Adoption of Mental Triggers in Consumer Protection Communication Against Greenwashing PracticesABSTRACT
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of the adoption of the mental triggers of consensus and authority in consumer protection communication against greenwashing practices. A hypothetical-deductive approach was adopted, carried out in two sequential stages: a preliminary, exploratory pre-experiment involving the collection and analysis of implicit data through the neuroscientific technique of eye-tracking, followed by an explanatory experiment with the collection of self-reported data. This constitutes an unprecedented effort to apply mental triggers to empower consumers in the defense against greenwashing practices, in order to reduce their inherent vulnerability. The main result confirmed the influence of the adoption of mental triggers in consumer protection communication against greenwashing practices, both capable of generating greater declared knowledge. Moreover, a broader effect was observed with the consensus mental trigger, which also led to higher levels of consumer skepticism and boycott reaction toward greenwashing practices.
Keywords:
Greenwashing; Consumer protection; Mental triggers; Consensus; Authority
RESUMO
O trabalho teve como objetivo comparar a eficácia da adoção dos gatilhos mentais de consenso e de autoridade na comunicação de defesa do consumidor à prática de greenwashing. Adotou-se uma abordagem hipotético-dedutiva, realizada em duas etapas sequenciais: um pré-experimento, exploratório, com a coleta e análise de dados implícitos por meio da técnica neurocientífica de monitoramento ocular (eye tracker), seguido do experimento explicativo, com a coleta de dados autodeclarados. Trata-se de um esforço inédito de aplicação dos gatilhos mentais para potencializar o consumidor na defesa da prática de greenwashing, a fim de diminuir sua inerente vulnerabilidade. Como principal resultado, foi possível atestar a influência da adoção dos gatilhos mentais na comunicação de proteção do consumidor à prática de greenwashing, ambos capazes de gerar um maior conhecimento declarado. Ainda, maior amplitude de efeito foi verificada no gatilho mental de consenso, que respondeu também por maiores ceticismo e reação de boicote do consumidor à prática de greenwashing.
Palavras-chave:
Greenwashing; Defesa do consumidor; Gatilhos mentais; Consenso; Autoridade
1. INTRODUCTION
With the consolidation of sustainability on the agendas of both society and organizations, an increasing movement within the organizational environment toward achieving this new paradigm can be observed (Riccolo, 2021). However, the practice of greenwashing has also become recurrent, a term that refers to the improper or even deceptive appropriation of environmental claims without proper practical support (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025; Montgomery et al., 2024). As defined by the aforementioned authors, greenwashing occurs when a product, brand, or organization is given a green makeover or image to appear environmentally responsible without necessarily being so.
A seminal effort to map and critically assess the state of the art on the topic of greenwashing, conducted in 2017, highlighted the scarcity of academic output on the subject, particularly regarding more in-depth discussions (Andreoli, Crespo & Minciotti, 2017). Among the identified research gaps, the need for investigations focusing on the main stakeholder affected by the practice, the consumer market, was emphasized, especially through the use of the hypothetical-deductive method (Andreoli, Crespo & Minciotti, 2017). The recurrence of more recent systematic reviews on the topic further reinforces the need for greater advancement in related academic production, which remains insufficient given the significance of the issue at academic, managerial, and social levels (Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Montgomery et al., 2024).
Considering the above, if the broader discussion on greenwashing practices remains unsatisfactory, it is reasonable to assume that the lack of a more specific focus on the consumer, as well as on their potential reactions, is even more concerning. This is demonstrated by a recent systematic review focused on the intersection of greenwashing and the consumer boycott movement, which emphasized the absence of detailed studies addressing this issue and identified it as an important and necessary research gap (Andreoli & Silva, 2024).
In light of this, the issue of consumer vulnerability arises, which is inherent in commercial relationships, but especially pronounced in the context of greenwashing practices (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025). Therefore, there is an urgent need to seek mechanisms and/or pathways that can contribute to changing this scenario by enabling consumers to develop greater capacity to understand, identify, and distinguish such practices, as well as to resist them (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025; Andreoli & Silva, 2024).
One possible approach involves the communication of publicly exposed greenwashing cases that generated negative repercussions in the market, which contributes to consumer education and consequently fosters a more critical response to the practice (Andreoli & Batista, 2020). A previous effort in this direction was carried out through an experimental study, which validated consumer educational information as a potential regulatory action against greenwashing practices, especially concerning the promoting brand (Andreoli & Batista, 2020).
