Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Testing Emphasis Message Frames and Metaphors on Social Media to Engage Boaters to Learn about Preventing the Spread of Zebra Mussels

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Message frames are often used to communicate about invasive species due to the additional meaning they provide. They appear in calls to action like “join the battle against invasive species,” “unwelcome exotics,” or “Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers.” However, little is known about how stakeholders respond to these message frames. This research tested five common message emphasis frames used in invasive species communication. These message frames were placed in social media advertisements about zebra mussels to determine the impact each message frame had on user online behavior. For cost-per-click (CPC), ANOVA showed effects for framing and gender. Model coefficients revealed that Hitchhiker and Protective had significantly higher CPC than Science, and that women had a higher CPC. For comments, ANOVA showed effects for framing and gender. Model coefficients revealed that no frame had a significantly different effect on comments than Science, and that women commented on posts less. For shares, ANOVA showed effects for framing. Model coefficients revealed that Hitchhiker was shared more than Science. It is important to note that neither Militaristic nor Nativist outperformed Science on any measured outcome. Coupled with ethical considerations, our results suggest the use of Nativist and Militaristic frames are not necessary to influence online behavior. Message frames without ethical issues can be used to achieve the outcomes we tested without compromising message effectiveness. Within this article, we provide background on commonly used invasive species message frames, explain our methods for testing how they impact user behavior, and suggest limitations and applications of this work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Barnes J (2016) Organizing to use Facebook advertisements: a planning tool for extension professionals, businesses, and communities. J Ext 54(4):#4TOT7

    Google Scholar 

  • Bord RJ, O’Connor RE (1997) The gender gap in environmental attitudes: the case of perceived vulnerability to risk. Soc Sci Q 78:830–840

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Sax DF (2004) An essay on some topics concerning invasive species. Austral Ecol 29:530–536

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown JH, Sax DF (2005) Biological invasions and objectivity: reply to Cassey et al. (2005). Austral Ecol 30:481–483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cacciatore MA, Scheufele DA, Iyengar S (2016) The end of framing as we know it … and the future of media effects. Mass Commun Soc 19:7–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell T, Shaw B, Rao A, Klink J (2019) Evaluating promotional efforts for driving traffic to an extension outreach website. J Ext 57(3):#3RIB1

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng T, Woon DK, Lynes JK (2011) The use of message framing in the promotion of environmentally sustainable behaviors. Soc Mark Q 17:48–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colautti RI, MacIsaac HJ (2004) A neutral terminology to define ‘invasive’ species. Divers Distrib 10:135–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cole E, Keller RP, Garbach K (2016) Assessing the success of invasive species prevention efforts at changing the behaviors of recreational boaters. J Environ Manag 184:210–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connelly NA, Lauber TB, Stedman RC (2014) Reducing the spread of aquatic invasive species and fish pathogens in the Great Lakes: The role of anglers. HDRU Publ. No. 14-7. Dept of Nat. Resour, Coll. Agric. and Life Sci. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, p 36

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly NA, O’Neill Jr CR, Knuth BA, Brown TL (2007) Economic impacts of zebra mussels on drinking water treatment and electric power generation facilities. J Environ Manag 40:105–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalrymple KE, Shaw BR, Brossard D (2013) Following the leader: using opinion leaders in environmental strategic communication. Soc Nat Resour 26:1438–1453. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.820812

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeGolia AH, Hiroyasu EHT, Anderson SE (2019) Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management. PLoS ONE 14(7):e0220320. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220320

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DataReportal (2020) Global Social Media Overview. DataReportal. https://datareportal.com/social-media-users. Accessed 9/1/2020

  • Flusberg SJ, Matlock T, Thibodeau PH (2017) Metaphors for the war (or face) against climate change. Environ Comm 11:769–783. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1289111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gramlich J (2019) 10 Facts About Americans and Facebook. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/16/facts-about-americans-and-facebook/. Accessed on 9/1/2020

