Abstract
This study examines why emotional engagement with hedonic sustainability communication does not always translate into pro-environmental behavioural intention. Drawing on the Persuasion Knowledge Model and Truth-Default Theory, it investigates consumer responses to pleasure- and comfort-based hotel food-waste messages. A sequential mixed-method design combined a laboratory experiment, projective interviews, and a follow-up online experiment testing green scepticism. Findings show no robust statistically significant physiological differentiation across message types, but substantial differences in perceived credibility, sincerity and emotional meaning. Pleasure-based appeals were interpreted as enjoyable but superficial and less trustworthy; comfort-based appeals were warmer and more relational, yet both hedonic appeals produced lower behavioural intention than the control message. Green scepticism strengthened this negative effect, particularly for comfort-based appeals. The findings suggest that hedonic sustainability communication operates less through heightened physiological arousal than through interpretive credibility evaluation, particularly among sceptical consumers.
•Hedonic framing may reduce pro-environmental intention despite positive emotions.•Pleasure appeals feel enjoyable but are perceived as superficial and untrustworthy.•Comfort appeals feel warm and relatable but do not drive pro-environmental intention.•Green scepticism intensifies hedonic appeal backfire, more strongly for comfort than pleasure appeals.•PKM and Truth-Default Theory jointly explain why hedonic appeals backfire.