Thus, the question remains as to how to enhance this consumer protection communication effort by considering more effective forms of persuasion. Within this context lies the possibility of adopting mental triggers, whose seminal proposition was made by Cialdini in 1984, referring to them as principles of persuasion (Cialdini, 2012). Of particular interest to this article are the mental triggers of compliance with authority and with consensus (also referred to as social proof), which are argued to possess greater persuasive power. The former is attributed to the authority granted to certain individuals or organizations, thereby increasing the credibility of the message, and the latter to social behavior, which tends to generate a conformity effect by aligning with what others or peers are doing (Nijssen et al., 2023).
In light of the above, the objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the adoption of the mental triggers of consensus and authority in consumer protection communication against greenwashing practices. As a methodological procedure, a hypothetical-deductive approach was adopted, conducted in two sequential stages: the first exploratory, involving a pre-experiment (n=10), and the second an explanatory experiment (n=133).
The rationale for this study can be summarized in two main points. First, there is a noted scarcity of academic production focused on a more in-depth discussion of greenwashing practices from the perspective of the key stakeholder, the consumer (Jong, Huluba & Beldad, 2020; Andreoli & Silva, 2024). Second, given the current alarming proliferation of greenwashing practices in the absence of effective regulation, there is a need to identify mechanisms capable of curbing such practices, particularly by reducing consumer vulnerability to them (Andreoli Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Munir & Mohan, 2022; Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025). Accordingly, this study represents an unprecedented effort to apply mental triggers to empower consumers to defend against greenwashing practices, conducted using a hypothetical-deductive method that contributes empirical evidence to the investigation by encompassing both implicit and explicit data.
2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
The emergence of the term greenwashing is linked to the expression whitewash, which refers to the act of concealing the harmful practices of an individual or organization in order to preserve their image and/or reputation (Andreoli, Crespo & Minciotti, 2017; Andreoli, Silva & Boiral, 2025). Thus, greenwashing is a neologism in the English language that denotes the "greenwashing" (with green linked to washing) of products, brands, or organizations to make them appear environmentally responsible without necessarily being so (Souza, 2017; Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025; Andreoli, Silva & Boiral, 2025). In other words, greenwashing occurs when a green, environmentally correct, or sustainable image is promoted without proper alignment with the rest of the market practices, thereby constituting a superficial, misleading, or even deceptive form of communication (Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Freitas et al., 2020).
The related literature outlines an alarming scenario regarding greenwashing, reporting the widespread adoption of the practice by organizations that, even more concerningly, often succeed due to the still limited critical awareness of consumers (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025). In this context, the issue of consumer vulnerability becomes evident, which is inherent to commercial relationships but particularly relevant in the face of greenwashing practices (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025). This troubling scenario is compounded by the lack of efficient oversight mechanisms, which shifts the burden to the consumer, positioning them as a potential regulatory and deterrent agent. As the end point of the production chain and the target audience of organizations, the consumer plays a essential role in challenging and demanding change (Jong, Huluba & Beldad, 2020; Andreoli & Batista, 2020).
One possible approach involves promoting consumer education in order to increase awareness about the practice of greenwashing and, consequently, enable a more critical response to it (Andreoli & Batista, 2020). In a previous effort, an experimental study manipulated the presence (versus absence) of consumer educational information, characterized by a message that included the definition of the term, examples of publicly exposed cases, and arguments regarding the importance of the consumer's role. This study successfully validated such information as a potential regulatory action against greenwashing practices, particularly in relation to the brand involved (Andreoli & Batista, 2020).
However, the question remains as to how to enhance this consumer protection communication effort, considering the possibility of more effective forms of persuasion. In this regard, Cialdini’s proposition of a set of persuasion principles, currently more widely known as mental triggers, is revisited (Cialdini, 2012). Of particular relevance to this article are the mental triggers of compliance with authority and with consensus (also referred to as social proof), which are argued to have greater persuasive power over the target audience (Nijssen et al., 2023). According to the aforementioned authors, the authority mental trigger draws on the reputation of specific individuals or organizations who endorse the message, thereby increasing the communication's credibility. The consensus trigger, on the other hand, relies on social behavior by presenting what others are already thinking or doing, in order to generate a conformity effect.
