Furthermore, the message framing can also fit with an audience's expectations. As influencer messages are mostly gain‐framed (Breves et al., 2019; Hughes et al., 2019) followers of green influencers are likely to also expect gain‐framed messages. Receiving such messages would fit consumers' expectations, increase fluent processing, and, in turn, foster engagement and more favorable sustainability intentions 1982 | KÖNIG AND MAIER and actions (White et al., 2011). In contrast, if a green message is less fluent, consumers want to receive more information and want to know how well the sustainability message aligns with their existing knowledge (Hanks et al., 2016). We conclude that both a direct effect of gain‐framed messages and their fit with audience expectations renders them easier to process for the audience, leading to more engagement (i.e., likes, shares, and comments). Formally: H1a: Gain (loss) message framing increases (decreases) engagement with sustainable influencer messages through higher (lower) fluency. 3.2 |Construal level and psychological distance Message construal levels influence consumers' perceived psychological distance (Adler & Sarstedt, 2021;Trope&Liberman,2010). Marketing messages frequently employ low‐construal‐level calls for action to motivate consumers into a certain behavior (White et al., 2011). In this, a lower (higher) construal level reduces (increases) consumers' psychological distance and, in turn, increases (reduces) their willingness to engage in a target behavior (Yang et al., 2015). Message construal level is also likely to influence reactions to messages of green influencers (see Figure 1, lower part). For instance, extant research shows that the manipulation of construal level can alter consumers' perceived psychological distance and, in turn, willingness to participate in sustainable behavior (here: second‐ hand purchasing; Liu et al., 2021). Furthermore, extant research suggests that distancing might reduce the perceived responsibility to act because consumers feel fewer emotions for more distant events (Wang et al., 2022). In contrast, if a potential environmental threat feels close, then consumers are more likely to act. For instance, Smith and Leiserowitz (2014) found that when individuals harbor apprehensions about climate change or experience analogous negative emotions, they tend to view it as a threat closer to them and, in turn, exhibit an increased willingness to engage in mitigation behavior. Furthermore, Reczek and colleagues (2018) show that concrete, low‐ construal communication can increase the appeal of a product if the latter is matched with detailed information about the product's sustainability capabilities. Consequently, we expect that low‐ construal messages should be more successful in green influencer messages, as these messages reduce perceived distance, leading to higher engagement. Formally: H1b: High (vs. low) construal messages decrease (increase) engagement through higher (lower) psychological distance. 3.3 |The moderating effect of message timing The effect of both message framing and construal level increases if the latter fits consumers' mindsets (Boerman et al., 2022; Reczek et al., 2018; White et al., 2019). Consumer mindsets exhibit temporal fluctuations throughout the week, influenced by individual routines as well as broader cultural and societal dynamics (Charm et al., 2020). This likely affects consumers' responses to perceived fluency: The “Thank God it's Friday”effect describes that consumers associate the weekend with positive emotions (such as happiness, enjoyment, and laughter: Helliwell & Wang, 2014; Stone et al., 2012) and ease (Lasauskaite et al., 2017). As tasks associated with positive emotions seem easier, as proposed by the implicit‐affect‐primes‐effort model (Gendolla, 2015), engagement with fluent influencer messages should be stronger. In line with this, posts from nongreen influencers—which are usually gain‐framed and should, thus, be perceived more fluently —receive higher engagements on the weekends (Chung et al., 2023; Hughes, 2019). We, therefore, suggest that on the weekend (vs. during the work week) consumers respond more positively to more (less) fluent messages, while they expect messages with low (high) psychological distance during the week. Our conceptual model (Figure 1) highlights this moderated mediation (PROCESS model 15). This moderated mediation should result in a moderation of the main effect of message framing (H2a): If the fluency effect on engagement is exacerbated on the weekend, we would expect that gain‐framed messages, which