Design dissonance in sustainability messaging: How visually complex conservation signs undermine resource conservation behavior

Design dissonance in sustainability messaging: How visually complex conservation signs undermine resource conservation behavior | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Design dissonance in sustainability messaging: How visually complex conservation signs undermine resource conservation behavior Zhaoyang Sun, Chengxiang Ma, Mengchan Yuan, Honghao Zhang, Yudong Ai This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 11 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Despite growing sustainability awareness, resource waste remains a pressing issue. Prior research has largely focused on message content in conservation appeals, overlooking how visual presentation influences consumer behavior. This research addresses that gap by investigating how the visual complexity of resource conservation signs affects consumer conservation behavior. We propose that complex (vs. simple) sign designs reduce conservation behaviors by triggering perceived organizational hypocrisy, particularly among holistic thinkers. Across four studies, Study 1 shows that complex signs reduce resource-saving behavior in a real-world cafeteria setting. Studies 2 and 3 confirm the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy by measuring and manipulating it. Study 4 reveals a moderating effect of thinking style: holistic thinkers, more sensitive to contextual inconsistency, perceive greater hypocrisy and show lower conservation behavior in response to complex designs than analytical thinkers. This research advances both the understanding of planetary well-being and effective communication strategies, offering practical guidance for crafting authentic visual narratives that foster global solidarity and collective responsibility for our shared future. Business and commerce/Business and management Social science/Business and management Social science/Environmental studies Humanities/Philosophy Biological sciences/Psychology Social science/Psychology Social science/Science technology and society Visual complexity resource conservation sign organizational hypocrisy cognitive styles conservation behavior Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 1. Introduction Resource conservation represents one of the most pressing challenges confronting contemporary society. Despite heightened awareness of sustainability imperatives, global waste statistics remain profoundly concerning. Resource waste—whether food, water, or material resources—continues to present a pervasive problem with substantial environmental and economic implications (Xu & Bolton, 2024). For instance, food waste alone accounts for approximately one-third of global food production, signifying not merely nutritional loss but also the squandering of resources utilized throughout production, processing, and distribution processes (Gao et al., 2024). This wastage occurs across the entire supply chain from production to consumption, with consumer-level waste presenting a particularly challenging dimension of the problem (Quested et al., 2013). The complexity of waste behaviors stems from the interaction of multiple factors, including individual attitudes, social norms, contextual factors, and knowledge gaps (Aydin & Yildirim, 2021). To address these challenges, organizations employ various strategies to encourage conservation behavior. Resource conservation sign constitute a common and relatively cost-effective approach to promote sustainable resource utilization across diverse contexts—from water conservation in public restrooms to reduced food wastage in restaurants and paper conservation in offices. These resource conservation signs function as persuasive instruments designed to influence consumer behavior at critical decision points (Singha et al., 2022). However, the efficacy of these messages depends not merely on their content but fundamentally on their visual design and presentation modality. Visual design within conservation messages plays a crucial role in attracting attention, conveying information, and ultimately influencing behavior (Pieters et al., 2010). Visual complexity—defined as the level of detail, intricacy, and information density within visual stimuli—constitutes a fundamental aspect of design that influences how consumers process and respond to information (Donderi, 2006). This research focuses on the visual complexity of the context in which information is located. Prior research has established that visual complexity significantly impacts attentional processes, recall, and information effectiveness. Tuch et al. (2012) demonstrated that visual complexity influenced users' first impressions and subsequent information processing, with moderately complex stimuli often facilitating optimal cognitive engagement. Donato and Adiguzel (2024) found that visual complexity in labels significantly improves user's cognitive fluency and increases favorability towards it. But some researchers also hinted at the disadvantages of complex design. Orth et al. (2016) visually complex environments reduce consumers' self-control, which is detrimental to their shopping experience. Notably, the relationship between visual complexity and information effectiveness within the specific context of resource conservation messaging presents an intriguing paradox: Although conservation messages aim to promote resource efficiency and reduce waste, presenting these messages with visually complex design elements may inadvertently convey a sense of excessive resource use (Hinsch et al., 2021). This contradictory value expression can undermine the persuasive power of such messages in encouraging the public to conserve resources—an issue that remains underexplored in the current conservation literature. To address this gap, the present study seeks to empirically examine this phenomenon. It proposes the hypothesis that conservation signs with higher visual complexity will lead individuals to exhibit lower levels of resource-conserving behavior than those with simpler designs. The underlying mechanism may lie in the perception of organizational hypocrisy—where consumers sense a disconnect between the organization's pro-conservation messages and its apparent resource-intensive presentation (Kramarczyk & Oliver, 2022). As such, perceived organizational hypocrisy is expected to mediate the relationship between visual complexity and conservation behavior. However, the above effects may also be subject to boundary conditions. From the perspective of individual thinking styles, holistic thinkers are more likely to perceive the inherent contradiction between complex visual design and conservation appeals due to their greater contextual sensitivity, while analytical thinkers are less sensitive to this contradiction because of their preference for rule-based and relatively detached processing methods (Choi et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2011). This distinction leads to systematic differences in the strength of the association between visual complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy across the two thinking styles. It is speculated that, compared with analytical thinkers, holistic thinkers are more likely to perceive organizational hypocrisy when exposed to visually complex conservation signs, making them less motivated to conserve. This research contributes to sustainable development in several theoretically and practically dimensions. Theoretically, it extends understanding of how visual design influences conservation message effectiveness by integrating insights from visual complexity research, organizational hypocrisy theory, and cognitive processing frameworks. By identifying the counterintuitive relationship between design complexity and saving behaviors, this study illuminates previously unexplored psychological mechanisms underlying conservation message effectiveness. Practically, this research provides actionable guidance for organizations seeking to design more effective conservation communications by aligning visual elements with conservation principles. The findings offer empirically-grounded recommendations for governments, non-profit organizations, and corporations committed to promoting sustainable resource utilization through strategic design intervention. 2. Literature review and hypotheses development 2.1 Consumer Resource saving Consumer resource saving represents a complex behavioral phenomenon that emerges from the intricate interplay between cognitive processes and environmental contingencies (Gifford, 2014). Contemporary theoretical frameworks illuminate two interconnected yet distinct mechanisms through which resource waste manifests in consumer behavior. The first mechanism, anchored in cognitive processing theory, delineates how mental models and processing fluency systematically influence resource allocation decisions. This theoretical perspective achieves particular precision through recent empirical investigations demonstrating how cognitive resource availability shapes saving behaviors (Gao et al., 2024). Specifically, the cognitive framework has been refined through the identification of dual psychological pathways - planning deficiency and overconsumption tendency - which reveal how limitations in cognitive processing create systematic biases in resource conservation behaviors (Stancu et al., 2016). The second theoretical mechanism elucidates the environmental determinants of resource saving, examining how contextual factors systematically moderate conservation behaviors. Through rigorous meta-analytic investigation, Hebrok and Boks (2017) establish that environmental cues fundamentally shape resource consumption patterns by altering the accessibility and salience of conservation goals. Recent research by Cassia and Magno (2024) extends this understanding by demonstrating how self-determination theory can illuminate the interaction between intrinsic motivations and environmental factors in shaping resource conservation behaviors. This contextual perspective achieves theoretical completeness through integration with contemporary frameworks of consumer motivation and environmental behavior. Building on these foundational mechanisms, recent empirical work has identified several key factors influencing consumer resource saving behavior. Individual-level factors include environmental attitudes and conservation consciousness, while situational factors encompass subjective norms, social norms, and social comparison effects (White et al., 2019). For instance, research reveals that consumers with stronger water conservation consciousness demonstrate significantly lower household water consumption (Fielding et al., 2012). Moreover, social comparison interventions have proven effective in reducing resource consumption, as evidenced by field experiments showing how comparative feedback can reduce household energy use (Allcott, 2011). Contemporary research has expanded our understanding of resource saving through novel theoretical lenses. Gao et al. (2024) introduce a crucial distinction between individual and collective resource frames, demonstrating how cognitive construal of resource availability systematically influences resource saving behavior. Additionally, Cassia and Magno's (2024) application of self-determination theory reveals how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interplay to shape conservation outcomes, offering new insights into the psychological mechanisms underlying resource saving decisions. While existing research has made significant strides in understanding the cognitive and environmental determinants of resource saving, several critical areas remain underexplored. Particularly, the role of visual environmental cues in shaping resource conservation behaviors represents a promising yet understudied domain. Drawing on the established dual-mechanism framework of cognitive processing and environmental factors, investigating how visual design elements influence resource saving behavior offers both theoretical richness and practical significance. This research direction aligns with recent calls to examine how environmental cues can be strategically designed to promote sustainable consumption patterns (White et al., 2019). 2.2. Visual complexity and consumer behavior Visual complexity emerges as a multidimensional theoretical construct that systematically influences consumer cognition and behavior through distinct psychological mechanisms (Donderi, 2006). Recent theoretical advances have refined our understanding of how visual complexity operates within consumer decision contexts. Chen et al. (2024) demonstrate that fundamental visual elements, such as shape characteristics, systematically influence consumers' cognitive processing and subsequent behavioral responses. This theoretical perspective achieves particular sophistication through empirical evidence showing how visual complexity elements modulate learning cost inferences and adoption decisions. The relationship between visual complexity and cognitive processing represents a fundamental theoretical linkage that has garnered renewed scholarly attention. Drawing upon processing fluency theory, visual complexity systematically influences the ease with which consumers process environmental information, thereby affecting subsequent judgments and decisions (Reber et al., 2004). Chen and Ahlstrom (2023) advance this theoretical framework by demonstrating how complexity-induced goal conflict influences aesthetic preferences, particularly in contexts where cognitive resources are constrained. Their findings reveal that consumers systematically prefer simpler visual designs when facing complex decision environments, suggesting a compensatory mechanism in cognitive resource allocation. Contemporary research has illuminated novel dimensions of how visual complexity shapes consumer behavior. Chen and Wei (2023) establish that visual simplicity can activate temporal landmarks that influence consumer value orientations, demonstrating the profound interconnection between visual processing and higher-order psychological mechanisms. This theoretical advancement is particularly relevant when considering how visual complexity might influence sustainable consumption behaviors through its effects on self-transcendence values. The integration of these findings with established processing fluency frameworks suggests sophisticated pathways through which visual complexity might influence resource conservation decisions. The contextual moderation of visual complexity effects represents a crucial theoretical dimension that has been empirically validated in recent studies. Recent work demonstrates that circular versus angular shapes in visual design systematically influence consumer adoption behaviors through their effects on perceived learning costs (Chen et al., 2024). This finding achieves particular significance when considered alongside evidence that visual complexity effects are moderated by goal activation and external cue availability, suggesting complex interactions between visual elements and contextual factors in shaping consumer responses. While existing research has established robust relationships between visual complexity and various consumer behaviors, several critical domains remain underexplored. Particularly notable is the limited investigation of how visual complexity influences resource conservation behaviors, despite theoretical reasons to expect significant effects through both cognitive processing and motivational pathways. The demonstrated effects of visual complexity on goal conflict resolution (Chen & Ahlstrom, 2023) and value activation (Chen & Wei, 2023) suggest promising mechanisms through which visual design elements might influence resource conservation decisions. This theoretical synthesis reveals sophisticated mechanisms through which visual complexity might influence resource conservation behaviors, particularly through its effects on processing fluency and attention allocation. The emerging evidence suggesting that simpler visual designs can facilitate value-congruent behavior (Chen & Wei, 2023) provides a theoretical foundation for investigating how visual complexity in conservation contexts might influence resource saving behaviors. This research direction offers both theoretical richness and practical significance for understanding how visual design elements can be leveraged to promote sustainable consumption patterns. 2.3. The impact of resource conservation sign complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy Resource conservation signs represent specialized visual communication instruments that remind consumers to conserve resources such as water, electricity, and paper (Gregersen & Johansen, 2022). Within sustainability contexts, congruence between information content and presentational modality exerts substantial influence on message efficacy and behavioral adoption (Bartikowski & Berens, 2021). Contemporary empirical evidence indicates that stakeholders demonstrate heightened sensitivity to perceived incongruities between environmental information content and its presentational format (Kim & Trusov, 2025). As a critical presentational attribute, visual complexity—operationalized as a multiplicative function of design element density, compositional intricacy, and informational load—fundamentally determines information processing efficiency and behavioral response (Wilson & Bellezza, 2022). When resource conservation signs employ complex visual designs, consumers perceive inconsistency between the advocated resource conservation and organizational practices (Hinsch et al., 2021; Parguel, BenoîtMoreau, & Larceneux, 2011). This perceived incongruity between presentational complexity and conservation messaging becomes a pivotal determinant of stakeholder perceptions regarding organizational authenticity. Therefore, visual complexity can lead consumers to perceive organizational hypocrisy, which can be explained in the following aspects. First, complex designs inherently entail elevated production costs and increased resource consumption(Bhise, V. D.2023), which directly contradicts the resource conservation message they intend to convey. This inconsistency between resource-intensive displays and conservation advocacy amplifies stakeholder perceptions of organizational hypocrisy through recognition of the gap between organizational practices and environmental commitments (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). Secondly, complex visual designs inherently suppress sustainable consumption behaviors (Vaishnav & Tammet, 2025), thereby generating fundamental incongruity with conservation objectives. While simplified designs systematically facilitate low-carbon initiatives (He & Deng, 2015) and promote conservation consumption practices (Kuanr & Huneke, 2020), complex designs produce contrary effects. This intrinsic contradiction between design choices and intended behavioral outcomes evokes stakeholder perceptions of organizational inconsistency. Third, complex designs evoke hedonic-oriented mental associations through elaborate visual elements (Wilson & Bellezza, 2022), which conflicts with the restraint, responsibility and rationality emphasized by economy (Nepomuceno & Laroche, 2017). This inherent contradiction between hedonic satisfaction and resource conservation further amplifies perceived organizational hypocrisy (Kramarczyk & Oliver, 2022). When conservation information is presented in a highly hedonistic manner, consumers are more likely to believe that organizations are using the name of environmental protection to beautify their brands or engage in marketing, thereby reinforcing their perception of the organization's hypocrisy. Finally, complex design may interfere with consumers' attention allocation and understanding of key information, making it impossible for them to quickly and accurately interpret the intention to save, thereby reducing the persuasiveness of information and the efficiency of behavioral conversion (Pieters, Wedel, & Batra, 2010; Tuch, BargasAvila, & Opwis, 2012). Difficulties in information processing may also be interpreted by consumers as "deliberate ambiguity" or "formalism", further weakening their recognition of the sincerity of the organization (Parguel, BenoîtMoreau, & Larceneux, 2011; Lyons & Montgomery, 2015). Taken together, visual complexity in resource conservation signs systematically shakes up consumers' perceptions of organizational authenticity and commitment to environmental stewardship. 