It is worth noting that previous studies have investigated the effectiveness of adopting mental triggers to persuade audiences beyond traditional commercial communication (Reese et al., 2014; Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Nijssen et al., 2023). Examples include studies in the field of social marketing, which aimed to promote more socially responsible behaviors among participants, such as healthier eating habits, personal hygiene in hospital settings, and reduced smoking in open public spaces (Nijssen et al., 2023). Within this group, particular emphasis is placed on the promotion of more environmentally friendly habits and behaviors, a theme directly related to the focus of this study (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Nijssen et al., 2023). Despite this, it is important to note that most of the discussion and supporting evidence for effectiveness centers on the principle or mental trigger of social consensus (Reese et al., 2014; Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021; Nijssen et al., 2023), with no studies found regarding the principle or mental trigger of authority.
As a result of the above discussion, two hypotheses were formulated, each corresponding to one of the mental triggers, aimed at evaluating increased awareness of the topic of greenwashing, followed by greater skepticism toward the practice, as well as a more critical response in terms of boycott.
H1 - The adoption of the consensus mental trigger in consumer protection communication will result in greater (a) awareness, (b) skepticism, and (c) boycott response to greenwashing practices, compared to the absence of a trigger.
H2 - The adoption of the authority mental trigger in consumer protection communication will result in greater (a) awareness, (b) skepticism, and (c) boycott response to greenwashing practices, compared to the absence of a trigger.
3. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURE
As a methodological procedure, a hypothetical-deductive approach was adopted, conducted through two subsequent remote experiments. The development of the method in these two stages (experiments) is justified by the importance of broadly understanding the consumer's reception, processing, and evaluation processes, encompassing both implicit and explicit metrics.
The manipulation involved the audience presented as promoting the boycott on social media: for the consensus condition, the argument referenced consumers, aligning with the notion of social proof; for the authority condition, the source was PROCON (Brazil’s consumer protection agency); and finally, the control group mentioned only the protest, without referencing any specific audience. Thus, a single-factor experimental method was configured. Prior to the study, a pretest (n=98) of the overall methodological procedure was conducted with two treatments (authority vs. consensus), which allowed for subsequent revision and adaptation in terms of manipulation, materials used, and research instrument.
Accordingly, the adopted procedure consisted of presenting one version of the communication, adapted after the pretest (Figure 1), followed by the collection of participant data. In both experiments, a between-subjects design was used, meaning that each participant was exposed to only one experimental group, with random distribution among the treatments. Similarly, both samples were non-probabilistic and selected by convenience, with university students chosen due to the greater likelihood of achieving a more homogeneous respondent profile.
3.1. Exploratory Pre-Experiment - Eye Tracking
The first test was an exploratory pre-experiment (n=10), with the mental trigger of compliance as the independent variable, comparing consensus and authority. As the dependent variable, implicit data were collected and analyzed using the neuroscientific technique of eye tracking, through the Real Eye platform. The sample size followed the recommendation by Pradeep (2012, p. 23), who argues that a limited number of respondents is sufficient when using neuroscientific techniques, approximately 10% of the size required in traditional studies. The image exposure time was 20 seconds, followed by questions regarding the respondent’s profile.
Eye tracking allowed for analyses related to the participants’ views and fixations, both in general terms (the piece as a whole) and in relation to specific spaces, referred to as Areas of Interest (AOI). Fixations are particularly relevant, as they represent longer gazes that may serve as inferences of higher cognitive processing, such as attention. This made it possible to illustrate the most viewed and focused areas, along with their respective intensities, through the presentation of heat maps. In addition, various metrics related to these processes were identified, both in terms of views and fixations, such as the average time to first fixation, average fixation duration, total number of fixations, average number of revisits, and the proportion of participants according to the fixations recorded. The image generation settings were adapted according to the type of analysis, with views and fixations configured with a 50px shadow, opacity of 0.5 points, and point sizes of 20px and 50px, respectively.
3.2 Explicative Experiment - Self-declared data
The second experiment (n=133), of explanatory nature, maintained the mental trigger as the independent variable, using both of the previously mentioned triggers (consensus and authority) along with a control group. Self-reported data were collected and analyzed using the Survey Monkey platform. The G*Power program was used to assess the final sample size (n=133), which yielded high statistical power (0.88, one-way ANOVA F test, with a medium effect size of 0.3 and 5% error), validating its reliability for detecting the investigated effect.
