The growth of social problems resulting from the deterioration of the environment calls for changes in the behavior of members of society. Actions that are environmentally desirable such as lowering greenhouse gas emissions, reducing waste, and increasing clean energy and water, can only be met through higher levels of public participation (Brunson and Reiter, 1996; Mckenzie-Mohr, 2000). An approach with an outstanding potential to foster sustainable behaviors is the design of information-intensive advertising campaigns (VanDyke and Tedesco, 2016). Information offered to members of society or potential ecological consumers through advertising enhances awareness of environmental issues (FrajAndres and Martínez-Salinas, 2007
), encourages development of attitudes and intentions bolstering green consumption (Connell et al., 2014) and can even alter behavior (Han et al., 2010). Therefore, if designed properly, environmental messages can shape attitudes and decisions, and lead them in the direction of more responsible behaviors. Given the importance to a proper design of messages, most ecological advertising literature has focused on media features such us gain/loss framing (Tu et al., 2013) or message ambiguity (Leonidou et al., 2011) on attitudes, intentions or behaviors. A media feature typical of environmental messages is temporal framing, a concept that in this case refers to the display of an ecological message using a specific reference to time (Chandran and Geeta, 2004). In environmental communication, a future frame (FF) reveals the consequences of acting in the future for/against the environment, while a past frame (PF) emphasizes the consequences of having acted for/against the environment (Antes and Mumford, 2009). Despite the importance afforded by many studies to future framing (Kees, 2011; Xu et al., 2015), environmental communication research has advanced a variety of findings questioning which type of framing is more persuasive (Martin et al., 2011). Ecological messages are habitually pronounced by voices differing in gender and age. While voice gender (male/female) has gained much interest in communication research, less attention has been paid to the question of whether the age of the voice, young (YV) or old (OV), plays a persuasive role and the current findings regarding this aspect are inconsistent (Mammarella et al., 2013; Zaske et al., 2013 € ).