we hypothesize to increase fluency (H1a), would lead to more engagement on the weekend (vs. during the week). At the same time, we suggest that the effect of the mediator (fluency) is larger on the weekend (H2b). Formally, we hypothesize: H2a: Posting on the weekend moderates the effect of message framing on engagement, in that gain‐framed messages create more engagement on the weekend. H2b: Posting on the weekend moderates the effect of fluency from message framing on engagement, in that the fluency effect on engagement is more positive on the weekend. Similarly, the perceived psychological distance is likely to interact with the timing of the (green) influencer message. Given that the weekend is a time when many people have more free time and fewer obligations, high‐distance messages could work better, because a lack of immediate demands and distractions might allow for a greater focus on abstract features. In contrast, on weekdays, consumers often have many appointments and tasks to keep track of (Ellis et al., 2015), putting them into concrete problem‐solving and structure‐seeking mindsets (Huang & Zhang, 2022). During the week, consumers are, therefore, likely to engage in more low‐level thinking and possess a “get things done”mindset, that fits well with a low perceived psychological distance of an influencer message. In contrast, abstract messages that induce high psychological distance might be perceived more negatively during the week. We, therefore, expect the low (high) psychological distance of an influencer message leads to more (less) engagement during the week (see Figure 1). H3a specifically addresses the moderation of the main effect of message KÖNIG AND MAIER | 1983 construal, while H3b focuses on the moderation of the mediator effect through message timing (PROCESS model 15). Formally: H3a: Posting during the week (vs. on the weekend) moderates the effect of message construal level on engagement, in that high construal level messages create more (less) engagement during the week. H3b: Posting during the week (vs. on the weekend) moderates the effect of psychological distance perceptions from message construal on engagement, in that high psychological distance reduces engagement more strongly during the week. 3.4 |Sustainable behavioral intention Exposure to sustainability content on social media can influence consumer's sustainable habits and consumption behavior (Confetto et al., 2023). If individuals perceive they have control over their behavior, they are more likely to express sustainable behavioral intentions (Theory of planned behavior: Ajzen, 1991). We suggest that being able to demonstrate one's own opinion via engaging with green influencer messages might increase consumers' perceived behavioral control and, therefore, increase their sustainable behavioral intentions. Furthermore, when individuals feel more engaged and confident in their abilities, they are more likely to intentionally adopt sustainable behaviors (Yan et al., 2024). Additionally, when followers share a social media post with their friends and family, they signal interest in the topic and support for the posts' content. Therefore, we suggest that: H4: Higher engagement leads to higher sustainable behavioral intentions. 4|PILOT FIELD STUDY 4.1 |Design The pilot study investigates the prevalence of message framing and construal in the field and offers a first indication of whether the usage of gain (vs. loss) frames and high (vs. low) construal level messages influences followers' engagement with influencer posts. In a mixed‐ method approach, the pilot field study offers externally valid observations from actual influencer posts, which are subsequently supplemented by two experimental studies, which, however, might be limited by their hypothetical setting (Karman & Lipowski, 2024). At the time of the study, no comprehensive database of green influencers existed. We, therefore, utilized existing databases with limited reach to conduct a systematic search on Instagram. First, we compiled a list from two existing databases presenting a total of 200 green influencers without duplications (Amra & Elma, 2023,afull‐service marketing agency, and the company Feedspot, 2023). We extended this list by screening the followers of the initial list, as many green influencers follow each other—yielding another 200 influencers without duplicates. We classified the influencers into macroinfluencers (100,000 up to 1,000,000 followers), microinfluencers (10,000 up to 100,000 followers), and nanoinfluencers (1000 up to 10,000 followers). We then randomly selected 200 