  • Hart PS, Larson BMH (2014) Communicating about invasive species: how does ‘driver’ and ‘passenger’ models influence public willingness to take action. Cons Lett 7:545–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond E, Ozdemir AO, Shropshire A, Mase A, Pratsch S, Newenhouse A, Shaw B, Campbell T. 2019. Aquatic invasive species prevention: Wisconsin boaters and anglers survey report. University of Wisconsin-Madison Division of Extension, Natural Resources Institute. https://publications.aqua.wisc.edu/product-category/aquatic-invasive-species/ Accessed 30 March 2021

  • Herrold, T (2012). Facebook marketing by gender: Men are cheap! 3Q Digital. https://3qdigital.com/blog/facebook-marketing-by-gender-men-are-cheap/ Accessed 29 March 2021

  • Iannone BV, Carnevale S, Main MB, Hill JE, McConnell JB, Johnson SA, Enloe SF, Andreu M, Bell EC, Cuda JP, Baker SM (2020) Invasive species terminology: standardizing for stakeholder education. J Ext 58:v58–3a3

    Google Scholar 

  • Inglis MI (2020) Wildlife ethics and practice: why we need to change the way we talk about ‘invasive species.’ J of Agric and Environ Ethics https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-020-09825-0

  • Janovsky RM, Larson ER (2019) Does invasive species research use more militaristic language than other ecology and conservation biology literature? NeoBiota 44:27–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LE, Ricicardi A, Carlton JT (2001) Overland dispersal of aquatic invasive species: a risk assessment of transient recreational boating. Ecol Appl 11:1789–1799

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson LE, Padilla DK (1996) Geographic spread of exotic species: ecological lessons and opportunities from the invasion of the zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha). Biol Conserv 78:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatayev AY, Burlakova LE, Padilla DK (2015) Zebra versus quagga mussels: a review of their spread, population dynamics, and ecosystem impacts. Hydrobiologia 746:97–112

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly NE, Wantola K, Weisz E, Yan ND (2013) Recreational boats as a vector of secondary spread for aquatic invasive species and native crustacean zooplankton. Biol Invasions 15:509–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keulartz J, van der Weele C (2008) Framing and reframing invasion biology. Configurations 16:93–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson BMH (2005) The war of the roses: demilitarizing invasion biology. Front Ecol Environ 3:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larson BMH (2008) Entangled biological, cultural and linguistic origins of the war on invasive species. Body, Lang Mind 2:169–196

    Google Scholar 

  • Larson L, Brendon MH (2011) Metaphors for environmental sustainability: redefining our relationship with nature. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut

    Google Scholar 

  • Liobikiene G, Poskus MS (2019) The importance of environmental knowledge for private and public sphere Pro-Environmental Behavior: Modifying the Value-Belief-Norm Theory. Sustainability 11(12):3324. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11123324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loewenstein GF (2001) The creative destruction of decision research. J Consum Res 28:499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Main K (2020) Facebook Ad Cost by Industry, https://fitsmallbusiness.com/how-much-does-facebook-advertising-cost/. Accessed 5.17.2021.

  • Mains M, Jenkins-Howard B, Stephenson L (2013) Effective use of Facebook for extension professionals. J Ext 51(5):#5TOT6

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth DJ, Hilling C, Schmitt JD (2020) Hyperbole, simile, metaphor, and invasivore: messaging about non-native blue catfish expansion. Fisheries 45:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peretti JH (1998) Nativism and nature: rethinking biological invasion. Environ Values 7:183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pradhananga A, Davenport MA, Seekamp E, Bundy D (2015) Preventing the spread of aquatic invasive species: boater concerns, habits and future behaviors. Hum Dimens Wildl 20:381–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothlisberger JD, Chadderton WL, McNulty J, Lodge DM (2011) Aquatic invasive species transport via trailered boats: what is being moved, who is moving it, and what can be done. Fisheries 35:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radler B, Shaw B, Gorby T. (2020) Using choice-based conjoint analysis for creating effective outreach messages to promote oak management. J of For 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1093/jofore/fvaa018