The data collection instrument was composed of questions related to the constructs of interest in this study, encompassing five dependent variables: prior and post-exposure knowledge about the topic of greenwashing, measured through two statements specifically developed for this study; consumer skepticism, assessed through four statements using an adapted version of the scale by Mohr, Eroglu, and Ellen (1998), which has already been replicated in the relevant literature (Andreoli, Minciotti, & Batista, 2025); boycott motivation, measured through seven statements based on an adaptation of the scale proposed by Cruz, Pires Junior, and Ross (2013); intention to boycott the reported brand, assessed with four statements based on the aforementioned study; and actual boycott action, measured by asking participants to provide their email address to join a list of consumers boycotting the brand. All scales were presented with randomized statements for each participant, who was asked to assign a level of agreement on a Likert scale from 0 to 10, where 0 meant "strongly disagree" and 10 meant "strongly agree."
At the beginning, a manipulation check was conducted regarding the audience promoting the protest (which resulted in the exclusion of 9 respondents from the initial sample of 142 participants). At the end, respondent profile information was collected (gender expression, age, and personal monthly income), along with a self-assessment of how much they consider themselves consumers of hygiene products (a control variable), which were the subject of the communication. These metrics are presented in the table below (Chart 1).
For data analysis, the General Linear Model (GLM) was used, with assumptions of data normality and variable homoscedasticity being verified through the Levene and Box tests, along with descriptive statistics. Additionally, for the metric related to boycott action, since it involved a count of participants who provided their email to join, the Chi-square test was applied.
4. DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS
The presentation and analysis of the data follow the same structure described in the methodological procedure, with the two subsequent experiments addressed in sequence.
4.1 Exploratory Pre-Experiment - Eye Tracking
The sample (n=10) consisted of a balanced distribution of male (62.5%) and female (37.5%) participants, with a mean age of 19 years (ranging from 19 to 21). Initially, heatmaps from the results related to views (shorter glances) are presented, followed by those related to fixations (longer focuses), which are of greater interest. The heatmaps allow for qualitative analysis. The first map (in black and white) illustrates the areas that were either focused on or ignored by the participants, while the second (in color) indicates the intensity of those focuses, ranging from low intensity (green), to medium (yellow), and high (red) (Figure 2).
Even though exploratory in nature, some nuances can be noted regarding the differences in visual behavior between the two manipulations. The campaign using the consensus trigger showed a greater focus (both in terms of views and fixations) on the word boycott, indicating that it drew more attention. It is important to consider that the more attention directed to a specific element, the greater the cognitive processing involved in reading and interpreting it, especially when it is the key word of the material. On the other hand, the piece with the authority trigger showed a more linear eye movement from the first to the second part, which may suggest a sustained interest in reading the material.
In addition, three AOIs were selected: the two mentions of the agent promoting the boycott (placed in the upper centered title) and the text specifically addressing this point. This allowed for the generation of several metrics related to participants' visual behavior, both in terms of views and fixations, such as: the average time elapsed until the first fixation, the average duration of fixations, the total number of fixations, the average number of revisits, and the proportion of participants according to the fixations recorded. The data are presented below in (Chart 2).
These results support the previous discussion, as the metrics show that the piece using the consensus trigger achieved a higher total number of views for the first mention, as well as slightly higher revisits in both views and fixations. For the second mention, the results were reversed, with the authority trigger generating a higher total number of views, as well as slightly higher revisits in both views and fixations, and a higher proportion of participants who fixated on the content. Finally, in relation to the overall text, the piece with the authority mental trigger recorded significantly higher first glances and fixations, suggesting a lack of interest in continuing to read the material. Although receiving quicker initial attention, the piece with the consensus mental trigger also showed low results for the overall text, indicating limited interest in the material among participants.
Nevertheless, the attention coefficient, automatically generated by the platform, was higher for both mentions in the piece with the consensus trigger, indicating better performance. This metric enables not only inference based on visual behavior, as previously discussed, but also provides a raw metric that confirms the greater effectiveness of the consensus compliance mental trigger.
Finally, the platform also offers a facial coding analysis, which, based on facial movements, infers the participants’ emotional states, as shown in the graph below. Consistent with the observations above, the piece with the consensus trigger showed higher and broader attention peaks, corroborated by a higher average attention rate, as displayed in Figure 3.
4.2. Experimento explicativo- Dados autodeclarados
Respondents who did not pass the manipulation check were excluded from the analysis, resulting in a validated final sample size (n=133). The sample was composed mostly of participants identifying as female (59.7%), with an average age of 20 years (ranging from 15 to 45, M=19.80, SD=2.73), and an average personal monthly income of approximately R$1,300 (ranging from 0 to R$10,000, M=1,316, SD=1,820). Self-reported levels of identification as a consumer of hygiene products (the communication’s target object) showed a relatively high tendency (M=6.60, SD=2.73), with no statistically significant differences between groups. The distribution across groups was similar: authority compliance (n=46), consensus compliance (n=43), and control (n=44).
First, analyzing the data as a whole, participants reported post-exposure knowledge about greenwashing at a level above intermediate (M=7.38), especially in the groups exposed to mental triggers, particularly considering that prior knowledge was reported as low (M=3.40). Nevertheless, the responses regarding reactions to greenwashing were lower or around the intermediate level. This was observed for reported skepticism toward the environmental appeals used in organizational communication (M=4.66), boycott motivation (M=5.49), and boycott intention (M=4.59). Consequently, actual boycott actions were also limited, with only a few participants providing their email to join the consumer boycott list against the brand mentioned in the message (n=14). Therefore, at least at this initial stage, the results suggest that increased knowledge about greenwashing was not sufficient to enhance the consumer’s critical sense or to promote more engaged reactive behaviors, whether in terms of motivation, intention, or actual boycott action.
In a second step, a multivariate GLM was conducted with four dependent variables (post-exposure knowledge, boycott motivation, boycott intention, and skepticism), the manipulation factor (three groups), and the covariates of prior knowledge and self-perception as a consumer. The analysis resulted in a general model showing statistically significant differences not only for the manipulation (F=2.026, p=0.044, eta squared=0.066, power=0.893), which is the focus of this study, but also for prior knowledge (F=14.154, p<0.000, eta squared=0.334, power=1.000).
In the case of the manipulation, a statistically significant difference was observed in post-reading knowledge (F=3.584, p=0.031, eta squared=0.058, power=0.765), and a near-significant difference was found for self-reported skepticism among participants (F=2.639, p=0.07, eta squared=0.044, power=0.642). First, post-reading knowledge showed a statistically significant difference when comparing both treatments to the control group (M=6.71, SD=0.282), with higher scores in the mental trigger of authority (M=7.61, SD=0.267, p=0.024) and in the consensus trigger (M=7.65, SD=0.270, p=0.019). Therefore, both mental triggers influenced participants’ perception of increased knowledge after reading the material, validating hypotheses H1a and H2a.
As for skepticism, a statistically significant difference was observed between the authority trigger (M=4.062, SD=0.312) and the control group (M=5.00, SD=0.328, p=0.04), as well as a near-significant difference in the comparison with the consensus trigger (M=4.88, SD=0.315, p=0.066). In this case, self-reported skepticism was lower when the authority trigger was adopted, validating the hypothesis concerning the influence of the consensus trigger on skepticism (H1b).
It is also relevant to highlight that the covariate prior knowledge showed statistically significant differences in three key metrics: post-reading knowledge (F=49.152, p<0.000, eta squared=0.298, power=1.000, with B=0.341, SD=0.049), boycott intention (F=3.703, p=0.05, eta squared=0.031, power=0.606, with B=0.153, SD=0.079), and self-reported skepticism (F=5.593, p=0.020, eta squared=0.046, power=0.760, with B=0.134, SD=0.057). In all cases, a positive relationship was found, indicating that the greater the prior knowledge, the higher the scores in the three mentioned metrics. This underscores the importance of consumer awareness as a potential protective measure against greenwashing practices, influencing not only increased knowledge and skepticism toward the practice but also the intention to boycott as a response to a reported case.
It is important to note the difference in effect sizes (eta squared), with better adequacy observed in the manipulation for both variables of interest. These indicators are considered medium in magnitude, whereas prior knowledge is classified as having a large effect size (Cohen, 1988; Ellis, 2020). Lakens (2013) argues for the importance of reporting effect sizes, as they allow for the interpretation of not only statistical significance but also the practical significance of empirical results. Effect sizes indicate the magnitude of observed effects regardless of the measurement scale used for the dependent variables. Therefore, the results related to the manipulation of mental triggers, which are the core focus of this study, are interpreted as having greater practical relevance.
Finally, boycott action, measured by the count of emails provided for inclusion in the boycott list, showed a statistically significant difference (X=7.449, p=0.024) between the consensus mental trigger group (with 9 emails submitted) and both the authority trigger group (2) and the control group (3), once again validating the effectiveness of adopting the consensus trigger (H1c) (Chart 3).
As a summary of the results, the adoption of mental triggers in consumer protection communication against greenwashing practices was shown to have a measurable influence. Both triggers proved effective in increasing participants’ self-reported knowledge about greenwashing after reading the material (H1a and H2a). In addition, the consensus mental trigger demonstrated a broader effect, also influencing declared skepticism toward the use of environmental appeals by organizations (H1b), as well as actual boycott action (H1c).
Equally important, participants’ prior knowledge was identified as a significant covariate, reinforcing the role of consumer awareness as a potential protective measure against greenwashing. This influence extended not only to cognitive outcomes (post-exposure knowledge and skepticism) but also to behavioral intention, specifically the intention to boycott (Chart 4).
5. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Despite the growing interest in deceptive marketing communication, especially in its environmental dimension, academic production on greenwashing practices remains insufficient (Andreoli, Crespo & Minciotti, 2017; Freitas Netto et al., 2020; Andreoli, Silva & Boiral, 2025). This is concerning when considering the current alarming scenario, marked by the proliferation of greenwashing and further aggravated by its proven ability to influence the consumer market, which still demonstrates limited critical awareness or even indifference, as well as the absence of effective regulation (Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Volschenk et al., 2022; Andreoli, Silva & Boiral, 2025).
The automatic inference tends to be the responsibility imposed on the consumer who, as the target audience and end point of the production chain, plays a crucial role in questioning and demanding change (Munir & Moahn, 2022; Sailer et al., 2022; Andreoli, Silva & Boiral, 2025). In this context, it is argued that increasing consumer knowledge about deceptive marketing communication and greenwashing practices can raise their awareness, sharpening their critical sense or even skepticism (Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Farooq & Wicaksono, 2021; Andreoli, 2023). As a consequence, this could reduce the influence of greenwashing by diminishing consumer vulnerability (Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025). Therefore, consumer knowledge or awareness is defended as a potential regulatory action against greenwashing practices (Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Andreoli, Minciotti & Batista, 2025).
However, to achieve this, it is necessary to first promote consumer education. Possible pathways for such promotion have been previously tested and validated in two distinct studies. First, in an experiment conducted by Andreoli and Batista (2020), which involved manipulating the presence (versus absence) of consumer educational information, characterized by the presentation of a news-style communication including the definition of the term, examples of reported cases, and arguments emphasizing the importance of the consumer's role. Second, in an experiment conducted by Andreoli (2023), where the manipulation consisted of formal education delivered longitudinally (over several months), covering both greenwashing and bluewashing practices.
Despite the contributions of these studies, the present research advances the understanding of this issue by focusing on the promotion of consumer education, particularly considering the increased impact of communication through the adoption of persuasion principles or mental triggers. In this regard, the main distinguishing factor is the effectiveness of using mental triggers in a nontraditional way to enhance communication and, consequently, consumer education and their ability to defend against greenwashing practices.
Both mental triggers-consensus and authority-were found to influence participants' self-reported knowledge after reading the material, validating the initial hypotheses related to each (H1a and H2a). As previously argued, this knowledge is essential for the consumer's subsequent ability to resist the influence intentionally exerted through greenwashing practices (Andreoli & Batista, 2020; Andreoli, 2023).
Furthermore, the consensus trigger demonstrated a broader effect, also influencing declared skepticism regarding the adoption of environmental appeals by organizations, as well as actual boycott action, thereby providing full support for the hypothesis (H1b and H1c). This result aligns with the relevant literature, which argues for the wide-reaching impact of social norms, particularly when they are common and socially approved (Cialdini & Jacobson, 2021).
On the other hand, several considerations can be made regarding the partial result of the authority trigger. First, as noted in the theoretical framework, no similar applications were found in the literature, indicating a lack of theoretical and empirical understanding of how this trigger operates beyond the traditional marketing domain. Second, although Procon (the consumer protection agency) holds national relevance and was used in this study as the authority figure, its actual reputation can be questioned, especially considering the profile of the sample investigated. Additionally, it is worth noting the decision to use an institution, rather than an individual, to represent authority, which may have reduced its potential influence (Cialdini, 2012). Lastly, the brand selected as the object of investigation is well known and established in the national market, with a considerable reputation, which may have inhibited more forceful reactions. These limitations are addressed in the final considerations, along with suggestions for future studies that may overcome them.
Finally, participants' prior knowledge also had a significant influence, not only on post-exposure knowledge and declared skepticism, but also on boycott intention. Once again, this reinforces the importance of consumer awareness as a potential protective action against greenwashing practices-not only as a consequence of received communication but also as a precursor to it. The breadth of this effect should also be emphasized, as it influences both consumer cognition and behavioral intention.
6. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of adopting the mental triggers of compliance with consensus and with authority in consumer protection communication against greenwashing practices. The findings confirmed the influence of adopting mental triggers in such communication, with particular emphasis on the consensus trigger.
Both triggers proved effective in increasing participants’ self-reported knowledge about greenwashing after reading the material. Additionally, the consensus trigger demonstrated a broader effect, also contributing to increased declared skepticism regarding the adoption of environmental appeals by organizations, as well as to actual boycott action.
Thus, the main distinguishing feature of this study lies in the validation of the effectiveness of adopting mental triggers in a nontraditional context, with the aim of enhancing communication and, consequently, consumer education regarding greenwashing practices. This represents an unprecedented effort in theoretical-empirical terms, yet one that is necessary in light of the current alarming scenario concerning deceptive marketing discourse.
As the main theoretical contribution, the study highlights the joint investigation of two themes not previously linked: persuasion principles or mental triggers and deceptive marketing discourse, particularly greenwashing. Furthermore, the essential focus was placed on the consumer, given the concern with their inherent vulnerability to organizational practices. The study also contributes empirical evidence to the field through its hypothetical-deductive approach. Therefore, it supports the advancement of understanding regarding consumer vulnerability in the face of greenwashing, affirming the promotion of educational and protective communication as a potential regulatory measure.
Despite this, some limitations of the study should also be considered, particularly regarding the methodological procedure. It is important to note that this was a study with its own specific scope, the development of tailored materials, and a convenience sample. This aligns with the focus on internal validity, which limits the generalizability of the findings to the specific context in which the study was conducted.
In light of this, several future research directions are encouraged. First, a deeper understanding of the mental triggers of compliance with consensus and authority is recommended, especially the latter, by including influential public figures rather than institutions or agencies. Second, it is also relevant to investigate other mental triggers that could contribute to consumer protection against greenwashing practices, such as those related to scarcity, urgency, reciprocity, among others. Third, expanding the metrics of interest becomes important to better understand the extent of the effects resulting from the adoption of mental triggers in consumer protection communication against greenwashing. Finally, it is also recommended to broaden the scope of deceptive marketing discourse by analyzing related washing practices, such as bluewashing, pinkwashing, and many others.
REFERENCES
-
Andreoli, T. P., & Batista, L. L. (2020). Possíveis ações regulatórias do Greenwashing e suas diferentes influências na avaliação de marca e no julgamento dos consumidores. Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 19(1), 29-52. https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v19i1.14755
» https://doi.org/10.5585/remark.v19i1.14755 -
Andreoli, T. P., Minciotti, S., & Batista, L. L. (2025). Atenção e ceticismo: influência na avaliação de anúncio com greenwashing BBR. Brazilian Business Review, 22, e20231539. https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2023.1539.en
» https://doi.org/10.15728/bbr.2023.1539.en -
Andreoli, T. P., Crespo, A., & Minciotti, S. A. (2017). What has been (short) written about greenwashing: a bibliometric research and a critical analysis of the articles found regarding this theme. Revista De Gestão - RGSA, 11(2), 54-72. https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v11i2.1294
» https://doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v11i2.1294 -
Andreoli, T. P., & Silva, P. C. (2024). Greenwashing and boycott: critical appreciation of academic production: greenwashing e boicote: apreciação crítica da produção acadêmica. Mix Sustentável, 10(3), 121-134. https://doi.org/10.29183/2447-3073.MIX2024.v10.n3.121-134
» https://doi.org/10.29183/2447-3073.MIX2024.v10.n3.121-134 -
Andreoli, T. P., da Silva, D., & Boiral, O. (2025). Misleading marketing communication. ReMark-Revista Brasileira de Marketing, 24(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.5585/2025.27983
» https://doi.org/10.5585/2025.27983 -
Andreoli, T. (2023). Educação formal dos consumidores como ação regulatória das práticas de greenwashing e bluewashing. Ambiente & Educação: Revista de Educação Ambiental, 28(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.14295/ambeduc.v28i1.15150
» https://doi.org/10.14295/ambeduc.v28i1.15150 - Cialdini, R. B. (2012). As armas da persuasão Sextante.