2.4. The impact of perceived organizational hypocrisy on resource saving intention The higher consumers perceived organizational hypocrisy, i.e., perceive inconsistency between the words and actions of organizations advocating resource conservation, the lower their intentions to conserve resources. First, when consumers perceive inconsistencies between the words of an organization advocating conservation and its actual behavior, they will doubt the authenticity of its environmental commitments. This perceived hypocrisy undermines the basis of consumers' trust in the organization (Morales-Giner & Mook, 2025; Wilson & Bellezza, 2022), thereby weakening their willingness to respond to conservation advocacy. In other words, the "moral inconsistency" of organizational behavior weakens consumers' sense of identity and moral drive, thereby reducing their intrinsic motivation to save resources (Demasi et al., 2023). For example, in corporate communication research, Kramarczyk and Oliver (2022) found that stakeholder detection of organizational hypocrisy triggers systematic decreases in information acceptance and behavioral compliance across multiple organizational domains. Similarly, in brand communication settings, perceived inconsistency between organizational claims and practices leads to diminished message persuasiveness and stakeholder trust (Lock & Seele,2017) when consumers detect organizational hypocrisy in environmental messaging, their compliance with conservation directives significantly decreases (Nepomuceno & Laroche, 2017). Moreover, information input that is inconsistent with what one says and what one does may trigger consumers' cognitive dissonance experience. consumers resolve cognitive dissonance through behavioral resistance rather than information internalization (Chang & Lee, 2019). This compensatory behavior emerges particularly strongly when perceived hypocrisy stems from fundamental contradictions between message content and organizational practices. Hinsch et al. (2021) demonstrate that consumers actively reject organizational conservation directives through increased resource utilization patterns rather than internalizing conservation messages, effectively transforming psychological resistance into behavioral opposition. When encountering messages perceived as hypocritical, consumers engage in precisely the behaviors the message discourages, creating a cyclical pattern of resistance and decrease resource conservation. Taken together, we propose: H1: Resource conservation signs with higher (vs. lower) visual complexity decrease consumer resource conservation. H2: Perceived organizational hypocrisy mediates the relationship between resource conservation sign design complexity and consumer resource conservation. 2.5. The moderating role of thinking style The relationship between visual complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy exhibits systematic variation across individual differences in cognitive processing orientation. Contemporary empirical evidence indicates that thinking style serves as a complex moderating mechanism through which information characteristics exert differential influence on behavioral outcomes (Tully et al., 2025). Holistic thinkers are characterized by a tendency to process information in an interconnected and contextually dependent manner, exhibiting heightened sensitivity to inconsistencies between information elements and organizational practices (Williams et al., 2004). This enhanced perceptual acuity manifests through complex integration of visual, contextual, and behavioral elements. For instance, Wu et al. (2017) found that holistic thinkers detect inconsistencies between organizational messaging and practices more frequently than analytical thinkers when evaluating brand communications. Similarly, Wilson and Bellezza (2022) demonstrated that holistic processors exhibit stronger correlation between perceived information-practice consistency and behavioral compliance when investigating consumer responses to organizational messaging. Thus, holistic processors demonstrate stronger attention to contextual relationships, enabling more complex detection of inconsistencies between visual design choices and conservation messaging (Vaishnav & Tammet, 2025). Serences and Yantis (2006) established that holistic processors exhibit superior ability to integrate visual elements into coherent perceptual wholes, facilitating detection of incongruities in visual communication. In contrast, analytical thinkers exhibit systematically different inconsistency detection patterns due to their rule-based, context-independent processing orientation (Liang et al., 2011). This cognitive style manifests as focused attention on central information elements while filtering peripheral contextual information (Nepomuceno & Laroche, 2017). For example, analytical processors demonstrate reduced sensitivity to information-practice inconsistencies compared to holistic processors when evaluating organizational communications (Wu et al., 2017). Thus, the complex design of the conservation sign caused analytical (vs. holistic) thinkers to perceive the organization as less hypocritical. We propose: H3: Thinking style moderated the effect of resource conservation sign design complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy and thus moderated the effect of resource conservation sign design complexity on resource conservation. Specifically, these effects are stronger for holistic (vs. analytical) thinkers. 3. Study 1 The purpose of Study 1 was to test that a resource conservation sign with a complex (vs.simple) design would significantly decrease consumer resource conservation. To enhance ecological validity, this study was conducted in a university cafeteria with a pay-by-weight self-service system. A double-blind design was employed to control for experimenter bias. 3.1. Participants Participants were recruited through on-campus promotion. Four participants declined to have their food weighed, resulting in a final sample of 146 teachers and students (41.1% male; M age =32.30, SD = 10.38). The average dining time per participant was approximately 23 minutes. 3.2. Procedure and materials The study was conducted in a pay-by-weight self-service cafeteria located on the campus of a comprehensive university in eastern China. The experiment employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of design complexity of conservation signage (simple vs. complex). The dependent variable was participants' actual food saving behavior, measured by weight. The experiment was conducted over four consecutive days. To mitigate the influence of dining time on the results, both lunchtime and dinnertime sessions were included. On Day 1, conservation signage with a simple design was displayed on tables from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., while signage with a complex design was displayed from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (see Fig. 1). The display order was reversed on Day 2, minimizing potential order effects. [Figure 1. Food conservation sign in Study 1] Throughout the experiment, researchers observed participants' dining behavior from discreet locations within the cafeteria without interfering in the process. After participants finished their meals, researchers used an electronic kitchen scale to weigh the leftover food on their trays. Only edible leftovers—including staple foods and unfinished dishes—were included in the measurement. The measured food saving intention served as the dependent variable. Participants were then asked to report their demographic information. Finally, researchers confirmed whether participants had noticed the signage during the meal and asked them to evaluate the perceived design complexity of the signage ("To what extent do you think the signage is simple or complex?" 1 = very simple, 7 = very complex). All participants reported having seen the signage. 3.3. Results 3.3.1. Manipulation check An ANOVA revealed that participants in the complex design condition ( M = 3.64, SD = 1.91)perceived the signage as significantly more complex than those in the simple design condition ( F (1,144) = 25.34, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.15), confirming the success of the manipulation. 3.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and food saving behavior Across all participants, the total amount of leftover food was 1,261 grams, with an average of 12.95 grams per person. After controlling for age and gender, an ANOVA showed that participants in the complex design condition ( M = 10.44, SD = 5.61)saved significantly less food than those in the simple design condition ( M = 6.84, SD = 4.32, F (1,142) = 17.80, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.11). 3.4. Discussion This field experiment provides empirical support for Hypothesis 1 (H1), demonstrating that a complex design in conservation signage significantly decreases consumers' food saving behavior. However, several limitations should be noted. The unique setting—a pay-by-weight cafeteria—helped to control for some confounding variables, but the pricing structure may have introduced economic motivations that partially masked the influence of signage design. Additionally, cultural context may have played a role: participants in East Asian cultures may hold different values regarding resource conservation compared to their Western counterparts, which could limit the generalization of the findings. Moreover, while this study focused on observable behavioral outcomes, it did not explore the underlying psychological mechanisms driving these effects. To address these limitations, Study 2 employs a lab-based experimental design with participants from the United States and Canada, examining the impact of design complexity in the context of paper conservation. This next study also investigates potential psychological processes, such as perceived organizational hypocrisy, that may explain the observed behavioral differences. 4. Study 2 The purpose of Study 2 was to examine the underlying psychological mechanism through which the design complexity of conservation sign affects consumers' resource saving behavior. Specifically, we tested the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy and ruled out alternative explanations. Also, this replicate tested H1. The study employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of signage design complexity (simple vs. complex). 4.1. Participants A total of 160 participants from the United States and Canada were recruited via MTurk. After excluding 13 participants who failed attention checks, the final sample consisted of 147 valid responses (42.9% male; M age = 29.56, SD = 7.75). 4.2. Procedure and materials First, we manipulated the independent variable—the design complexity of conservation sign—by randomly assigning participants to either a simple or complex design condition. All participants were asked to imagine themselves working and drinking coffee in a café where a sign reading "RESOURCE CONSERVATION" was placed on the table. They were instructed to observe the sign carefully, with a system-enforced minimum viewing time of 12 seconds. The text remained identical across conditions, while only the visual complexity varied (see Fig. 2). [Figure 2. Conservation sign in Study 2] Following the manipulation, participants completed a manipulation check assessing perceived design complexity of conservation sign, along with a measure of their liking toward the signage. Subsequently, we measured the dependent variable: consumers' intention to save paper. Participants were asked to imagine they had accidentally spilled coffee on the table while working in the café and intended to clean up the spill. They then indicated, on a 7-point scale (1 = very little, 7 = very much), how many paper napkins they would both intend and prefer to use. The average of these two responses was used as an indicator of paper saving intention. To explore the underlying psychological mechanisms, we measured the mediating variable, perceived organizational hypocrisy at this time, using three items adapted from Wagner et al. (2009), which included "I think this coffee shop is being disingenuous," "I think this coffee shop is just pretending in some places," "I think this coffee shop doesn't practice what it preaches"(1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We also asked participants to report their ego depletion based on how they were feeling in the moment ("I feel exhausted", "I can't concentrate right now", "It takes a lot of effort for me to concentrate on something", "I have low energy", "I feel like I have no willpower"; Lin & Johnson, 2015), as a measure of competitive mediation. . In addition, we included mood as a control variable, assessed via six emotion-related adjectives— happy , excited , lighthearted , sad , distressed , and downbeat —on 7-point Likert scales. To control for individual differences in environmental awareness and conservation consciousness, participants reported their agreement with statements such as "I consider myself an environmentally conscious person," and, for conservation, "I sometimes waste resources in my daily life" (reverse-coded) and "I am very mindful about conserving resources in daily life." At the conclusion of the study, participants were asked to report their gender and age. 4.3. Results 4.3.1. Manipulation check An ANOVA confirmed the effectiveness of the design complexity manipulation. Participants in the complex design condition reported significantly higher perceived design complexity ( M = 6.70, SD = 2.17) than those in the simple design condition ( M = 3.07, SD = 1.97, F (1,145) = 112.76, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.44). 4.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and paper saving intention After controlling for mood, conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, gender, and age, a one-way ANOVA showed that participants in the simple design condition ( M = 2.81, SD = 1.23) exhibited significantly higher intention to save paper than those in the complex design condition ( M = 4.25, SD = 1.10; F (1,135) = 59.48, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.31 ). This result provided further support for H1. 4.3.3. The mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy To test the hypothesized mechanism, a bootstrap analysis ( PROCESS Model 4, 5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) was conducted with design complexity of conservation signage (0 = simple, 1 = complex) as the independent variable, intention to save paper as the dependent variable, and perceived organizational hypocrisy as the mediator. Control variables included mood, conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, gender, and age. Results showed that complex design significantly increased perceived organizational hypocrisy ( b = 0.70, p < .001), which in turn significantly predicted paper saving intention ( b = 0.33, p < .001). The indirect effect was significant ( indirect effect = 0.23, SE = 0.08; 95%CI [0.0993, 0.4180]), supporting the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy. 4.3.4. Ruling out alternative mediation of ego depletion To rule out an alternative explanation, we tested ego depletion as a competing mediator using the same bootstrap approach. The indirect effect was not significant ( indirect effect = 0.04, SE = 0.08; 95%CI [-0.1283, 0.1893]), suggesting that ego depletion did not mediate the relationship between design complexity and paper saving intention. 4.4. Discussion Study 2 demonstrated that a complex design in conservation signage led to greater perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn decreased participants' resource saving intention. The mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy was empirically supported. Additionally, the study ruled out ego depletion as an alternative explanation, providing more robust support for the proposed mechanism. However, because mediation was tested using measurement-based methods, the study could not conclusively determine the causal relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable. To address this, the next study manipulates the mediator directly, allowing us to both replicate the mediating effect and examine its causal role in driving resource saving behavior. 5. Study 3 Study 3 aimed to further test the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy by directly manipulating participants' perceptions of this construct. This approach allowed for stronger causal inferences regarding the relationship between design complexity of conservation signage and resource saving behavior. 5.1. Participants A total of 210 Chinese participants recruited via some social media platforms completed a laboratory experiment. After excluding 9 individuals who failed attention checks, the final sample included 201 participants (65.7% male; M age = 30.21, SD = 9.73 ). 5.2. Procedure and materials Study 3 employed a 2 (sign design: simple vs. complex) × 2 (attitude toward organizational hypocrisy: supportive vs. opposing) between-subjects factorial design. Participants were first randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. They were asked to imagine a scenario in which a shopping mall, as part of a public campaign to promote resource conservation, had placed a "Save Water" sign near the restroom sinks. Participants were instructed to carefully observe the sign (see Fig. 3) and then evaluate its perceived design complexity (1 = extremely simple, 7 = extremely complex). [Figure 3. Water conservation sign in Study 3] Next, we manipulated participants' perceptions of organizational hypocrisy using a method adapted from Wagner et al.(2009). Participants were first presented with a definition of organizational hypocrisy: a situation in which a company or organization's actual behavior is inconsistent with the image it promotes. Those assigned to the "support" condition were asked to write down three reasons why they support organizational hypocrisy, while those in the "oppose" condition were asked to write three reasons why they oppose it. Then, to complete the manipulation check, participants completed the perceived organizational hypocrisy scale, as in Study 2. Following that participants completed the measures for the dependent variable, using the same items as in Study 2. Specifically, participants imagined they had dirt on their hands while shopping and then went to the mall's restroom to wash it off. They were then asked to indicate how much water they would intend and prefer to use to clean their hands (1 = very little, 7 = very much). The average of these two responses was used to reversely index water saving intention. Finally, we measured participants' environmental awareness and conservation consciousness, using the same items as in Study 2. At the end of the survey, participants reported their age and gender. 5.3. Results 5.3.1. Manipulation checks. A one-way ANOVA confirmed that participants in the complex design condition perceived the design complexity of the conservation signage to be significantly higher ( M = 5.43, SD = 1.12) than those in the simple design condition ( M = 4.33, SD = 1.24; F (1, 199) = 43.06, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.18. Additionally, participants in the "support organizational hypocrisy" condition reported significantly lower levels of perceived organizational hypocrisy ( M = 2.74, SD = 1.11) compared to those in the "oppose organizational hypocrisy" condition ( M = 4.07, SD = 1.20; F (1, 199) = 65.39, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.25). These results confirm the success of both manipulations. 5.