influencers, equally by class of followers. From each of these influencers, we collected the last five posts (i.e., 1000 posts in total; data available upon request). We extracted the text of each post and calculated the engagement as the sum of likes and comments divided by the follower count (Fisher, 2009). Two independent coders classified the posts by framing (gain vs. loss: κ MessageFraming = 0.72) and construal level (low vs. high: κ ConstrualLevel = 0.66), and reconciled differences through discussion. We excluded 23 posts due to either missing text (only visual posts) or due to the lack of recognition of construal level or message framing because of too few words (e.g., only hashtags without text). The average green influencer in our sample had 134,762 (standard deviation [SD] = 1,042,110) followers, followed 1598 (SD = 1412) other influencers, had posted 925 (SD = 942) messages and an account age of 7.6 (SD = 3.3) years. 4.2 |RESULTS Figure 2summarizes the observed message characteristic frequencies of the pilot field study. First, the majority of green influencer posts occur during the week (79% of all posts), while only 21% happen during the weekend. Second, the post type does not vary depending on the timing: as expected, combinations of gain framing and low construal dominate (59% of all posts) both during the week (59%) and the weekend (57%), followed by gain frames with high construal (29% of all posts, 28% of the week posts, 33% of the weekend posts). Loss frames are rather uncommon (12% of all posts). Figure 3descriptively highlights the effects of different combinations of message framing, construal, and timing on engagement. Irrespective of timing (Panel A), we see that loss‐framed messages with low construal generate the highest engagement (M= 5.22%) while gain‐framed messages with low construal show the lowest engagement (M= 2.99%). Gain frames with high construal— FIGURE 2 Message characteristic frequencies in the field study. 1984 | KÖNIG AND MAIER the most common post characteristic—generate the second lowest engagement (M= 3.06%). These effects reverse depending on the timing: while gain frames have higher engagement on the weekend, irrespective of the construal (Panel B: M HighConstrual = 5.20% and M LowConstrual = 2.95%), low construal level posts work better during the week—irrespective of the framing (Panel C: M Loss = 3.85% and M Gain = 5.66%). While these results align with our hypotheses, we refrain from formally testing our hypotheses due to (a) the nonrandomized nature of the observational data and (b) the limited sample size of some combinations of the message characteristics (e.g., N Loss, Low Construal, Weekend = 9). The subsequent experiments will offer a causally more robust investigation of different message characteristics. In summary, the results of the field study offer a first indication that green influencers might not be posting with message characteristics that are not ideal for the goal of increasing message engagement. 5|STUDY 1 5.1 |Design Study 1 uses a 2 (message framing: gain vs. loss) × 2 (construal level: high vs. low) × 2 (timing: weekend vs. week) between‐subject design. Participants were randomly assigned to message frames and construal levels, to ensure message exposure was not biased by personality‐driven self‐selection into following certain influencers (e.g., perceived life control [Zhang et al., 2023] or age [Casalegno et al., 2022], which might also relate to sustainable consumption). The timing of the messages was nonrandomized, but conducted on two subsequent days; we published the same survey at two different time points on the platform Prolific: on a Sunday afternoon (weekend) and a Monday afternoon (weekday). As stimuli, we designed four types of posts from fictional influencers (using the design of Instagram) with different framing (gain vs. loss) and construal levels (high vs. low) across four topics (travel, DIY, upcycling, and zero waste). We used the text of the posts as well as the images (generated through Adobe Firefly) to manipulate the message characteristics while keeping as many elements of the post as possible consistent. For example, in the travel category (which we also selected based on a subsequently reported prestudy), all posts show a beach (see Figure 4). However, while the gain‐framed beaches are natural and unspoiled, the loss‐ framed beaches are covered with waste, and the adjacent forest is destroyed. The text and hashtags underline the framing (gain: “save the environment,”or loss “you destroy our environment”). We manipulated low construal levels through (a) the presence of a specific solution/cause of the problem (a train or an airplane), and (b) FIGURE 3 Results of the pilot field study: General engagement (a), engagement on weekdays (b) and on weekends (c). (Engagement in percent, bars represent 95% confidence intervals). KÖNIG AND MAIER | 1985 FIGURE 4 Post types in the experiments. 1986 | KÖNIG AND MAIER exacerbated for messages posted during the work week (vs. the weekend). Note that we do not hypothesize, test for nor find a three‐ way interaction of framing, construal level, and timing—rather, timing interacts with each message dimension in two two‐way interactions. 7.3 |Limitations and future research We acknowledge several limitations related to the design of our studies. First, our investigation focuses on posts of green influencers on Instagram (vs. e.g., TikTok). There might also be cultural influences on followers' expectations of green influencer posts, which our focus on reactions to influencer posts in the United States does not allow us to explore. Furthermore, posts are only one means of communication for green influencers; different types of content (e.g., blog posts, Twitter/X posts, videos) and behaviors (e.g., endorsing green products, participating in green initiatives) are likely to also affect consumer engagement and behavior. Second, while the pilot field study aligns with our experimental findings, the dependent variables in the latter were hypothetically measured and not incentive‐ aligned, which might affect the well‐documented (green) intention‐ behavior gap (e.g., Frank & Brock, 2018;Hinschetal.,2021). Third, our research did not analyze the role of brands in green influencers' posts (Gerrath & Usrey, 2021). Brands might require influencers to use a certain message framing (e.g., gain frames with low construal to highlight the brand as a solution). Furthermore, visible or officially disclosed brand support might influence follower engagement through accusations of greenwashing (Lee et al., 2018). Finally, another fruitful area for future research is the relationships between green influencers and their followers, as bonds between influencers and followers play a crucial role in (green) influencer effectiveness (e.g., Dekoninck et al., 2023). In this, future research could explore if consumers would accept virtual green influencers (e.g., Gerrath et al., 2024; Gutuleac et al., 2024) that create the perfect messages convincing consumers to live a more sustainable lifestyle—and these influencers might also be happy to post messages during the (free) weekend. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ORCID Erik Maier http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3751-6521 REFERENCES Adler, S., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). Mapping the jungle: A bibliometric analysis of research into construal level theory. Psychology & Marketing,38(9), 1367–1383. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 179–211. Akbar, M. M., & Wymer, W. (2017). Refining the conceptualization of brand authenticity. Journal of Brand Management,24(1), 14–32. Alhouti, S., Johnson, C. M., & Holloway, B. B. (2016). Corporate social responsibility authenticity: Investigating its antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Business Research,69(3), 1242–1249. Amra & Elma. (2023). 100 top sustainability influencers to follow in 2023.http:// www.amraandelma.com/top-sustainability-influencers/ Azadi, Y., Yazdanpanah, M., & Mahmoudi, H. (2019). Understanding smallholder farmers' adaptation behaviors through climate change beliefs, risk perception, trust, and psychological distance: Evidence from wheat growers in Iran. Journal of Environmental Management, 250, 109456. Balaji, M. S., Jiang, Y., & Jha, S. (2021). Nanoinfluencer marketing: How message features affect credibility and behavioral intentions. Journal of Business Research,136, 293–304. Ballestar, M. T., Martín‐Llaguno, M., & Sainz, J. (2022). An artificial intelligence analysis of climate‐change influencers' marketing on Twitter. Psychology & Marketing,39(12), 2273–2283. Bar‐Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (2006). The association between psychological distance and construal level: Evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,135(4), 609–622. Bennett, R. M., Anderson, J., & Blaney, R. J. P. (2002). Moral intensity and willingness to pay concerning farm animal welfare issues and the implications for agricultural policy. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics,15(2), 187–202. Blake, K. R., & Gangestad, S. (2020). On attenuated interactions, blake measurement error, and statistical power: Guidelines for social and personality psychologists. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(12), 1702–1711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167220913363 Boerman, S. C., Meijers, M. H. C., & Zwart, W. (2022). The importance of influencer‐message congruence when employing greenfluencers to promote pro‐environmental behavior. Environmental Communication, 16(7), 920–941. Bradley, T., Anderson, K. C., & Hass, A. (2023). The virtuous cycle: Social media influencers' potential for kindness contagion. Journal of Macromarketing,43(2), 110–118. Breves, P. L., Liebers, N., Abt, M., & Kunze, A. (2019). The perceived fit between Instagram influencers and the endorsed brand. Journal of Advertising Research,59(4), 440–454. Bussière, D. (Ed.). (2015). Understanding of the day of the week effect in online consumer behaviour.http://archives.marketing-trendscongress.com/2016/pages/PDF/BUSSIERE.pdf Carroll, B. A., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2006). Some antecedents and outcomes of brand love. Marketing Letters,17(2), 79–89. Casalegno, C., Candelo, E., & Santoro, G. (2022). Exploring the antecedents of green and sustainable purchase behaviour: A comparison among different generations. Psychology & Marketing,39(5), 1007–1021. Chang, H., Zhang, L., & Xie, G. X. (2015). Message framing in green advertising: the effect of construal level and consumer environmental concern. International Journal of Advertising,34(1), 158–176. Charm, T., Dhar, R., Haas, S., Liu, J., Novemsky, N., & Teichner, W. (2020). Understanding and shaping consumer behavior in the next normal. https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/McKinsey/Business% 20Functions/Marketing%20and%20Sales/Our%20Insights/ Understanding%20and%20shaping%20consumer%20behavior%20in% 20the%20next%20normal/Understanding-and-shaping-consumerbehavior-in-the-next-normal.pdf Chen, R., Fan, Z., & Fan, Y. (2020). Effects of green appeals and message framing on green consumption. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness,14(2), 30–39. Chung, J., Ding, Y., & Kalra, A. (2023). I really know you: How influencers can increase audience engagement by referencing their close social ties. Journal of Consumer Research,50(4), 683–703. KÖNIG AND MAIER | 1993 Chwialkowska, A. (2019). How sustainability influencers drive green lifestyle adoption on social media: The process of green lifestyle adoption explained through the lenses of the minority influence model and social learning theory. Management of Sustainable Development Sibiu, Romania,11(1), 33–42. Confetto, M. G., Covucci, C., Addeo, F., & Normando, M. (2023). Sustainability advocacy antecedents: How social media content influences sustainable behaviours among Generation Z. Journal of Consumer Marketing,40(6), 758–774. Cooper, P., & Cohen, B. (2023). The best time to post on Instagram revealed [+Guide]. https://blog.hootsuite.com/best-time-to-poston-instagram/ Dai, J., & Gong, S. (2024). Sustainable messaging strategies and consumer food waste: The congruence effect between message framing and state anxiety. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,79, 103817. DeBerry‐Spence, B., Trujillo‐Torres, L. E., Sengupta, R., Matsumoto, K., & Chen, J. (2023). Marketing's role in promoting the common good: A systematic examination and an agenda for future inquiry. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing,42(2), 95–114. Dekoninck, H., van Houtven, E., & Schmuck, D. (2023). Inspiring G(re)en Z: unraveling (para)social bonds with influencers and perceptions of their environmental content. Environmental Communication,17(7), 701–719. Ellis, D. A., Wiseman, R., & Jenkins, R. (2015). Mental representations of weekdays. PLoS One,10(8), e0134555. Feedspot. (2023). Top 100 sustainability influencers in 2023.http:// influencers.feedspot.com/sustainable_living_instagram_influencers/ Fisher, T. (2009). ROI in social media: A look at the arguments. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management,16(3), 189–195. Florence, E. S., Fleischman, D., Mulcahy, R., & Wynder, M. (2022). Message framing effects on sustainable consumer behaviour: A systematic review and future research directions for social marketing. Journal of Social Marketing,12(4), 623–652. Frank, P., & Brock, C. (2018). Bridging the intention–behavior gap among organic grocery customers: The crucial role of point‐of‐sale information. Psychology & Marketing,35(8), 586–602. French, K. R. (1980). Stock returns and the weekend effect. Journal of Financial Economics,8(1), 55–69. Gagliardi, A. (2024). When is the best time to post on Instagram in 2024. http://later.com/blog/best-time-to-post-on-instagram/ Gendolla, G. H. E. (2015). Implicit affect primes effort: Basic processes, moderators, and boundary conditions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,9(11), 606–619. Gerrath, M. H. E. E., & Usrey, B. (2021). The impact of influencer motives and commonness perceptions on follower reactions toward incentivized reviews. International Journal of Research in Marketing,38(3), 531–548. Giner‐Sorolla, R. (2016). Approaching a fair deal for significance andother concerns. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,65,1–6. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.01.010 Giner‐Sorolla, R., Montoya, A. K., Reifman, A., Carpenter, T., Lewis, N. A., Aberson, C. L., Bostyn, D. H., Conrique, B. G., Ng, B. W., Schoemann, A. M., & Soderberg, C. (2024). Power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size. Personality and Social Psychology Review.https://doi.org/10.1177/ 10888683241228328 Graf, L. K. M., Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Measuring processing fluency: One versus five items. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 28(3), 393–411. Gross, J., & von Wangenheim, F. (2022). Influencer marketing on instagram: Empirical research on social media engagement with sponsored posts. Journal of Interactive Advertising,22(3), 289–310. Gutuleac, R., Baima, G., Rizzo, C., & Bresciani, S. (2024). Will virtual influencers overcome the uncanny valley? The moderating role of social cues. Psychology & Marketing,1–13. Hanks, L., Zhang, L., Line, N., & McGinley, S. (2016). When less is more: Sustainability messaging, destination type, and processing fluency. International Journal of Hospitality Management,58,34–43. Harris, R. J., Garner‐Earl, B., Sprick, S. J., & Carroll, C. (1994). Effects of foreign product names and country‐of‐origin attributions on advertisement evaluations. Psychology & Marketing,11(2), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220110204 Haws, K. L., Winterich, K. P., & Naylor, R. W. (2014). Seeing the world through GREEN‐tinted glasses: Green consumption values and responses to environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Psychology,24(3), 336–354. Heikinheimo, V., Järv, O., Tenkanen, H., Hiippala, T., & Toivonen, T. (2022). Detecting country of residence from social media data: A comparison of methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science,36(10), 1931–1952. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 13658816.2022.2044484 Helliwell, J. F., & Wang, S. (2014). Weekends and subjective well‐being. Social Indicators Research,116(2), 389–407. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. Hinsch, C., Tang, Y., & Lund, D. J. (2021). Compulsion and reactance: Why do some green consumers fail to follow through with planned environmental behaviors? Psychology & Marketing,38(12), 2209–2226. Hong, S.‐M., & Page, S. (1989). A Psychological Reactance Scale: Development, factor structure and reliability. Psychological Reports, 64(3_Suppl.), 1323–1326. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1989.64. 3c.1323 Huang, H. D., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Distance‐construal relationship: Mediating role of perceived control and moderating role of locus of control. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 975417. Hughes, C., Swaminathan, V., & Brooks, G. (2019). Driving brand engagement through online social influencers: An empirical investigation of sponsored blogging campaigns. Journal of Marketing,83(5), 78–96. Jacobson, J., & Harrison, B. (2022). Sustainable fashion social media influencers and content creation calibration. International Journal of Advertising,41(1), 150–177. de Jans, S., Cauberghe, V., & Hudders, L. (2018). How an advertising disclosure alerts young adolescents to sponsored vlogs: The moderating role of a peer‐based advertising literacy intervention through an informational Vlog. Journal of Advertising,47(4), 309–325. Johnstone, L., & Lindh, C. (2022). Sustainably sustaining (online) fashion consumption: Using influencers to promote sustainable (un)planned behaviour in Europe's millennials. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,64, 102775. Joo, S., Miller, E. G., & Fink, J. S. (2019). Consumer evaluations of CSR authenticity: Development and validation of a multidimensional CSR authenticity scale. Journal of Business Research,98, 236–249. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica,47(2), 263. Kapoor, P. S., Balaji, M. S., & Jiang, Y. (2023). Greenfluencers as agents of social change: The effectiveness of sponsored messages in driving sustainable consumption. European Journal of Marketing,57(2), 533–561. Karman, A., & Lipowski, M. (2024). Switching to sustainable products: The role of time, product, and customer characteristics. Psychology & Marketing,41, 1082–1099. Knight, H., Haddoud, M. Y., & Megicks, P. (2022). Determinants of corporate sustainability message sharing on social media: A configuration approach. Business Strategy and the Environment,31(2), 633–647. Knupfer, H., Neureiter, A., & Matthes, J. (2023). From social media diet to public riot? Engagement with “greenfluencers”and young social 1994 | KÖNIG AND MAIER media users' environmental activism. Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107527. König, S., & Maier, E. (2024). Preaching to the choir: Do green influencers make a difference. Journal of Cleaner Production,447, 141449. Labroo, A. A., & Lee, A. Y. (2006). Between two brands: A goal fluency account of brand evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research,43(3), 374–385. Lang, K. (2024). When's the best time to post on Instagram in 2024? http:// buffer.com/library/when-is-the-best-time-to-post-on-instagram/ Laroche, M., Bergeron, J., & Barbaro‐Forleo, G. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing,18(6), 503–520. Lasauskaite, R., Gendolla, G. H. E., Bolmont, M., & Freydefont, L. (2017). Implicit happiness and sadness are associated with ease and difficulty: Evidence from sequential priming. Psychological Research, 81(1), 321–331. Lee, A. M., Hojjatinia, S., Courtney, J. B., Brunke‐Reese, D., Hojjatinia, S., Lagoa, C. M., & Conroy, D. E. (2023). Motivational message framing effects on physical activity dynamics in a digital messaging intervention: Secondary analysis. JMIR Formative Research,7, e41414. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86(2), 205–218. Lee, J., Bhatt, S., & Suri, R. (2018). When consumers penalize not so green products. Psychology & Marketing,35(1), 36–46. Lee, M. T., & Theokary, C. (2021). The superstar social media influencer: Exploiting linguistic style and emotional contagion over content? Journal of Business Research,132, 860–871. Levin, A. M., Gaeth, G. J., Levin, I. P., & Chen, S. (2023). Relating social skills and social media use to consumer behavior: An investigation across the autism spectrum. Journal of Consumer Behaviour,22(1), 56–66. Liu, X., Mikels, J. A., & Stine‐Morrow, E. A. L. (2021). The psycholinguistic and affective processing of framed health messages among younger and older adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,27(2), 201–212. Malloch, Y., & Feng, B. (2022). What motivates people to support? Impacts of message valence and self‐efficacy on linguistic features of response. Frontiers in Psychology,13, 13. Mayer, S. (2021). imagefluency: Image statistics based on processing fluency [Computer software]. Zenodo. Mayer, S., & Landwehr, J. R. (2018). Quantifying visual aesthetics based on processing fluency theory: Four algorithmic measures for antecedents of aesthetic preferences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,12(4), 399–431. Mayor, E., & Bietti, L. M. (2021). Twitter, time and emotions. Royal Society Open Science,8(5), 1‐26. Nonet, G. A. H., Gössling, T., van Tulder, R., & Bryson, J. M. (2022). Multi‐ stakeholder engagement for the sustainable development goals: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Business Ethics,180(4), 945–957. Ormesher, E. (2023). Why influencers are a secret weapon for sustainability. https://www.thedrum.com/news/2023/03/10/whyinfluencers-are-secret-weapon-sustainability-marketing Pancer, E., Chandler, V., Poole, M., & Noseworthy, T. J. (2019). How readability shapes social media engagement. Journal of Consumer Psychology,29(2), 262–270. Pérez,A.,GarcíadelosSalmones,M.M.,&Liu,M.T.(2020).Information specificity, social topic awareness and message authenticity in CSR communication. Journal of Communication Management,24(1), 31–48. Pichierri, M., & Pino, G. (2023). Less saturated, more eco‐friendly: Color saturation and consumer perception of product sustainability. Psychology & Marketing,40(9), 1830–1849. Pittman, M., & Abell, A. (2021). More trust in fewer followers: Diverging effects of popularity metrics and green orientation social media influencers. Journal of Interactive Marketing,56,70–82. Pittman, M., & Milfeld, T. (2023). Enviro‐Bragging: When influencers should not be humble about a brand's sustainability. Journal of Interactive Advertising,23(3), 259–274. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods,40(3), 879–891. Reczek, R. W., Trudel, R., & White, K. (2018). Focusing on the forest or the trees: How abstract versus concrete construal level predicts responses to eco‐friendly products. Journal of Environmental Psychology,57,87–98. Rutz, O. J., & Bucklin, R. E. (2008). From generic to branded: A model of spillover dynamics in paid search advertising. SSRN Electronic Journal, 48(1), 1–44. Smith, K. (2019). 50 incredible Instagram statistics. https://www. brandwatch.com/blog/instagram-stats/ Smith, N., & Leiserowitz, A. (2014). The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Analysis,34(5), 937–948. Stöber, J., & Borkovec, T. D. (2002). Reduced concreteness of worry in generalized anxiety disorder: Findings from a therapy study. Cognitive Therapy and Research,26(1), 89–96. Stone, A. A., Schneider, S., & Harter, J. K. (2012). Day‐of‐week mood patterns in the United States: On the existence of ‘Blue Monday’, ‘Thank God it's Friday’and weekend effects. The Journal of Positive Psychology,7(4), 306–314. Techawachirakul, M., Pathak, A., Motoki, K., & Calvert, G. A. (2023). Negative halo effects of sustainable packaging. Psychology & Marketing,40(12), 2627–2641. Townsend, S. (2022). Greenfluencers: How social media creators are becoming sustainability superheroes. https://www.forbes.com/ sites/solitairetownsend/2022/12/09/greenfluencers-how-socialmedia-creators-are-becoming-sustainability-superheroes/ Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal‐level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review,117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0018963 Tugrul, T. O., & Lee, E. M. (2018). Promoting charitable donation campaigns on social media. The Service Industries Journal,38(3–4), 149–163. de Vries, L., Gensler, S., & Leeflang, P. S. H. (2012). Popularity of brand posts on brand fan pages: An investigation of the effects of social media marketing. Journal of Interactive Marketing,26(2), 83–91. Wang, J., Gu, Y., Xin, H., & Wang, X. (2022). Influence of appeal type and message framing on residents' intent to engage in pro‐environmental behavior. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,19(23), 15431. Wang, L., & Zuo, P. (2017). Flag backlash: Why does the presence of the American flag reduce product evaluation? Psychology & Marketing, 34(7), 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.21016 Wang, S., Hurlstone, M. J., Leviston, Z., Walker, I., & Lawrence, C. (2019). Climate change from a distance: An analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 230. 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. White, K., Macdonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the mind‐set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research,48(3), 472–485. Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2010). The effects of mood, message framing, and behavioral advocacy on persuasion. Journal of Communication,60(2), 344–363. Yan, L., Keh, H. T., & Murray, K. B. (2024). Feeling the values: How pride and awe differentially enhance consumers' sustainable behavioral intentions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,52(1), 75–96. KÖNIG AND MAIER | 1995 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. Yu, T. Y., Yu, T. K., & Chao, C. M. (2017). Understanding Taiwanese undergraduate students' pro‐environmental behavioral intention towards green products in the fight against climate change. Journal of Cleaner Production,161, 390–402. Zhang, J., Sheng, S., & Xu, X. (2023). How perceived life control shapes sustainable consumption: The role of outcome efficacy. Psychology & Marketing,40(4), 735–749. Zhang, W., Chintagunta, P. K., & Kalwani, M. U. (2021). Social media, influencers, and adoption of an eco‐friendly product: Field experiment evidence from rural China. Journal of Marketing,85(3), 10–27. Zhao, X., Zhu, Z., Shan, M., Cao, R., & Chen, H. (2024). “Informers”or “entertainers”: The effect of social media influencers on consumers' green consumption. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,77, 103647. Zhu, H., Kim, M., & Choi, Y. K. (2022). Social media advertising endorsement: The role of endorser type, message appeal and brand familiarity. International Journal of Advertising,41(5), 948–969. SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. How to cite this article: König, S., & Maier, E. (2024). The effect of green influencer message characteristics: Framing, construal, and timing. Psychology & Marketing,41, 1979–1996. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.22021 1996 | KÖNIG AND MAIER