Companion Datasets: Driving Healthy and Sustainable Mobility: Emotional and Cognitive Pathways from Message Framing to the Effectiveness of Car-Advertising Warnings

This record contains the anonymized dataset and accompanying documentation for the article "Driving Healthy and Sustainable Mobility: Emotional and Cognitive Pathways from Message Framing to the Effectiveness of Car-Advertising Warnings". The study examines how the framing of environmental warnings (gain vs. loss) in car advertising influences perceived effectiveness, and whether emotional responses (valence, arousal, dominance) and cognitive-emotional orientation (introspective vs. vigilant attention) mediate that relationship. It uses a within-subjects design in which each participant (n = 91) evaluated both a gain-framed and a loss-framed car advertisement. Files in this record Study_self-report_final.sav — Self-report dataset (SPSS). Core variables: anonymized participant ID; advertisement identifier and presentation order; SAM valence, arousal, and dominance (9-point); cognitive-emotional orientation / subjective attention (introspective–vigilant, 9-point); perceived effectiveness in reducing private car use (10-point); environmental concern (scale; collected but not analyzed in the article); and basic sociodemographics (age, gender, nationality). README / codebook — variable names, coding, and value labels. Methods snapshot Stimuli. Static advertisements for a fictitious car brand (to avoid trademark issues), with standardized size and colours. Each ad paired a brief text with a matching image aligned to the assigned frame (gain or loss). A SAM-based pre-test confirmed the intended valence of each frame. Measures. Perceived effectiveness (10-point Likert); SAM valence/arousal/dominance (9-point); cognitive-emotional orientation on a 9-point external/vigilant–internal/introspective scale; environmental concern; sociodemographics. Design & analysis. Within-subjects, with each participant rating both ads (order counterbalanced). Analyses used linear mixed-effects models with participant-level random intercepts; framing-to-effectiveness mechanisms were tested with bootstrapped indirect effects. Ethics. Participants provided informed consent; data are fully anonymized; the study followed the Declaration of Helsinki.