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and water saving intention. Controlling for conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, age, and gender, ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction between sign design complexity and attitude toward organizational hypocrisy on water saving intention ( F (1, 187) = 35.11, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.16). Simple effects analysis showed that in the "support organizational hypocrisy" condition, there was no significant difference in water saving intention between the simple ( M = 2.82, SD = 2.15) and complex design groups ( M = 3.02, SD = 2.32; F (1, 187) = 0.17, p = .68, η p 2 = 0.001). However, in the "oppose organizational hypocrisy" condition, participants exposed to the complex design reported significantly lower water saving intention ( M = 5.30, SD = 2.05) than those exposed to the simple design ( M = 3.63, SD = 2.19; F (1,187) = 62.49, p < 0.001, η p 2 = 0.25). 5.4. Discussion Study 3 demonstrated that when the effect of design complexity was blocked by reducing perceived organizational hypocrisy, its influence on resource saving behavior disappeared. This finding reinforces the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy, providing further support for H2. The following research would test boundary regulation. 6. Study 4 The goal of Study 4 was to examine the moderating effect of thinking style. We hypothesized that for holistic thinkers, a complex design in conservation signage would lead to higher perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn would decrease resource saving behavior. However, these effects were expected to be non-significant among analytic thinkers (H3). 6.1. Participants A total of 255 participants were recruited via the Prolific online survey platform. After excluding 15 participants who failed attention checks, the final sample included 240 participants (40.3% male; M age = 28.92, SD = 8.65). This study employed a single-factor between-subjects design, manipulating the design complexity of conservation signage (simple vs. complex). All participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups. 6.2. Procedure and materials Before the experiment began, participants were asked to provide informed consent. Upon agreeing, they submitted their Prolific ID and proceeded to the first task, which assessed their thinking style. We used the 10-item scale developed by Choi et al. (2003) to measure holistic versus analytic thinking. Participants indicated their agreement with statements such as "Everything in the universe is somehow related to each other." Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). Higher average scores reflected a tendency toward holistic thinking, whereas lower scores indicated analytic thinking. After completing this measure, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: simple design or complex design of conservation sign. They were asked to imagine dining at a restaurant that had implemented a "Save Food" sign to promote food conservation (see Fig. 4). Participants were instructed to observe the sign carefully, with a system-enforced minimum viewing time of 12 seconds. The message on the sign remained the same across both groups, while only the visual complexity differed. After viewing the signage, participants evaluated its perceived design complexity (1 = extremely simple, 7 = extremely complex). Figure 4. Food conservation sign in Study 4 Subsequently, participants were asked to imagine that they did not finish their meal and had some leftover food. Based on this scenario, they indicated how likely they would be to throw away the leftovers versus pack them up, responding to items such as " How likely are you to throw leftover food away?" and " How likely are you to pack up the leftovers?" , both rated on a 7-point scale. The first item was reverse-coded, and the two responses were averaged to indicate their intention to save food. To examine the underlying mechanism, we measured perceived organizational hypocrisy using the same items as in Study 2. As control variables, participants also completed measures of conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, and baseline mood, following the scales used in Studies 2 and 3. Finally, participants reported their demographic information, including age and gender. 6.3. Results 6.3.1. Manipulation check. A one-way ANOVA confirmed the effectiveness of the design complexity manipulation. Participants in the simple design condition perceived the signage to be significantly less complex ( M = 3.69, SD = 1.92) than those in the complex design condition ( M = 5.88, SD = 1.28; F (1, 238) = 63.18, p < .001, η p 2 = 0.32). These results confirmed that the manipulation of the conservation sign design complexity was successful. 6.3.2. The moderating effect of the thinking style between conservation sign design complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy We conducted a moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 7, 5,000 bootstraps) with design complexity of conservation sign as the independent variable (0 = simple, 1 = complex), perceived organizational hypocrisy as the mediator, food saving intention as the dependent variable, and thinking style as the moderator. Control variables included conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, baseline mood, age, and gender. The analysis revealed that thinking style moderated the effect of design complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy ( b = 0.27, p < .001), as well as the strength of the mediation effect ( moderated mediation index = 0.13, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.0393, 0.2582]). Specifically, for holistic thinkers (1 SD above the mean), design complexity significantly increased perceived organizational hypocrisy ( b = 0.55, p < .001), and the mediation effect of perceived organizational hypocrisy between design complexity and saving behavior was significant ( indirect effect = 0.27, SE = 0.10, 95% CI [0.0841, 0.4935]). In contrast, for analytic thinkers (1 SD below the mean), design complexity had no significant effect on perceived organizational hypocrisy ( b = 0.06, p = .95), and the indirect effect was also not significant ( indirect effect = 0.01, SE = 0.05, 95% CI [–0.0930, 0.1044]). These findings provide support for H3. 6.3.3. The moderating effect of the thinking style between conservation sign design complexity and food saving intention To further examine whether thinking style also moderated the effect of design complexity on resource saving behavior, we conducted a moderation analysis (PROCESS Model 1, 5,000 bootstraps). Results showed a significant moderating effect of thinking style between design complexity and thinking style ( b = 0.46, p = .002). Specifically, among holistic thinkers, complex design significantly decreased food saving intention ( b = 0.71, p < .001), whereas among analytic thinkers, design complexity had no significant effect on food saving intention ( b = − 0.09, p = .35). These results further support H3. 6.4. Discussion Study 4 demonstrated that thinking style moderated the effect of design complexity of conservation signage on perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn moderated the relationship between design complexity and resource saving behavior, providing strong support for H3. 7. General discussion In the context of global advocacy for sustainable development, an increasing number of organizations are encouraging consumers to adopt sustainable behaviors through resource-saving labels. However, the aesthetic complexity of these labels may inadvertently affect consumers' perceptions and behaviors. This study explores this issue and confirms that compared to minimalist designs, complex eco-labels exacerbate consumers' resource waste, with the driving mechanism being an enhanced perception of organizational hypocrisy. This effect is especially prominent among holistic thinkers and weakens among analytical thinkers. The findings were validated through a series of experiments involving different types of eco-labels, communication scenarios, and participant samples. 7.1. Theoretical implications This study effectively extends the understanding of how visual design complexity influences moral fluency and its role in sustainability. Previous research has positioned complexity as a perceptual attribute influencing processing fluency and related evaluations (Donderi, 2006). For instance, advertising scholars have found that complexity increases gaze duration while reducing brand recall (Pieters, Wedel, & Batra, 2010). This study builds on these insights, showing that complexity also affects moral fluency. In the context of sustainability, excess visual embellishments are spontaneously interpreted as a waste of ink, labor, and design time—resources that contradict the frugality principles advocated by the label. Thus, complexity shifts from a neutral design parameter to a value-laden cue, triggering ethical attributions that influence behavior. This finding calls on scholars to consider other low-level design features (such as animation smoothness, material texture, and packaging glossiness) as potential sustainability cues, especially when these features conflict with the claimed virtue of restraint. It also provides inspiration for studying visual marketing from the perspective of moral fluency. The study introduces the concept of perceived organizational hypocrisy as a mediating mechanism between visual complexity and consumer behavior. Historically, hypocrisy research has mainly focused on strategic levels—such as companies promoting environmental policies while polluting or outsourcing labor (Wagner, Lutz, & Weitz, 2009). We find that even when observers are unaware of a company's substantive practices, micro-level aesthetic signals can trigger perceptions of hypocrisy. By incorporating "hypocrisy" into the study of eco-label design and audience attitudes, we argue that moral fluency (the alignment between form and proclaimed values) is just as critical in driving information effectiveness as cognitive fluency, which has been the focus of previous research on information effectiveness. Cognitive fluency influences judgments through the "warm glow" effect of ease, while moral fluency affects judgments through perceptions of sincerity and value consistency. Future research should further explore whether these two constructs interact or operate as parallel paths, and whether interventions to enhance value consistency (such as minimalism or recycled materials) can offset the negative effects of cognitive disfluency in other domains. The study further reveals the application of cognitive style in influencing how visual design affects consumers' cognitive processes. Decades of cross-cultural psychology research have distinguished holistic and analytical thinking (Choi, Koo, & Choi, 2007), but few persuasion models specify how these styles moderate responses to design-information consistency. Our research shows that holistic thinkers, due to their sensitivity to contextual consistency, are harsher in judging aesthetic-moral mismatches, while analytical thinkers focus on literal cues (e.g., "save food") and ignore implicit resource cues, thus weakening the perception of hypocrisy. This asymmetry offers subtle insights for cultural predictions: as holistic cognition is more prevalent in East Asian populations (Liang et al., 2011), elaborate "green" campaigns may backfire in these markets. This finding illuminates how cognitive diversity shapes environmental stewardship communication, offering critical insights for mobilizing collective action. Future research should prioritize individual differences—particularly cognitive styles—to foster inclusive strategies that unite communities in safeguarding our shared planetary future. 7.2. Practical implications Organizations should adopt visually simple designs when promoting resource conservation through labels. Overly complex designs—whether through intricate graphics, dense text, or detailed color schemes—may send signals of resource waste and undermine the intended message. Simple designs not only reduce production costs but also communicate the core message of conservation more effectively, avoiding triggering consumer perceptions of hypocrisy. For example, eco-label designs should avoid excessive visual embellishments and maintain clarity, helping consumers better understand the meaning of conservation and increasing their engagement. This study calls on scholars and practitioners to align aesthetic frugality with resource frugality, ensuring that the "image" conveyed by the communicator is as "streamlined" as the behavior they are trying to inspire. Organizations must ensure that their visual design aligns with their actual practices. This study shows that inconsistencies between the complexity of an eco-label's design and its conservation message can reduce message credibility and prompt consumers to adopt contradictory behaviors. Therefore, when using eco-labels, organizations should ensure their visual design matches actual conservation practices. For example, using recyclable materials and low-impact inks in label designs can convey a more authentic conservation message, avoiding the impression of hypocrisy. Ensuring consistency between message, design, and behavior is crucial for improving public acceptance of conservation information and encouraging behavioral change. Organizations should consider the cognitive style of their audience when designing labels. Holistic thinkers are more sensitive to the overall coherence and consistency of information and should be exposed to simpler designs to avoid triggering perceptions of hypocrisy. In contrast, analytical thinkers are less concerned with design complexity and may be exposed to more intricate designs. Organizations can adjust design complexity based on the target audience's cognitive style, for example, by using digital platforms and adaptive labels to customize designs for different cognitive styles, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of communication. 7.3. Limitations and future research Although this study captures real-world food saving behavior through field research, subsequent experiments rely on self-reported intentions, which may differ from actual behavior. Longitudinal field interventions in settings such as fixed-price buffets, public restrooms, or office printers could test whether elaborate labels maintain wasteful behavior over time, or if their effect weakens with habituation. Furthermore, deploying objective sensors (e.g., scales under trash bins, water flow meters) could provide finer-grained behavioral data and reveal temporal dynamics, such as whether the hypocrisy effect peaks with initial exposure and subsequently diminishes. The interaction between visual elements such as color, brightness, and contrast and design complexity remains an area for further investigation. This study focuses solely on design complexity, yet color, brightness, and contrast also carry resource-saving connotations. Dark and saturated tones often convey a sense of heaviness and material strength, while light or natural greens suggest eco-friendliness (Elliot & Maier, 2014; Labrecque & Milne, 2013). Future research could employ orthogonal manipulation of tone and complexity to construct a multidimensional "sustainable design matrix" and test interaction patterns, such as whether simplified color schemes can mitigate the hypocrisy triggered by complexity, or whether dark colors exacerbate moral offense, thereby providing important empirical evidence for refining related theories. Future research can further explore the mechanisms by which individual differences and design complexity influence consumer behavior. In addition to cognitive style, regulatory focus may influence responses: prevention-focused individuals are more sensitive to losses and may accept complexity if they perceive the warning as serious, while promotion-focused individuals may resist the same complexity to preserve autonomy (Higgins, 1997). Moral identity centrality may also amplify sensitivity to hypocrisy (Aquino & Reed, 2002). Furthermore, other mechanisms are worth exploring: for example, complexity may activate moral licensing, enabling consumers to justify subsequent waste ("the company has overconsumed, so my waste doesn't matter") or trigger cognitive dissonance, leading consumers to diminish the importance of the information to resolve the contradiction. Experimental studies using process measurement and competing mediator models to dissect these pathways will enhance attribution accuracy. Declarations Competing interests The author(s) declare no competing interests. Informed Consent To ensure the protection of participants' rights, privacy, and informed consent, all participants provided written informed consent prior to their involvement in the experiment. The consent was obtained between 20 June 2024 and 15 May 2025, with each participant signing a consent form after being fully informed about the study. The consent covered participation, data usage, and publication of results. Funding Declaration This research was funded by the Shandong Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant number SDCX-RS-202500001), the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF under Grant Number GZC20250473, and Shandong Social Science Planning Fund Program (Grant number 25DXWJ03 ). Author Contribution Z and C contributed equally to the writing of the main manuscript text, including the introduction, literature review, research hypotheses, and discussion sections. Z was responsible for the overall research design and wrote parts of the theoretical framework and methodology sections. C mainly contributed to the explanation of research methods and experimental design, participated in data analysis, and wrote parts of the results section.M was responsible for preparing the figures , including data visualization and graphic design, ensuring that the figures accurately represented the research results. Additionally, M assisted with data collection and analysis and participated in editing and reviewing the manuscript.H was in charge of data analysis, particularly handling and statistical processing of complex datasets. H also provided significant feedback on the conclusion section of the manuscript and assisted in validating the reliability of the results.Y is the corresponding author and supervised the overall project. Y guided the structure and content optimization of the manuscript, contributed to the formulation of the research hypotheses, and co-wrote the methodology section. Y also revised several sections, including the theoretical framework and practical implications, ensuring the manuscript met both academic and practical requirements.All authors participated in reviewing and revising the manuscript and approved the final version. Data availability statement The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. References Allcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. Journal of Public Economics , 95(9–10), 1082–1095. Aquino, K., & Reed, A. II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 83(6), 1423–1440. Aydin, A. E., & Yildirim, P. (2021). Understanding food waste behavior: The role of morals, habits and knowledge. Journal of Cleaner Production , 280, 124250. Bartikowski, B., & Berens, G. (2021). Attribute framing in CSR communication: Doing good and spreading the word -- But how. Journal of Business Research , 131(1), 700–708. Bhise, V. D. (2023).Designing complex products with systems engineering processes and techniques. CRC Press. Cassia, F., & Magno, F. (2024). The value of self-determination theory in marketing studies: Insights from the application of PLS-SEM and NCA to anti-food waste apps. Journal of Business Research , 172, Article 114454. Chen, S., & Ahlstrom, D. (2023). Too complex to handle: Goal conflict and tourist preference for simple aesthetics. Annals of Tourism Research , 102, Article 103639. Chen, S., & Wei, H. (2023). Linking temporal landmarks to voluntary simplicity: The mediating roles of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. Journal of Business Ethics . Advance online publication. Chen, T., Ma, Z., Xiao, M., & Qing, P. (2024). Be careful of the sharp edges! How and why circular versus angular shapes influence consumer adoption of new products. Journal of Business Research , 183, Article 114817. Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33(5), 691–705. Chang, C. T., & Lee, Y. K. (2019). The effect of message framing and language intensity on green advertising effectiveness. Environment, Development and Sustainability , 21(2), 679–699. Donato, C., & Adiguzel, F. (2024). The effects of visual design on eco-labels evaluations: Guidelines for effective green advertising. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 33(2), 271–288. Donderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: A review. Psychological Bulletin , 132(1), 73–97. Demasi, R., & Voegtlin, C. (2023). When the private and the public self don’t align: the role of discrepant moral identity dimensions in processing inconsistent CSR information. Journal of Business Ethics , 187(1), 73–96. Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. Annual Review of Psychology , 65, 95–120. Fielding, K. S., Russell, S., Spinks, A., & Mankad, A. (2012). Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. Water Resources Research , 48(10), 12pp. Gao, H., Jia, H., & Guo, B. (2024). Resources available for me versus us: Implications for mitigating consumer food waste. Journal of Marketing Research , 61(4), 619–637. Gregersen, M. K., & Johansen, T. S. (2022). Organizational-level visual identity: An integrative literature review. Corporate Communications: An International Journal , 27(3), 441–456. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. Annual Review of Psychology , 65, 541–579. Hebrok, M., & Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design – An extensive review. Journal of Cleaner Production , 151, 380–392. He, B., Wang, J., & Deng, Z. (2015). Cost-constrained low-carbon product design. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology , 79, 1821–1828. 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. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach , 1(6), 12–20. Kim, S., & Trusov, M. (2025). The impact of air pollution on consumer spending. Journal of Marketing . Kramarczyk, J., & Alemany Oliver, M. (2022). Accumulative vs. appreciative expressions of materialism: Revising materialism in light of polish simplifiers and new materialism. Journal of Business Ethics , 175(4), 701–719. Kuanr, A., & Huneke, M. (2020). I do not consume therefore I am: Investigating materialism and voluntary simplicity through a moderated mediation model. Psychology & Marketing . Labrecque, L. I., & Milne, G. R. (2013). To be or not to be different: Exploration of norms and benefits of color differentiation in the marketplace. Marketing Letters , 24(2), 165–176. Liang, B., Runyan, R. C., & Fu, W. (2011). The effect of culture on the context of ad pictures and ad persuasion: The role of context-dependent and context-independent thinking. International Marketing Review , 28(4), 412–434. Lin, S. H. J., & Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework. Journal of Applied psychology ,100(5), 1381. Lock, I., & Seele, P. (2017). Measuring credibility perceptions in CSR communication: A scale development to test readers’ perceived credibility of CSR reports. Management Communication Quarterly , 31(4), 584–613. Lyons, T. P., & Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. Organization & Environment , 28(2), 223–249. Morales-Giner, P., & Mook, A. (2025). Ash everywhere: Place attachment and meanings in the aftermath of wildfires. Environment and Behavior . Vaishnav, M., & Tammet, T. (2025). Cognitive Paradigms for Evaluating VLMs on Visual Reasoning Task. arXiv preprint arXiv :2501.13620. Nepomuceno, M. V., & Laroche, M. (2017). When materialists intend to resist consumption: The moderating role of self-control and long-term orientation. Journal of Business Ethics , 143, 467–483. Orth, U. R., Wirtz, J., & McKinney, A. (2016). Shopping experiences in visually complex environments: A self-regulation account. Journal of Service Management , 27(2), 194–217. Pieters, R., Wedel, M., & Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. Journal of Marketing , 74(5), 48–60. Parguel, B., Benoît-Moreau, F., & Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter greenwashing: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. Journal of Business Ethics , 102, 15–28. Quested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., & Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food-waste behaviors. Resources, Conservation and Recycling , 79, 43–51. Reber, R., Schwarz, N., & Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8(4), 364–382. Serences, J. T., & Yantis, S. (2006). Selective visual attention and perceptual coherence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 10(1), 38–45. Singha, B., Eljamal, O., Karmaker, S. C., Maamoun, I., & Sugihara, Y. (2022). Water conservation behavior: Exploring the role of social, psychological, and behavioral determinants. Journal of Environmental Management , 317, Article 115484. Stancu, V., Haugaard, P., & Lähteenmäki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food-waste behavior: Two routes to food waste. Appetite , 96, 7–17. Tuch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., Stöcklin, M., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , 70(11), 794–811. Tully, S., Longoni, C., & Appel, G. (2025). Lower artificial intelligence literacy predicts greater AI receptivity. Journal of Marketing . Wagner, T., Lutz, R. J., & Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social-responsibility perceptions. Journal of Marketing , 73(6), 77–91. 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. Williams, P., Fitzsimons, G. J., & Block, L. G. (2004). When consumers do not recognize "benign" intention questions as persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research , 31(3), 540–550. Wu, F., Samper, A., Morales, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). It's too pretty to use! When and how enhanced product aesthetics discourage usage and lower consumption enjoyment. Journal of Consumer Research , 44(3), 651–672. Wilson, A. V., & Bellezza, S. (2022). Consumer minimalism. Journal of Consumer Research , 48(5), 796–816. Xu, H. F., & Bolton, L. E. (2024). How do consumers react to production waste? Journal of Consumer Research , 51(2), 212–237. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 08 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 17 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 16 Oct, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 22 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 20 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 17 Sep, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 22 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 17 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 17 Aug, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7001637","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":521649980,"identity":"c7cb3bbf-d036-4022-b9f1-03213f060e21","order_by":0,"name":"Zhaoyang Sun","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Shandong University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Zhaoyang","middleName":"","lastName":"Sun","suffix":""},{"id":521649981,"identity":"f993a823-4ce1-4d01-9812-d2a09892e850","order_by":1,"name":"Chengxiang Ma","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Harbin Institute of Technology","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chengxiang","middleName":"","lastName":"Ma","suffix":""},{"id":521649983,"identity":"58e953a0-d878-44ba-9aec-fb80be48d476","order_by":2,"name":"Mengchan Yuan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Chinese Academy of Sciences","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mengchan","middleName":"","lastName":"Yuan","suffix":""},{"id":521649985,"identity":"c54226be-26a5-45f6-8899-d69363d939ec","order_by":3,"name":"Honghao Zhang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Central China Normal University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Honghao","middleName":"","lastName":"Zhang","suffix":""},{"id":521649987,"identity":"f0ad2388-fa22-447a-b324-38509250aaa1","order_by":4,"name":"Yudong Ai","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Peking University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yudong","middleName":"","lastName":"Ai","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-06-29 08:53:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":92542181,"identity":"d43f4c76-f7cc-48e6-8370-6568e7de68ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/2bc7f3ec582b10780b438a92.jpg"},{"id":92542184,"identity":"45fa5ef7-0bba-481d-931a-12c21bf8b103","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":62532,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"revisedmanuscript1.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/15a30aefab22a461801c8857.docx"},{"id":92542183,"identity":"99960167-03c3-4daa-8fb4-73ccb7c0823a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":295082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/d7bf2c2dce830572e71df83e.jpg"},{"id":92542185,"identity":"564c561d-9538-43ef-8af7-b0e3cb884f42","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":305706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/7abd471fd6ff9045925e6582.jpg"},{"id":92542571,"identity":"1b5fce78-a529-4fae-a910-2f20529ac005","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":408305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/35cc4575033bd255aef019b9.jpg"},{"id":92542565,"identity":"340fe0c3-49dc-414c-aa26-048df70302ae","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"json","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7434,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c6094dd66fe47db9a2edece0282670c.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/0a4fea1ea3948f285eacbafd.json"},{"id":92542194,"identity":"f4c7de90-1dbb-43fd-ba1a-2e67487056f8","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94500,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c6094dd66fe47db9a2edece0282670c1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/09fc4014d4e10f7cd7baa6be.xml"},{"id":92542193,"identity":"0cb597b7-2698-40d1-8782-cb0841dc5094","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":71867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/3c4abea66d0246f3c1143d73.jpg"},{"id":92542196,"identity":"a4843de4-baf3-4087-ab60-1547b996d431","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":295082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/8f5df82381678acd19e07a5c.jpg"},{"id":92542568,"identity":"a63f5f15-0f51-440a-95d3-690ae2d4c019","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"jpg","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":305706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/46e665b939f26f8a6a46567b.jpg"},{"id":92542200,"identity":"efb136fb-8a46-426a-9827-5519fcd2a555","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:04","extension":"jpg","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":408305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/ffda586e611147deda58a2c2.jpg"},{"id":92542191,"identity":"13094b13-e079-45a5-9961-5212c7c31c4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"png","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":94573,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/b43ef96fa5f79e4cc6ae3bf3.png"},{"id":92542566,"identity":"932b08de-b536-448e-a6dc-c28737331d05","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"png","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":51128,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/e9925e53cad55850ff6497e1.png"},{"id":92542199,"identity":"17b90e88-8e48-4cde-81e5-c9fce4a2f0ce","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:04","extension":"png","order_by":13,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":87382,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/a35a987e80c5fec387287330.png"},{"id":92542197,"identity":"ddcb783d-d496-4b3b-bf3e-f384a8e82c7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:04","extension":"png","order_by":14,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":93832,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"OnlineFigure4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/711ece45f5e63a674f221c08.png"},{"id":92542569,"identity":"0e7eac5b-6e3a-4840-8d09-3108607d0150","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"xml","order_by":15,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":89950,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c6094dd66fe47db9a2edece0282670c1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/372a92745a4d9946f5642f89.xml"},{"id":92542570,"identity":"4c07040c-1515-42f3-82b7-aaa2eac991fd","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"html","order_by":16,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":108321,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/372cb25a5730cb6ef622d244.html"},{"id":92542182,"identity":"f29cd6a9-93b0-4638-9957-f13224a4d2ad","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":71867,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFood conservation sign in Study 1\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/7d50d1748e6ec4d28238f829.jpg"},{"id":92542187,"identity":"1caf5bf7-bdb7-4658-b428-906bf103a177","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:17:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":295082,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConservation sign in Study 2\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/911ff1d9c77be70839cf5130.jpg"},{"id":92542564,"identity":"4095d4c6-48f5-4a79-9994-1af069c17990","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:03","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":305706,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eWater conservation sign in Study 3\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/c1665be01e25ef997ebe9ec1.jpg"},{"id":92542567,"identity":"3fadc6fd-fcd9-48b4-852d-17c0e0290aac","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:25:04","extension":"jpg","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":408305,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFood conservation sign in Study 4\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figure4.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/4e04f2ebeba95f2eaad22bae.jpg"},{"id":92542774,"identity":"d24e048e-4f56-4552-ab78-47712ae67cb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-30 19:33:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":2452975,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7001637/v1/f1c95d2a-4aec-4736-87e9-ab990ed1d94f.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Design dissonance in sustainability messaging: How visually complex conservation signs undermine resource conservation behavior","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eResource conservation represents one of the most pressing challenges confronting contemporary society. Despite heightened awareness of sustainability imperatives, global waste statistics remain profoundly concerning. Resource waste\u0026mdash;whether food, water, or material resources\u0026mdash;continues to present a pervasive problem with substantial environmental and economic implications (Xu \u0026amp; Bolton, 2024). For instance, food waste alone accounts for approximately one-third of global food production, signifying not merely nutritional loss but also the squandering of resources utilized throughout production, processing, and distribution processes (Gao et al., 2024). This wastage occurs across the entire supply chain from production to consumption, with consumer-level waste presenting a particularly challenging dimension of the problem (Quested et al., 2013). The complexity of waste behaviors stems from the interaction of multiple factors, including individual attitudes, social norms, contextual factors, and knowledge gaps (Aydin \u0026amp; Yildirim, 2021). To address these challenges, organizations employ various strategies to encourage conservation behavior. Resource conservation sign constitute a common and relatively cost-effective approach to promote sustainable resource utilization across diverse contexts\u0026mdash;from water conservation in public restrooms to reduced food wastage in restaurants and paper conservation in offices. These resource conservation signs function as persuasive instruments designed to influence consumer behavior at critical decision points (Singha et al., 2022). However, the efficacy of these messages depends not merely on their content but fundamentally on their visual design and presentation modality. Visual design within conservation messages plays a crucial role in attracting attention, conveying information, and ultimately influencing behavior (Pieters et al., 2010).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVisual complexity\u0026mdash;defined as the level of detail, intricacy, and information density within visual stimuli\u0026mdash;constitutes a fundamental aspect of design that influences how consumers process and respond to information (Donderi, 2006). This research focuses on the visual complexity of the context in which information is located. Prior research has established that visual complexity significantly impacts attentional processes, recall, and information effectiveness. Tuch et al. (2012) demonstrated that visual complexity influenced users' first impressions and subsequent information processing, with moderately complex stimuli often facilitating optimal cognitive engagement. Donato and Adiguzel (2024) found that visual complexity in labels significantly improves user's cognitive fluency and increases favorability towards it. But some researchers also hinted at the disadvantages of complex design. Orth et al. (2016) visually complex environments reduce consumers' self-control, which is detrimental to their shopping experience. Notably, the relationship between visual complexity and information effectiveness within the specific context of resource conservation messaging presents an intriguing paradox: Although conservation messages aim to promote resource efficiency and reduce waste, presenting these messages with visually complex design elements may inadvertently convey a sense of excessive resource use (Hinsch et al., 2021). This contradictory value expression can undermine the persuasive power of such messages in encouraging the public to conserve resources\u0026mdash;an issue that remains underexplored in the current conservation literature. To address this gap, the present study seeks to empirically examine this phenomenon. It proposes the hypothesis that conservation signs with higher visual complexity will lead individuals to exhibit lower levels of resource-conserving behavior than those with simpler designs. The underlying mechanism may lie in the perception of organizational hypocrisy\u0026mdash;where consumers sense a disconnect between the organization's pro-conservation messages and its apparent resource-intensive presentation (Kramarczyk \u0026amp; Oliver, 2022). As such, perceived organizational hypocrisy is expected to mediate the relationship between visual complexity and conservation behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, the above effects may also be subject to boundary conditions. From the perspective of individual thinking styles, holistic thinkers are more likely to perceive the inherent contradiction between complex visual design and conservation appeals due to their greater contextual sensitivity, while analytical thinkers are less sensitive to this contradiction because of their preference for rule-based and relatively detached processing methods (Choi et al., 2007; Liang et al., 2011). This distinction leads to systematic differences in the strength of the association between visual complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy across the two thinking styles. It is speculated that, compared with analytical thinkers, holistic thinkers are more likely to perceive organizational hypocrisy when exposed to visually complex conservation signs, making them less motivated to conserve.