  • Scheufele DA, Iyengar S (2017) The state of framing research. A call for new directions. In: Kenski K, Jamieson KH (eds.) The Oxford handbook of political communication theories. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Seekamp E, McCreary A, Mayer J, Zack S, Charlebois P, Pasternak L (2016) Exploring the efficacy of an aquatic invasive species prevention campaign among water recreationist. Biol Invasions 18:1745–1758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharp RL, Cleckner LB, DePillo S (2016) The impact of on-site educational outreach on recreational users’ perceptions of aquatic invasive species and their management. Environ Educ Res 23:1200–1210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw BR, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D (2012) Factors associated with behavioral compliance to prevent the spread of viral hemorrhagic septicemia. J Ext 50:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff D (2003) Confronting invasive species: a form of xenophobia? Biol Invasions 5:179–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sopory P, Dillard JP (2002) The persuasive effects of metaphor: a meta-analysis. Hum Comm Res 28:382–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor C, Dewsbury BM (2018) On the problem and promise of metaphor use in science and science communication. J Microbiol Biol Educ 19:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tindall DB, Davis S, Mauboules C (2003) Activism and conservation behavior in an environmental movement: the contradictory effects of gender. Soc Nat Resour 16:909–932

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (2020) Stop Aquatic Hitchhikers Website Partners. https://stopaquatichitchhikers.org/activities/partners/#current-partners. Accessed 9/1/2020.

  • United States Geological Survey (2020) Nonindigenous Aquatic Species database. https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.aspx?speciesID=5. Accessed 9/1/2020.

  • Verbrugge LNH, Leuven RSEW, Zwart HAE (2016) Metaphors in invasion biology: implications for risk assessment and management of non-native species. Ethics, Policy Environ 19(3):273–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/21550085.2016.1226234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallen KE, Kyle GGT (2018) The efficacy of message frames on recreational boater’s aquatic invasive species mitigation behavioral intentions. Hum Dimens Wildl 23:297–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzling L, Shaw BR, Amato MS (2015) Incorporating information exposure into a theory of planned behavior model to enrich understanding of proenvironmental behavior. Sci Comm 37:551–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547015593085

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Witzling L, Shaw BR, Seiler D (2016) Segmenting boaters based on the risk they pose to spreading invasive species: implications for outreach. Biol Invasions 18:3635–3646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10530-016-1254-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young AM, Larson BMH (2011) Clarifying debates in invasion biology: a survey of invasion biologists. Environ Res 111:893–898

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Zelezny LC, Chua PP, Aldrich C (2000) Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. J Soc Issues 56:443–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Brooke Alexander for her creative artistic skills in creating the Facebook advertisements. We would also like to thank Katie Laushman who originally inspired the idea for this message test while a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Additional thanks go to Elizabeth White, the Wisconsin Sea Grant editor, who provided useful feedback on this manuscript; Doug Hemken of the University of Wisconsin Social Science Computer Cooperative for advice on our statistical analysis; as well as the anonymous reviewers whose comments improved our manuscript. This work was funded by the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute and the University of Wisconsin Division of Extension.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection was completed by Dr. Bret Shaw and Tim Campbell. Analysees were performed by Dr. Barry Radler. The draft of the manuscript was written by Dr. Bret Shaw and Tim Campbell. All authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the University of Wisconsin Division of Extension and the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Life Sciences Communication & Division of Extension, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA

    Bret Shaw

  2. Aquatic Invasive Species Outreach Specialist, University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute, Madison, WI, USA

    Tim Campbell

  3. Barold Freeman Consulting, LLC, Madison, WI, USA

    Barry T. Radler

Authors
  1. Bret Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tim Campbell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Barry T. Radler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Campbell.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval and Consent to Participate

A human subjects protection protocol was submitted to the University of Wisconsin-Madison Education and Social/Behavioral Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB), which determined that the research did not constitute human subjects research in accordance with federal regulations.

Consent for Publication

The authors consent to this research being published.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shaw, B., Campbell, T. & Radler, B.T. Testing Emphasis Message Frames and Metaphors on Social Media to Engage Boaters to Learn about Preventing the Spread of Zebra Mussels. Environmental Management 68, 824–834 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01506-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-021-01506-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation