Navigating the Complexity of Sustainability Communications: The Influence of Product Type, Media Type, and Brand Realism

Summary

This paper (Park & Minton, Psychology & Marketing) reports three experiments (total N = 1,153) testing when sustainability claims build consumer trust and persuasion. The study integrates product type (search, experience, credence), media channel (digital vs traditional), and brand realism (real vs fictitious) through the Persuasion Knowledge Model.

Key Points

Sustainability messaging increases trust for search and experience goods but is weak or can backfire for credence goods.
Media matters: digital channels work better for low-complexity/search goods; traditional media performs better for credence goods where expertise signals matter.
Brand realism moderates effects: using real (familiar) brands can dampen persuasive gains for search and credence goods—likely due to heightened scepticism—but increases positive outcomes for experience goods.
Study 3 shows effects extend to purchase intentions and brand attitudes, not just trust measures.
Practical takeaway: align sustainability claims with product evaluability, choose media that fits the product type, and consider brand context to avoid scepticism or perceived greenwashing.

Content Summary

Across three controlled experiments, the authors systematically vary product attribute (search/experience/credence), media channel (digital vs traditional), and brand realism (real vs fictitious). Findings are consistent: sustainability cues help when consumers can readily evaluate product attributes (search/experience), but they are less effective or may reduce trust for credence goods where consumers cannot easily verify claims.

Media credibility interacts with product type—digital formats enhance trust for easily evaluated products (search), while traditional media (perceived as more authoritative) helps for credence goods. Introducing brand realism shows a nuanced effect: familiar real brands sometimes trigger persuasion knowledge and scepticism (reducing impact) for search and credence goods but improve outcomes for experience goods, presumably because experience claims are easier to validate personally.

Context and Relevance

This research sits at the intersection of sustainability marketing and persuasion theory. It responds to mounting concerns about greenwashing and message overload by showing that one-size-fits-all green communications can misfire. For marketers, communications teams and policy makers, the study provides empirically tested rules for when sustainability claims will build trust versus when they might provoke scepticism.

Author style

Punchy: this is not another vague call for ‘more sustainability messaging’ — it tells you exactly when and where those messages land. If you’re planning campaigns, use these distinctions or expect wasted spend and annoyed consumers.

Why should I read this

Quick and useful: it gives practical, evidence-based pointers so you don’t plaster every channel with generic green claims and hope for the best. Read it to learn which product types need proof, which channels boost credibility, and how using a well-known brand can help — or hurt — your sustainability pitch.