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research contributes to sustainable development in several theoretically and practically dimensions. Theoretically, it extends understanding of how visual design influences conservation message effectiveness by integrating insights from visual complexity research, organizational hypocrisy theory, and cognitive processing frameworks. By identifying the counterintuitive relationship between design complexity and saving behaviors, this study illuminates previously unexplored psychological mechanisms underlying conservation message effectiveness. Practically, this research provides actionable guidance for organizations seeking to design more effective conservation communications by aligning visual elements with conservation principles. The findings offer empirically-grounded recommendations for governments, non-profit organizations, and corporations committed to promoting sustainable resource utilization through strategic design intervention.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Literature review and hypotheses development","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.1 Consumer Resource saving\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eConsumer resource saving represents a complex behavioral phenomenon that emerges from the intricate interplay between cognitive processes and environmental contingencies (Gifford, 2014). Contemporary theoretical frameworks illuminate two interconnected yet distinct mechanisms through which resource waste manifests in consumer behavior. The first mechanism, anchored in cognitive processing theory, delineates how mental models and processing fluency systematically influence resource allocation decisions. This theoretical perspective achieves particular precision through recent empirical investigations demonstrating how cognitive resource availability shapes saving behaviors (Gao et al., 2024). Specifically, the cognitive framework has been refined through the identification of dual psychological pathways - planning deficiency and overconsumption tendency - which reveal how limitations in cognitive processing create systematic biases in resource conservation behaviors (Stancu et al., 2016).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe second theoretical mechanism elucidates the environmental determinants of resource saving, examining how contextual factors systematically moderate conservation behaviors. Through rigorous meta-analytic investigation, Hebrok and Boks (2017) establish that environmental cues fundamentally shape resource consumption patterns by altering the accessibility and salience of conservation goals. Recent research by Cassia and Magno (2024) extends this understanding by demonstrating how self-determination theory can illuminate the interaction between intrinsic motivations and environmental factors in shaping resource conservation behaviors. This contextual perspective achieves theoretical completeness through integration with contemporary frameworks of consumer motivation and environmental behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBuilding on these foundational mechanisms, recent empirical work has identified several key factors influencing consumer resource saving behavior. Individual-level factors include environmental attitudes and conservation consciousness, while situational factors encompass subjective norms, social norms, and social comparison effects (White et al., 2019). For instance, research reveals that consumers with stronger water conservation consciousness demonstrate significantly lower household water consumption (Fielding et al., 2012). Moreover, social comparison interventions have proven effective in reducing resource consumption, as evidenced by field experiments showing how comparative feedback can reduce household energy use (Allcott, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContemporary research has expanded our understanding of resource saving through novel theoretical lenses. Gao et al. (2024) introduce a crucial distinction between individual and collective resource frames, demonstrating how cognitive construal of resource availability systematically influences resource saving behavior. Additionally, Cassia and Magno's (2024) application of self-determination theory reveals how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations interplay to shape conservation outcomes, offering new insights into the psychological mechanisms underlying resource saving decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile existing research has made significant strides in understanding the cognitive and environmental determinants of resource saving, several critical areas remain underexplored. Particularly, the role of visual environmental cues in shaping resource conservation behaviors represents a promising yet understudied domain. Drawing on the established dual-mechanism framework of cognitive processing and environmental factors, investigating how visual design elements influence resource saving behavior offers both theoretical richness and practical significance. This research direction aligns with recent calls to examine how environmental cues can be strategically designed to promote sustainable consumption patterns (White et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.2. Visual complexity and consumer behavior\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eVisual complexity emerges as a multidimensional theoretical construct that systematically influences consumer cognition and behavior through distinct psychological mechanisms (Donderi, 2006). Recent theoretical advances have refined our understanding of how visual complexity operates within consumer decision contexts. Chen et al. (2024) demonstrate that fundamental visual elements, such as shape characteristics, systematically influence consumers' cognitive processing and subsequent behavioral responses. This theoretical perspective achieves particular sophistication through empirical evidence showing how visual complexity elements modulate learning cost inferences and adoption decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between visual complexity and cognitive processing represents a fundamental theoretical linkage that has garnered renewed scholarly attention. Drawing upon processing fluency theory, visual complexity systematically influences the ease with which consumers process environmental information, thereby affecting subsequent judgments and decisions (Reber et al., 2004). Chen and Ahlstrom (2023) advance this theoretical framework by demonstrating how complexity-induced goal conflict influences aesthetic preferences, particularly in contexts where cognitive resources are constrained. Their findings reveal that consumers systematically prefer simpler visual designs when facing complex decision environments, suggesting a compensatory mechanism in cognitive resource allocation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eContemporary research has illuminated novel dimensions of how visual complexity shapes consumer behavior. Chen and Wei (2023) establish that visual simplicity can activate temporal landmarks that influence consumer value orientations, demonstrating the profound interconnection between visual processing and higher-order psychological mechanisms. This theoretical advancement is particularly relevant when considering how visual complexity might influence sustainable consumption behaviors through its effects on self-transcendence values. The integration of these findings with established processing fluency frameworks suggests sophisticated pathways through which visual complexity might influence resource conservation decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe contextual moderation of visual complexity effects represents a crucial theoretical dimension that has been empirically validated in recent studies. Recent work demonstrates that circular versus angular shapes in visual design systematically influence consumer adoption behaviors through their effects on perceived learning costs (Chen et al., 2024). This finding achieves particular significance when considered alongside evidence that visual complexity effects are moderated by goal activation and external cue availability, suggesting complex interactions between visual elements and contextual factors in shaping consumer responses.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhile existing research has established robust relationships between visual complexity and various consumer behaviors, several critical domains remain underexplored. Particularly notable is the limited investigation of how visual complexity influences resource conservation behaviors, despite theoretical reasons to expect significant effects through both cognitive processing and motivational pathways. The demonstrated effects of visual complexity on goal conflict resolution (Chen \u0026amp; Ahlstrom, 2023) and value activation (Chen \u0026amp; Wei, 2023) suggest promising mechanisms through which visual design elements might influence resource conservation decisions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis theoretical synthesis reveals sophisticated mechanisms through which visual complexity might influence resource conservation behaviors, particularly through its effects on processing fluency and attention allocation. The emerging evidence suggesting that simpler visual designs can facilitate value-congruent behavior (Chen \u0026amp; Wei, 2023) provides a theoretical foundation for investigating how visual complexity in conservation contexts might influence resource saving behaviors. This research direction offers both theoretical richness and practical significance for understanding how visual design elements can be leveraged to promote sustainable consumption patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.3. The impact of resource conservation sign complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eResource conservation signs represent specialized visual communication instruments that remind consumers to conserve resources such as water, electricity, and paper (Gregersen \u0026amp; Johansen, 2022). Within sustainability contexts, congruence between information content and presentational modality exerts substantial influence on message efficacy and behavioral adoption (Bartikowski \u0026amp; Berens, 2021). Contemporary empirical evidence indicates that stakeholders demonstrate heightened sensitivity to perceived incongruities between environmental information content and its presentational format (Kim \u0026amp; Trusov, 2025). As a critical presentational attribute, visual complexity\u0026mdash;operationalized as a multiplicative function of design element density, compositional intricacy, and informational load\u0026mdash;fundamentally determines information processing efficiency and behavioral response (Wilson \u0026amp; Bellezza, 2022). When resource conservation signs employ complex visual designs, consumers perceive inconsistency between the advocated resource conservation and organizational practices (Hinsch et al., 2021; Parguel, Beno\u0026icirc;tMoreau, \u0026amp; Larceneux, 2011). This perceived incongruity between presentational complexity and conservation messaging becomes a pivotal determinant of stakeholder perceptions regarding organizational authenticity. Therefore, visual complexity can lead consumers to perceive organizational hypocrisy, which can be explained in the following aspects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFirst, complex designs inherently entail elevated production costs and increased resource consumption(Bhise, V. D.2023), which directly contradicts the resource conservation message they intend to convey. This inconsistency between resource-intensive displays and conservation advocacy amplifies stakeholder perceptions of organizational hypocrisy through recognition of the gap between organizational practices and environmental commitments (Wagner, Lutz, \u0026amp; Weitz, 2009). Secondly, complex visual designs inherently suppress sustainable consumption behaviors (Vaishnav \u0026amp; Tammet, 2025), thereby generating fundamental incongruity with conservation objectives. While simplified designs systematically facilitate low-carbon initiatives (He \u0026amp; Deng, 2015) and promote conservation consumption practices (Kuanr \u0026amp; Huneke, 2020), complex designs produce contrary effects. This intrinsic contradiction between design choices and intended behavioral outcomes evokes stakeholder perceptions of organizational inconsistency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThird, complex designs evoke hedonic-oriented mental associations through elaborate visual elements (Wilson \u0026amp; Bellezza, 2022), which conflicts with the restraint, responsibility and rationality emphasized by economy (Nepomuceno \u0026amp; Laroche, 2017). This inherent contradiction between hedonic satisfaction and resource conservation further amplifies perceived organizational hypocrisy (Kramarczyk \u0026amp; Oliver, 2022). When conservation information is presented in a highly hedonistic manner, consumers are more likely to believe that organizations are using the name of environmental protection to beautify their brands or engage in marketing, thereby reinforcing their perception of the organization's hypocrisy. Finally, complex design may interfere with consumers' attention allocation and understanding of key information, making it impossible for them to quickly and accurately interpret the intention to save, thereby reducing the persuasiveness of information and the efficiency of behavioral conversion (Pieters, Wedel, \u0026amp; Batra, 2010; Tuch, BargasAvila, \u0026amp; Opwis, 2012). Difficulties in information processing may also be interpreted by consumers as \"deliberate ambiguity\" or \"formalism\", further weakening their recognition of the sincerity of the organization (Parguel, Beno\u0026icirc;tMoreau, \u0026amp; Larceneux, 2011; Lyons \u0026amp; Montgomery, 2015). Taken together, visual complexity in resource conservation signs systematically shakes up consumers' perceptions of organizational authenticity and commitment to environmental stewardship.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.4. The impact of perceived organizational hypocrisy on resource saving intention\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe higher consumers perceived organizational hypocrisy, i.e., perceive inconsistency between the words and actions of organizations advocating resource conservation, the lower their intentions to conserve resources. First, when consumers perceive inconsistencies between the words of an organization advocating conservation and its actual behavior, they will doubt the authenticity of its environmental commitments. This perceived hypocrisy undermines the basis of consumers' trust in the organization (Morales-Giner \u0026amp; Mook, 2025; Wilson \u0026amp; Bellezza, 2022), thereby weakening their willingness to respond to conservation advocacy. In other words, the \"moral inconsistency\" of organizational behavior weakens consumers' sense of identity and moral drive, thereby reducing their intrinsic motivation to save resources (Demasi et al., 2023). For example, in corporate communication research, Kramarczyk and Oliver (2022) found that stakeholder detection of organizational hypocrisy triggers systematic decreases in information acceptance and behavioral compliance across multiple organizational domains. Similarly, in brand communication settings, perceived inconsistency between organizational claims and practices leads to diminished message persuasiveness and stakeholder trust (Lock \u0026amp; Seele,2017) when consumers detect organizational hypocrisy in environmental messaging, their compliance with conservation directives significantly decreases (Nepomuceno \u0026amp; Laroche, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMoreover, information input that is inconsistent with what one says and what one does may trigger consumers' cognitive dissonance experience. consumers resolve cognitive dissonance through behavioral resistance rather than information internalization (Chang \u0026amp; Lee, 2019). This compensatory behavior emerges particularly strongly when perceived hypocrisy stems from fundamental contradictions between message content and organizational practices. Hinsch et al. (2021) demonstrate that consumers actively reject organizational conservation directives through increased resource utilization patterns rather than internalizing conservation messages, effectively transforming psychological resistance into behavioral opposition. When encountering messages perceived as hypocritical, consumers engage in precisely the behaviors the message discourages, creating a cyclical pattern of resistance and decrease resource conservation. Taken together, we propose:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH1: Resource conservation signs with higher (vs. lower) visual complexity decrease consumer resource conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH2: Perceived organizational hypocrisy mediates the relationship between resource conservation sign design complexity and consumer resource conservation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e2.5. The moderating role of thinking style\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe relationship between visual complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy exhibits systematic variation across individual differences in cognitive processing orientation. Contemporary empirical evidence indicates that thinking style serves as a complex moderating mechanism through which information characteristics exert differential influence on behavioral outcomes (Tully et al., 2025). Holistic thinkers are characterized by a tendency to process information in an interconnected and contextually dependent manner, exhibiting heightened sensitivity to inconsistencies between information elements and organizational practices (Williams et al., 2004). This enhanced perceptual acuity manifests through complex integration of visual, contextual, and behavioral elements. For instance, Wu et al. (2017) found that holistic thinkers detect inconsistencies between organizational messaging and practices more frequently than analytical thinkers when evaluating brand communications. Similarly, Wilson and Bellezza (2022) demonstrated that holistic processors exhibit stronger correlation between perceived information-practice consistency and behavioral compliance when investigating consumer responses to organizational messaging. Thus, holistic processors demonstrate stronger attention to contextual relationships, enabling more complex detection of inconsistencies between visual design choices and conservation messaging (Vaishnav \u0026amp; Tammet, 2025). Serences and Yantis (2006) established that holistic processors exhibit superior ability to integrate visual elements into coherent perceptual wholes, facilitating detection of incongruities in visual communication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn contrast, analytical thinkers exhibit systematically different inconsistency detection patterns due to their rule-based, context-independent processing orientation (Liang et al., 2011). This cognitive style manifests as focused attention on central information elements while filtering peripheral contextual information (Nepomuceno \u0026amp; Laroche, 2017). For example, analytical processors demonstrate reduced sensitivity to information-practice inconsistencies compared to holistic processors when evaluating organizational communications (Wu et al., 2017). Thus, the complex design of the conservation sign caused analytical (vs. holistic) thinkers to perceive the organization as less hypocritical. We propose:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH3: Thinking style moderated the effect of resource conservation sign design complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy and thus moderated the effect of resource conservation sign design complexity on resource conservation. Specifically, these effects are stronger for holistic (vs. analytical) thinkers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Study 1","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of Study 1 was to test that a resource conservation sign with a complex (vs.simple) design would significantly decrease consumer resource conservation. To enhance ecological validity, this study was conducted in a university cafeteria with a pay-by-weight self-service system. A double-blind design was employed to control for experimenter bias.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were recruited through on-campus promotion. Four participants declined to have their food weighed, resulting in a final sample of 146 teachers and students (41.1% male; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e =32.30, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.38). The average dining time per participant was approximately 23 minutes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.2. Procedure and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study was conducted in a pay-by-weight self-service cafeteria located on the campus of a comprehensive university in eastern China. The experiment employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of design complexity of conservation signage (simple vs. complex). The dependent variable was participants' actual food saving behavior, measured by weight.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe experiment was conducted over four consecutive days. To mitigate the influence of dining time on the results, both lunchtime and dinnertime sessions were included. On Day 1, conservation signage with a \u003cb\u003esimple design\u003c/b\u003e was displayed on tables from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., while signage with a \u003cb\u003ecomplex design\u003c/b\u003e was displayed from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). The display order was reversed on Day 2, minimizing potential order effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e[Figure 1.\u003c/b\u003e Food conservation sign in Study 1]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThroughout the experiment, researchers observed participants' dining behavior from discreet locations within the cafeteria without interfering in the process. After participants finished their meals, researchers used an electronic kitchen scale to weigh the leftover food on their trays. Only edible leftovers\u0026mdash;including staple foods and unfinished dishes\u0026mdash;were included in the measurement. The measured food saving intention served as the dependent variable.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were then asked to report their demographic information. Finally, researchers confirmed whether participants had noticed the signage during the meal and asked them to evaluate the perceived design complexity of the signage (\"To what extent do you think the signage is simple or complex?\" 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very simple, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very complex). All participants reported having seen the signage.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3. Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.1. Manipulation check\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn ANOVA revealed that participants in the complex design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.64, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.91)perceived the signage as significantly more complex than those in the simple design condition (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,144)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;25.34, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.15), confirming the success of the manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and food saving behavior\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcross all participants, the total amount of leftover food was 1,261 grams, with an average of 12.95 grams per person. After controlling for age and gender, an ANOVA showed that participants in the complex design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;10.44, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.61)saved significantly less food than those in the simple design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.84, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.32,\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,142)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;17.80, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.11).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e3.4. Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis field experiment provides empirical support for Hypothesis 1 (H1), demonstrating that a complex design in conservation signage significantly decreases consumers' food saving behavior. However, several limitations should be noted. The unique setting\u0026mdash;a pay-by-weight cafeteria\u0026mdash;helped to control for some confounding variables, but the pricing structure may have introduced economic motivations that partially masked the influence of signage design. Additionally, cultural context may have played a role: participants in East Asian cultures may hold different values regarding resource conservation compared to their Western counterparts, which could limit the generalization of the findings. Moreover, while this study focused on observable behavioral outcomes, it did not explore the underlying psychological mechanisms driving these effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo address these limitations, Study 2 employs a lab-based experimental design with participants from the United States and Canada, examining the impact of design complexity in the context of paper conservation. This next study also investigates potential psychological processes, such as perceived organizational hypocrisy, that may explain the observed behavioral differences.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Study 2","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe purpose of Study 2 was to examine the underlying psychological mechanism through which the design complexity of conservation sign affects consumers' resource saving behavior. Specifically, we tested the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy and ruled out alternative explanations. Also, this replicate tested H1. The study employed a single-factor, between-subjects design with two levels of signage design complexity (simple vs. complex).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 160 participants from the United States and Canada were recruited via MTurk. After excluding 13 participants who failed attention checks, the final sample consisted of 147 valid responses (42.9% male; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e = 29.56, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;7.75).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.2. Procedure and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e First, we manipulated the independent variable\u0026mdash;the design complexity of conservation sign\u0026mdash;by randomly assigning participants to either a simple or complex design condition. All participants were asked to imagine themselves working and drinking coffee in a caf\u0026eacute; where a sign reading \"RESOURCE CONSERVATION\" was placed on the table. They were instructed to observe the sign carefully, with a system-enforced minimum viewing time of 12 seconds. The text remained identical across conditions, while only the visual complexity varied (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;2).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e[Figure 2.\u003c/b\u003e Conservation sign in Study 2]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the manipulation, participants completed a manipulation check assessing perceived design complexity of conservation sign, along with a measure of their liking toward the signage. Subsequently, we measured the dependent variable: consumers' intention to save paper. Participants were asked to imagine they had accidentally spilled coffee on the table while working in the caf\u0026eacute; and intended to clean up the spill. They then indicated, on a 7-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very little, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very much), how many paper napkins they would both intend and prefer to use. The average of these two responses was used as an indicator of paper saving intention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo explore the underlying psychological mechanisms, we measured the mediating variable, perceived organizational hypocrisy at this time, using three items adapted from Wagner et al. (2009), which included \"I think this coffee shop is being disingenuous,\" \"I think this coffee shop is just pretending in some places,\" \"I think this coffee shop doesn't practice what it preaches\"(1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). We also asked participants to report their ego depletion based on how they were feeling in the moment (\"I feel exhausted\", \"I can't concentrate right now\", \"It takes a lot of effort for me to concentrate on something\", \"I have low energy\", \"I feel like I have no willpower\"; Lin \u0026amp; Johnson, 2015), as a measure of competitive mediation. .\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn addition, we included mood as a control variable, assessed via six emotion-related adjectives\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003ehappy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eexcited\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003elighthearted\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003esad\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003edistressed\u003c/em\u003e, and \u003cem\u003edownbeat\u003c/em\u003e\u0026mdash;on 7-point Likert scales. To control for individual differences in environmental awareness and conservation consciousness, participants reported their agreement with statements such as \"I consider myself an environmentally conscious person,\" and, for conservation, \"I sometimes waste resources in my daily life\" (reverse-coded) and \"I am very mindful about conserving resources in daily life.\" At the conclusion of the study, participants were asked to report their gender and age.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3. Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.1. Manipulation check\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn ANOVA confirmed the effectiveness of the design complexity manipulation. Participants in the complex design condition reported significantly higher perceived design complexity (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.70, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.17) than those in the simple design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.07, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.97, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,145)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;112.76, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.44).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and paper saving intention\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter controlling for mood, conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, gender, and age, a one-way ANOVA showed that participants in the simple design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.81, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.23) exhibited significantly higher intention to save paper than those in the complex design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.25, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.10; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,135)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;59.48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.31 ). This result provided further support for H1.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.3. The mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo test the hypothesized mechanism, a bootstrap analysis ( PROCESS Model 4, 5,000 bootstraps; Hayes, 2013) was conducted with design complexity of conservation signage (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;simple, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;complex) as the independent variable, intention to save paper as the dependent variable, and perceived organizational hypocrisy as the mediator. Control variables included mood, conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, gender, and age. Results showed that complex design significantly increased perceived organizational hypocrisy (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.70, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), which in turn significantly predicted paper saving intention (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001). The indirect effect was significant (\u003cem\u003eindirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.23, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08; 95%CI [0.0993, 0.4180]), supporting the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.3.4. Ruling out alternative mediation of ego depletion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo rule out an alternative explanation, we tested ego depletion as a competing mediator using the same bootstrap approach. The indirect effect was not significant (\u003cem\u003eindirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.08; 95%CI [-0.1283, 0.1893]), suggesting that ego depletion did not mediate the relationship between design complexity and paper saving intention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e4.4. Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 2 demonstrated that a complex design in conservation signage led to greater perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn decreased participants' resource saving intention. The mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy was empirically supported. Additionally, the study ruled out ego depletion as an alternative explanation, providing more robust support for the proposed mechanism.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHowever, because mediation was tested using measurement-based methods, the study could not conclusively determine the causal relationship between the mediator and the dependent variable. To address this, the next study manipulates the mediator directly, allowing us to both replicate the mediating effect and examine its causal role in driving resource saving behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Study 3","content":"\u003cp\u003eStudy 3 aimed to further test the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy by directly manipulating participants' perceptions of this construct. This approach allowed for stronger causal inferences regarding the relationship between design complexity of conservation signage and resource saving behavior.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 210 Chinese participants recruited via some social media platforms completed a laboratory experiment. After excluding 9 individuals who failed attention checks, the final sample included 201 participants (65.7% male; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003eage\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e \u003cem\u003e= 30.21, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;9.73\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.2. Procedure and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 3 employed a 2 (sign design: simple vs. complex) \u0026times; 2 (attitude toward organizational hypocrisy: supportive vs. opposing) between-subjects factorial design. Participants were first randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. They were asked to imagine a scenario in which a shopping mall, as part of a public campaign to promote resource conservation, had placed a \"Save Water\" sign near the restroom sinks. Participants were instructed to carefully observe the sign (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;3) and then evaluate its perceived design complexity (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extremely simple, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extremely complex).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e[Figure 3.\u003c/b\u003e Water conservation sign in Study 3]\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNext, we manipulated participants' perceptions of organizational hypocrisy using a method adapted from Wagner et al.(2009). Participants were first presented with a definition of organizational hypocrisy: a situation in which a company or organization's actual behavior is inconsistent with the image it promotes. Those assigned to the \"support\" condition were asked to write down three reasons why they support organizational hypocrisy, while those in the \"oppose\" condition were asked to write three reasons why they oppose it. Then, to complete the manipulation check, participants completed the perceived organizational hypocrisy scale, as in Study 2.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing that participants completed the measures for the dependent variable, using the same items as in Study 2. Specifically, participants imagined they had dirt on their hands while shopping and then went to the mall's restroom to wash it off. They were then asked to indicate how much water they would \u003cem\u003eintend\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eprefer\u003c/em\u003e to use to clean their hands (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very little, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;very much). The average of these two responses was used to reversely index water saving intention. Finally, we measured participants' environmental awareness and conservation consciousness, using the same items as in Study 2. At the end of the survey, participants reported their age and gender.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3. Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3.1. Manipulation checks.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA confirmed that participants in the complex design condition perceived the design complexity of the conservation signage to be significantly higher (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.43, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.12) than those in the simple design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.33, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.24; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 199)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;43.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.18. Additionally, participants in the \"support organizational hypocrisy\" condition reported significantly lower levels of perceived organizational hypocrisy (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.74, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.11) compared to those in the \"oppose organizational hypocrisy\" condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.07, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.20; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1, 199)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;65.39, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25). These results confirm the success of both manipulations.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.3.2. The effect of conservation sign design complexity and water saving intention.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eControlling for conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, age, and gender, ANOVA results revealed a significant interaction between sign design complexity and attitude toward organizational hypocrisy on water saving intention (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 187)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;35.11, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.16). Simple effects analysis showed that in the \"support organizational hypocrisy\" condition, there was no significant difference in water saving intention between the simple (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.82, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.15) and complex design groups (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.02, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.32; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 187)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.17, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.68, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.001). However, in the \"oppose organizational hypocrisy\" condition, participants exposed to the complex design reported significantly lower water saving intention (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.30, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.05) than those exposed to the simple design (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.63, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.19; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (1,187)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;62.49, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.25).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e5.4. Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 3 demonstrated that when the effect of design complexity was blocked by reducing perceived organizational hypocrisy, its influence on resource saving behavior disappeared. This finding reinforces the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy, providing further support for H2. The following research would test boundary regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Study 4","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe goal of Study 4 was to examine the moderating effect of thinking style. We hypothesized that for holistic thinkers, a complex design in conservation signage would lead to higher perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn would decrease resource saving behavior. However, these effects were expected to be non-significant among analytic thinkers (H3).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.1. Participants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA total of 255 participants were recruited via the Prolific online survey platform. After excluding 15 participants who failed attention checks, the final sample included 240 participants (40.3% male; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003eage\u003c/sub\u003e= 28.92, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.65). This study employed a single-factor between-subjects design, manipulating the design complexity of conservation signage (simple vs. complex). All participants were randomly assigned to one of the groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec33\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.2. Procedure and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Before the experiment began, participants were asked to provide informed consent. Upon agreeing, they submitted their Prolific ID and proceeded to the first task, which assessed their thinking style. We used the 10-item scale developed by Choi et al. (2003) to measure holistic versus analytic thinking. Participants indicated their agreement with statements such as \"Everything in the universe is somehow related to each other.\" Participants responded on a 7-point scale (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly disagree, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;strongly agree). Higher average scores reflected a tendency toward holistic thinking, whereas lower scores indicated analytic thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAfter completing this measure, participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions: simple design or complex design of conservation sign. They were asked to imagine dining at a restaurant that had implemented a \"Save Food\" sign to promote food conservation (see Fig.\u0026nbsp;4). Participants were instructed to observe the sign carefully, with a system-enforced minimum viewing time of 12 seconds. The message on the sign remained the same across both groups, while only the visual complexity differed. After viewing the signage, participants evaluated its perceived design complexity (1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extremely simple, 7\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;extremely complex).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eFigure 4.\u003c/b\u003e Food conservation sign in Study 4\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSubsequently, participants were asked to imagine that they did not finish their meal and had some leftover food. Based on this scenario, they indicated how likely they would be to throw away the leftovers versus pack them up, responding to items such as \"\u003cem\u003eHow likely are you to throw leftover food away?\"\u003c/em\u003e and \"\u003cem\u003eHow likely are you to pack up the leftovers?\"\u003c/em\u003e, both rated on a 7-point scale. The first item was reverse-coded, and the two responses were averaged to indicate their intention to save food.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo examine the underlying mechanism, we measured perceived organizational hypocrisy using the same items as in Study 2. As control variables, participants also completed measures of conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, and baseline mood, following the scales used in Studies 2 and 3. Finally, participants reported their demographic information, including age and gender.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec34\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.3. Results\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec35\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.3.1. Manipulation check.\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA one-way ANOVA confirmed the effectiveness of the design complexity manipulation. Participants in the simple design condition perceived the signage to be significantly less complex (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.69, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.92) than those in the complex design condition (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.88, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1.28; \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 238)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;63.18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.32). These results confirmed that the manipulation of the conservation sign design complexity was successful.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.3.2. The moderating effect of the thinking style between conservation sign design complexity and perceived organizational hypocrisy\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWe conducted a moderated mediation analysis (PROCESS Model 7, 5,000 bootstraps) with design complexity of conservation sign as the independent variable (0\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;simple, 1\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;complex), perceived organizational hypocrisy as the mediator, food saving intention as the dependent variable, and thinking style as the moderator. Control variables included conservation consciousness, environmental awareness, baseline mood, age, and gender. The analysis revealed that thinking style moderated the effect of design complexity on perceived organizational hypocrisy (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), as well as the strength of the mediation effect (\u003cem\u003emoderated mediation index\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.13, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, 95% CI [0.0393, 0.2582]). Specifically, for holistic thinkers (1 \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e above the mean), design complexity significantly increased perceived organizational hypocrisy (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.55, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), and the mediation effect of perceived organizational hypocrisy between design complexity and saving behavior was significant (\u003cem\u003eindirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.10, 95% CI [0.0841, 0.4935]). In contrast, for analytic thinkers (1 \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e below the mean), design complexity had no significant effect on perceived organizational hypocrisy (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.95), and the indirect effect was also not significant (\u003cem\u003eindirect effect\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05, 95% CI [\u0026ndash;0.0930, 0.1044]). These findings provide support for H3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e6.3.3. The moderating effect of the thinking style between conservation sign design complexity and food saving intention\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo further examine whether thinking style also moderated the effect of design complexity on resource saving behavior, we conducted a moderation analysis (PROCESS Model 1, 5,000 bootstraps). Results showed a significant moderating effect of thinking style between design complexity and thinking style (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.002). Specifically, among holistic thinkers, complex design significantly decreased food saving intention (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.71, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001), whereas among analytic thinkers, design complexity had no significant effect on food saving intention (\u003cem\u003eb\u003c/em\u003e = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.35). These results further support H3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec36\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e6.4. Discussion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eStudy 4 demonstrated that thinking style moderated the effect of design complexity of conservation signage on perceived organizational hypocrisy, which in turn moderated the relationship between design complexity and resource saving behavior, providing strong support for H3.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"7. General discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the context of global advocacy for sustainable development, an increasing number of organizations are encouraging consumers to adopt sustainable behaviors through resource-saving labels. However, the aesthetic complexity of these labels may inadvertently affect consumers' perceptions and behaviors. This study explores this issue and confirms that compared to minimalist designs, complex eco-labels exacerbate consumers' resource waste, with the driving mechanism being an enhanced perception of organizational hypocrisy. This effect is especially prominent among holistic thinkers and weakens among analytical thinkers. The findings were validated through a series of experiments involving different types of eco-labels, communication scenarios, and participant samples.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec38\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.1. Theoretical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study effectively extends the understanding of how visual design complexity influences moral fluency and its role in sustainability. Previous research has positioned complexity as a perceptual attribute influencing processing fluency and related evaluations (Donderi, 2006). For instance, advertising scholars have found that complexity increases gaze duration while reducing brand recall (Pieters, Wedel, \u0026amp; Batra, 2010). This study builds on these insights, showing that complexity also affects moral fluency. In the context of sustainability, excess visual embellishments are spontaneously interpreted as a waste of ink, labor, and design time\u0026mdash;resources that contradict the frugality principles advocated by the label. Thus, complexity shifts from a neutral design parameter to a value-laden cue, triggering ethical attributions that influence behavior. This finding calls on scholars to consider other low-level design features (such as animation smoothness, material texture, and packaging glossiness) as potential sustainability cues, especially when these features conflict with the claimed virtue of restraint. It also provides inspiration for studying visual marketing from the perspective of moral fluency.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study introduces the concept of perceived organizational hypocrisy as a mediating mechanism between visual complexity and consumer behavior. Historically, hypocrisy research has mainly focused on strategic levels\u0026mdash;such as companies promoting environmental policies while polluting or outsourcing labor (Wagner, Lutz, \u0026amp; Weitz, 2009). We find that even when observers are unaware of a company's substantive practices, micro-level aesthetic signals can trigger perceptions of hypocrisy. By incorporating \"hypocrisy\" into the study of eco-label design and audience attitudes, we argue that moral fluency (the alignment between form and proclaimed values) is just as critical in driving information effectiveness as cognitive fluency, which has been the focus of previous research on information effectiveness. Cognitive fluency influences judgments through the \"warm glow\" effect of ease, while moral fluency affects judgments through perceptions of sincerity and value consistency. Future research should further explore whether these two constructs interact or operate as parallel paths, and whether interventions to enhance value consistency (such as minimalism or recycled materials) can offset the negative effects of cognitive disfluency in other domains.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study further reveals the application of cognitive style in influencing how visual design affects consumers' cognitive processes. Decades of cross-cultural psychology research have distinguished holistic and analytical thinking (Choi, Koo, \u0026amp; Choi, 2007), but few persuasion models specify how these styles moderate responses to design-information consistency. Our research shows that holistic thinkers, due to their sensitivity to contextual consistency, are harsher in judging aesthetic-moral mismatches, while analytical thinkers focus on literal cues (e.g., \"save food\") and ignore implicit resource cues, thus weakening the perception of hypocrisy. This asymmetry offers subtle insights for cultural predictions: as holistic cognition is more prevalent in East Asian populations (Liang et al., 2011), elaborate \"green\" campaigns may backfire in these markets. This finding illuminates how cognitive diversity shapes environmental stewardship communication, offering critical insights for mobilizing collective action. Future research should prioritize individual differences\u0026mdash;particularly cognitive styles\u0026mdash;to foster inclusive strategies that unite communities in safeguarding our shared planetary future.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec39\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.2. Practical implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizations should adopt visually simple designs when promoting resource conservation through labels. Overly complex designs\u0026mdash;whether through intricate graphics, dense text, or detailed color schemes\u0026mdash;may send signals of resource waste and undermine the intended message. Simple designs not only reduce production costs but also communicate the core message of conservation more effectively, avoiding triggering consumer perceptions of hypocrisy. For example, eco-label designs should avoid excessive visual embellishments and maintain clarity, helping consumers better understand the meaning of conservation and increasing their engagement. This study calls on scholars and practitioners to align aesthetic frugality with resource frugality, ensuring that the \"image\" conveyed by the communicator is as \"streamlined\" as the behavior they are trying to inspire.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizations must ensure that their visual design aligns with their actual practices. This study shows that inconsistencies between the complexity of an eco-label's design and its conservation message can reduce message credibility and prompt consumers to adopt contradictory behaviors. Therefore, when using eco-labels, organizations should ensure their visual design matches actual conservation practices. For example, using recyclable materials and low-impact inks in label designs can convey a more authentic conservation message, avoiding the impression of hypocrisy. Ensuring consistency between message, design, and behavior is crucial for improving public acceptance of conservation information and encouraging behavioral change.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrganizations should consider the cognitive style of their audience when designing labels. Holistic thinkers are more sensitive to the overall coherence and consistency of information and should be exposed to simpler designs to avoid triggering perceptions of hypocrisy. In contrast, analytical thinkers are less concerned with design complexity and may be exposed to more intricate designs. Organizations can adjust design complexity based on the target audience's cognitive style, for example, by using digital platforms and adaptive labels to customize designs for different cognitive styles, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of communication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec40\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003e7.3. Limitations and future research\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAlthough this study captures real-world food saving behavior through field research, subsequent experiments rely on self-reported intentions, which may differ from actual behavior. Longitudinal field interventions in settings such as fixed-price buffets, public restrooms, or office printers could test whether elaborate labels maintain wasteful behavior over time, or if their effect weakens with habituation. Furthermore, deploying objective sensors (e.g., scales under trash bins, water flow meters) could provide finer-grained behavioral data and reveal temporal dynamics, such as whether the hypocrisy effect peaks with initial exposure and subsequently diminishes.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe interaction between visual elements such as color, brightness, and contrast and design complexity remains an area for further investigation. This study focuses solely on design complexity, yet color, brightness, and contrast also carry resource-saving connotations. Dark and saturated tones often convey a sense of heaviness and material strength, while light or natural greens suggest eco-friendliness (Elliot \u0026amp; Maier, 2014; Labrecque \u0026amp; Milne, 2013). Future research could employ orthogonal manipulation of tone and complexity to construct a multidimensional \"sustainable design matrix\" and test interaction patterns, such as whether simplified color schemes can mitigate the hypocrisy triggered by complexity, or whether dark colors exacerbate moral offense, thereby providing important empirical evidence for refining related theories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture research can further explore the mechanisms by which individual differences and design complexity influence consumer behavior. In addition to cognitive style, regulatory focus may influence responses: prevention-focused individuals are more sensitive to losses and may accept complexity if they perceive the warning as serious, while promotion-focused individuals may resist the same complexity to preserve autonomy (Higgins, 1997). Moral identity centrality may also amplify sensitivity to hypocrisy (Aquino \u0026amp; Reed, 2002). Furthermore, other mechanisms are worth exploring: for example, complexity may activate moral licensing, enabling consumers to justify subsequent waste (\"the company has overconsumed, so my waste doesn't matter\") or trigger cognitive dissonance, leading consumers to diminish the importance of the information to resolve the contradiction. Experimental studies using process measurement and competing mediator models to dissect these pathways will enhance attribution accuracy.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe author(s) declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eInformed Consent\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e To ensure the protection of participants' rights, privacy, and informed consent, all participants provided written informed consent prior to their involvement in the experiment. The consent was obtained between 20 June 2024 and 15 May 2025, with each participant signing a consent form after being fully informed about the study. The consent covered participation, data usage, and publication of results.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research was funded by the Shandong Postdoctoral Science Foundation (Grant number SDCX-RS-202500001), the Postdoctoral Fellowship Program of CPSF under Grant Number GZC20250473, and Shandong Social Science Planning Fund Program (Grant number 25DXWJ03 ).\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eZ and C contributed equally to the writing of the main manuscript text, including the introduction, literature review, research hypotheses, and discussion sections. Z was responsible for the overall research design and wrote parts of the theoretical framework and methodology sections. C mainly contributed to the explanation of research methods and experimental design, participated in data analysis, and wrote parts of the results section.M was responsible for preparing the figures , including data visualization and graphic design, ensuring that the figures accurately represented the research results. Additionally, M assisted with data collection and analysis and participated in editing and reviewing the manuscript.H was in charge of data analysis, particularly handling and statistical processing of complex datasets. H also provided significant feedback on the conclusion section of the manuscript and assisted in validating the reliability of the results.Y is the corresponding author and supervised the overall project. Y guided the structure and content optimization of the manuscript, contributed to the formulation of the research hypotheses, and co-wrote the methodology section. Y also revised several sections, including the theoretical framework and practical implications, ensuring the manuscript met both academic and practical requirements.All authors participated in reviewing and revising the manuscript and approved the final version.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData availability statement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAllcott, H. (2011). Social norms and energy conservation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Public Economics\u003c/em\u003e, 95(9\u0026ndash;10), 1082\u0026ndash;1095.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAquino, K., \u0026amp; Reed, A. II. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 83(6), 1423\u0026ndash;1440.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eAydin, A. E., \u0026amp; Yildirim, P. (2021). Understanding food waste behavior: The role of morals, habits and knowledge. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 280, 124250.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eBartikowski, B., \u0026amp; Berens, G. (2021). Attribute framing in CSR communication: Doing good and spreading the word -- But how. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, 131(1), 700\u0026ndash;708.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eBhise, V. D. (2023).Designing complex products with systems engineering processes and techniques. CRC Press.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eCassia, F., \u0026amp; Magno, F. (2024). The value of self-determination theory in marketing studies: Insights from the application of PLS-SEM and NCA to anti-food waste apps. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, 172, Article 114454.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChen, S., \u0026amp; Ahlstrom, D. (2023). Too complex to handle: Goal conflict and tourist preference for simple aesthetics. \u003cem\u003eAnnals of Tourism Research\u003c/em\u003e, 102, Article 103639.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChen, S., \u0026amp; Wei, H. (2023). Linking temporal landmarks to voluntary simplicity: The mediating roles of self-transcendence and self-enhancement. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e. Advance online publication.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChen, T., Ma, Z., Xiao, M., \u0026amp; Qing, P. (2024). Be careful of the sharp edges! How and why circular versus angular shapes influence consumer adoption of new products. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Research\u003c/em\u003e, 183, Article 114817.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChoi, I., Koo, M., \u0026amp; Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, 33(5), 691\u0026ndash;705.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eChang, C. T., \u0026amp; Lee, Y. K. (2019). The effect of message framing and language intensity on green advertising effectiveness. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment, Development and Sustainability\u003c/em\u003e, 21(2), 679\u0026ndash;699.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDonato, C., \u0026amp; Adiguzel, F. (2024). The effects of visual design on eco-labels evaluations: Guidelines for effective green advertising. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Theory and Practice\u003c/em\u003e, 33(2), 271\u0026ndash;288.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDonderi, D. C. (2006). Visual complexity: A review. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, 132(1), 73\u0026ndash;97.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDemasi, R., \u0026amp; Voegtlin, C. (2023). When the private and the public self don\u0026rsquo;t align: the role of discrepant moral identity dimensions in processing inconsistent CSR information. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 187(1), 73\u0026ndash;96.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eElliot, A. J., \u0026amp; Maier, M. A. (2014). Color psychology: Effects of perceiving color on psychological functioning in humans. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 65, 95\u0026ndash;120.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eFielding, K. S., Russell, S., Spinks, A., \u0026amp; Mankad, A. (2012). Determinants of household water conservation: The role of demographic, infrastructure, behavior, and psychosocial variables. \u003cem\u003eWater Resources Research\u003c/em\u003e, 48(10), 12pp.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGao, H., Jia, H., \u0026amp; Guo, B. (2024). Resources available for me versus us: Implications for mitigating consumer food waste. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing Research\u003c/em\u003e, 61(4), 619\u0026ndash;637.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eGregersen, M. K., \u0026amp; Johansen, T. S. (2022). Organizational-level visual identity: An integrative literature review. \u003cem\u003eCorporate Communications: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 27(3), 441\u0026ndash;456. Gifford, R. (2014). Environmental psychology matters. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 65, 541\u0026ndash;579.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHebrok, M., \u0026amp; Boks, C. (2017). Household food waste: Drivers and potential intervention points for design \u0026ndash; An extensive review. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Cleaner Production\u003c/em\u003e, 151, 380\u0026ndash;392.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe, B., Wang, J., \u0026amp; Deng, Z. (2015). Cost-constrained low-carbon product design. \u003cem\u003eThe International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology\u003c/em\u003e, 79, 1821\u0026ndash;1828.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHiggins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e, 52(12), 1280\u0026ndash;1300.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHinsch, C., Tang, Y., \u0026amp; Lund, D. J. (2021). Compulsion and reactance: Why do some green consumers fail to follow through with planned environmental behaviors? \u003cem\u003ePsychology \u0026amp; Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, 38(12), 2209\u0026ndash;2226.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHayes, A. F. (2013). Mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach\u003c/em\u003e, 1(6), 12\u0026ndash;20.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eKim, S., \u0026amp; Trusov, M. (2025). The impact of air pollution on consumer spending. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eKramarczyk, J., \u0026amp; Alemany Oliver, M. (2022). Accumulative vs. appreciative expressions of materialism: Revising materialism in light of polish simplifiers and new materialism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 175(4), 701\u0026ndash;719.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eKuanr, A., \u0026amp; Huneke, M. (2020). I do not consume therefore I am: Investigating materialism and voluntary simplicity through a moderated mediation model. \u003cem\u003ePsychology \u0026amp; Marketing\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLabrecque, L. I., \u0026amp; Milne, G. R. (2013). To be or not to be different: Exploration of norms and benefits of color differentiation in the marketplace. \u003cem\u003eMarketing Letters\u003c/em\u003e, 24(2), 165\u0026ndash;176.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiang, B., Runyan, R. C., \u0026amp; Fu, W. (2011). The effect of culture on the context of ad pictures and ad persuasion: The role of context-dependent and context-independent thinking. \u003cem\u003eInternational Marketing Review\u003c/em\u003e, 28(4), 412\u0026ndash;434.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLin, S. H. J., \u0026amp; Johnson, R. E. (2015). A suggestion to improve a day keeps your depletion away: Examining promotive and prohibitive voice behaviors within a regulatory focus and ego depletion framework.\u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied psychology\u003c/em\u003e,100(5), 1381.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLock, I., \u0026amp; Seele, P. (2017). Measuring credibility perceptions in CSR communication: A scale development to test readers\u0026rsquo; perceived credibility of CSR reports. \u003cem\u003eManagement Communication Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 31(4), 584\u0026ndash;613.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eLyons, T. P., \u0026amp; Montgomery, A. W. (2015). The means and end of greenwash. \u003cem\u003eOrganization \u0026amp; Environment\u003c/em\u003e, 28(2), 223\u0026ndash;249.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eMorales-Giner, P., \u0026amp; Mook, A. (2025). Ash everywhere: Place attachment and meanings in the aftermath of wildfires. \u003cem\u003eEnvironment and Behavior\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eVaishnav, M., \u0026amp; Tammet, T. (2025). Cognitive Paradigms for Evaluating VLMs on Visual Reasoning Task.\u003cem\u003earXiv preprint arXiv\u003c/em\u003e:2501.13620.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eNepomuceno, M. V., \u0026amp; Laroche, M. (2017). When materialists intend to resist consumption: The moderating role of self-control and long-term orientation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 143, 467\u0026ndash;483.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eOrth, U. R., Wirtz, J., \u0026amp; McKinney, A. (2016). Shopping experiences in visually complex environments: A self-regulation account. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Service Management\u003c/em\u003e, 27(2), 194\u0026ndash;217.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003ePieters, R., Wedel, M., \u0026amp; Batra, R. (2010). The stopping power of advertising: Measures and effects of visual complexity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, 74(5), 48\u0026ndash;60.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eParguel, B., Beno\u0026icirc;t-Moreau, F., \u0026amp; Larceneux, F. (2011). How sustainability ratings might deter greenwashing: A closer look at ethical corporate communication. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, 102, 15\u0026ndash;28.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuested, T. E., Marsh, E., Stunell, D., \u0026amp; Parry, A. D. (2013). Spaghetti soup: The complex world of food-waste behaviors. \u003cem\u003eResources, Conservation and Recycling\u003c/em\u003e, 79, 43\u0026ndash;51.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eReber, R., Schwarz, N., \u0026amp; Winkielman, P. (2004). Processing fluency and aesthetic pleasure: Is beauty in the perceiver's processing experience? \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, 8(4), 364\u0026ndash;382.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSerences, J. T., \u0026amp; Yantis, S. (2006). Selective visual attention and perceptual coherence. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Cognitive Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, 10(1), 38\u0026ndash;45.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eSingha, B., Eljamal, O., Karmaker, S. C., Maamoun, I., \u0026amp; Sugihara, Y. (2022). Water conservation behavior: Exploring the role of social, psychological, and behavioral determinants. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Environmental Management\u003c/em\u003e, 317, Article 115484.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eStancu, V., Haugaard, P., \u0026amp; L\u0026auml;hteenm\u0026auml;ki, L. (2016). Determinants of consumer food-waste behavior: Two routes to food waste. \u003cem\u003eAppetite\u003c/em\u003e, 96, 7\u0026ndash;17.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTuch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., St\u0026ouml;cklin, M., Opwis, K., \u0026amp; Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies\u003c/em\u003e, 70(11), 794\u0026ndash;811.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eTully, S., Longoni, C., \u0026amp; Appel, G. (2025). Lower artificial intelligence literacy predicts greater AI receptivity. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWagner, T., Lutz, R. J., \u0026amp; Weitz, B. A. (2009). Corporate hypocrisy: Overcoming the threat of inconsistent corporate social-responsibility perceptions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, 73(6), 77\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhite, K., Habib, R., \u0026amp; Hardisty, D. J. (2019). How to SHIFT consumer behaviors to be more sustainable: A literature review and guiding framework. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, 83(3), 22\u0026ndash;49.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWilliams, P., Fitzsimons, G. J., \u0026amp; Block, L. G. (2004). When consumers do not recognize \"benign\" intention questions as persuasion attempts. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Research\u003c/em\u003e, 31(3), 540\u0026ndash;550.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWu, F., Samper, A., Morales, A. C., \u0026amp; Fitzsimons, G. J. (2017). It's too pretty to use! When and how enhanced product aesthetics discourage usage and lower consumption enjoyment. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Research\u003c/em\u003e, 44(3), 651\u0026ndash;672.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWilson, A. V., \u0026amp; Bellezza, S. (2022). Consumer minimalism. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Research\u003c/em\u003e, 48(5), 796\u0026ndash;816.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eXu, H. F., \u0026amp; Bolton, L. E. (2024). How do consumers react to production waste? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Consumer Research\u003c/em\u003e, 51(2), 212\u0026ndash;237.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Visual complexity, resource conservation sign, organizational hypocrisy, cognitive styles, conservation behavior","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eDespite growing sustainability awareness, resource waste remains a pressing issue. Prior research has largely focused on message content in conservation appeals, overlooking how visual presentation influences consumer behavior. This research addresses that gap by investigating how the visual complexity of resource conservation signs affects consumer conservation behavior. We propose that complex (vs. simple) sign designs reduce conservation behaviors by triggering perceived organizational hypocrisy, particularly among holistic thinkers. Across four studies, Study 1 shows that complex signs reduce resource-saving behavior in a real-world cafeteria setting. Studies 2 and 3 confirm the mediating role of perceived organizational hypocrisy by measuring and manipulating it. Study 4 reveals a moderating effect of thinking style: holistic thinkers, more sensitive to contextual inconsistency, perceive greater hypocrisy and show lower conservation behavior in response to complex designs than analytical thinkers. This research advances both the understanding of planetary well-being and effective communication strategies, offering practical guidance for crafting authentic visual narratives that foster global solidarity and collective responsibility for our shared future.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Design dissonance in sustainability messaging: How visually complex conservation signs undermine resource conservation behavior","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-30 19:16:59","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7001637/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-08T18:48:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-17T13:46:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-16T07:17:09+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-03T03:08:33+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"123546478371020531564745283425710115692","date":"2025-09-23T03:48:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"31099165470618749997187806162852734945","date":"2025-09-20T11:10:19+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"34818999840427473839737949294606893388","date":"2025-09-19T11:15:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-18T03:36:06+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-22T17:32:11+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-17T04:48:35+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","date":"2025-08-17T04:45:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"humanities-and-social-sciences-communications","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"palcomms","sideBox":"Learn more about [Humanities \u0026 Social Sciences Communications](http://www.nature.com/palcomms/)","snPcode":"41599","submissionUrl":"https://submission.springernature.com/new-submission/41599/3","title":"Humanities and Social Sciences Communications","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"Nature AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"cb99cbcd-2d9b-4bf6-90c0-6a2ae7466dbd","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":55446262,"name":"Business and commerce/Business and management"},{"id":55446263,"name":"Social science/Business and management"},{"id":55446264,"name":"Social science/Environmental studies"},{"id":55446265,"name":"Humanities/Philosophy"},{"id":55446266,"name":"Biological sciences/Psychology"},{"id":55446267,"name":"Social science/Psychology"},{"id":55446268,"name":"Social science/Science technology and society"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-27T14:10:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-30 19:16:59","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7001637","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7001637","identity":"rs-7001637","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}