-
Cialdini, R. B., & Jacobson, R. P. (2021). Influences of social norms on climate change-related behaviors. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 42, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2021.01.005 -
Farooq, Y., & Wicaksono, H. (2021). Advancing on the analysis of causes and consequences of green skepticism. Journal of Cleaner Production, 320, 128927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128927
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.128927 -
Freitas Netto, S. V., Sobral, M. F. F., Ribeiro, A. R. B., & Soares, G. R. D. L. (2020). Concepts and forms of greenwashing: A systematic review. Environmental Sciences Europe, 32(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3
» https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-0300-3 -
Jong, M. D., Huluba, G., & Beldad, A. D. (2020). Different shades of greenwashing: Consumers’ reactions to environmental lies, half-lies, and organizations taking credit for following legal obligations. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(1), 38-76. https://doi. org/10.1177/1050651919874105
» https://doi. org/10.1177/1050651919874105 -
Montgomery, A. W., Lyon, T. P., & Barg, J. (2024). No End in Sight? A Greenwash Review and Research Agenda. Organization & Environment, 37(2), 221-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231168905
» https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266231168905 -
Munir, S., & Mohan, V. (2022). Consumer perceptions of greenwashing: lessons learned from the fashion sector in the UAE. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 11(1), 1-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-021-00140-z
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s13520-021-00140-z -
Nijssen, S. R., Müller, B. C., Gallinat, J., & Kühn, S. (2023). Applying persuasive messages to reduce public outdoor smoking: A pseudo‐randomized controlled trial. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 15(1), 337-353. 10.1111/aphw.12382
» https://doi.org/10.1111/aphw.12382 -
Reese, G., Loew, K., & Steffgen, G. (2014). A towel less: Social norms enhance pro-environmental behavior in hotels. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154(2), 97-100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.855623
» https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.855623 - Riccolo, A. (2021). The lack of regulation in preventing greenwashing of cosmetics in the US. Journal of Legislation, 47(1), 133.
-
Sailer, A, Wilfing, H, Straus, E. (2022). Greenwashing and Bluewashing in Black Friday-Related Sustainable Fashion Marketing on Instagram. Sustainability, 14(3), 1494. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031494
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031494 -
Souza, F. V. (2017). Uma abordagem crítica sobre o greenwashing na atualidade. Revista de Direito Ambiental e Socioambientalismo, 3(2), 148-172. https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2525-9628/2017.v3i2.3765
» https://doi.org/10.26668/IndexLawJournals/2525-9628/2017.v3i2.3765 -
Volschenk, J., Gerber, C., & Santos, B. A. (2022). The (in) ability of consumers to perceive greenwashing and its influence on purchase intent and willingness to pay. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 25(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v25i1.4553
» https://doi.org/10.4102/sajems.v25i1.4553
Edited by
-
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Marcia Juliana d’Angelo https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1436-5812
-
ASSOCIATE EDITOR
Verônica de Fátima Santana https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9105-7488
Datasets related to this article will be available upon request to the corresponding author
Source: Developed by the authors.Note: Original materials presented in Portuguese, as used in the actual experimental setting. Participants were exposed to one of the three following versions: Consensus condition - The material presented the boycott on social media as being promoted by other consumers, appealing to social proof; Authority condition - The material identified PROCON (Brazil's consumer protection agency) as the entity promoting the boycott; Control condition - The material referred only to a generic protest without mentioning any specific source or promoter. All versions contained the word "boicote" (boycott) as a central visual and semantic element, with slight differences in framing the promoter of the message.
Source: Extracted from the Real Eye platform.Note: The heatmaps display the results of eye-tracking analysis over the original communication materials in Portuguese. Participants' eye movements were tracked to determine areas of visual attention and fixation. The first heatmap (grayscale) shows areas viewed or ignored by participants. The second heatmap (colored) indicates intensity of attention: Red = High attention; Yellow = Moderate attention; Green = Low attention. Greater focus was observed on the word "boycot" in the consensus condition, while the authority condition resulted in more linear reading patterns from top to bottom. Three AOIs were defined: two mentions of the boycott promoter (in the title) and the corresponding text block.
Source: Extracted from the Real Eye platform.