Amid growing concerns over the climate crisis, this study examines how agency framing shapes consumers’ pro-environmental behavior (PEB) when different types of costs are involved. Drawing on cost–benefit theory, we distinguish between financial costs, such as higher expenses, and effort costs, such as time and psychological and physical investment. An online survey was conducted with 210 Korean parents in their 40s, randomly assigned to personal agency (I-frame) or interpersonal agency (we-frame) conditions. Respondents evaluated PEB scenarios in terms of perceived effectiveness, delayed trap, perceived benefits, and perceived burden. Multiple regression analyses revealed that perceived benefit was a consistent predictor of both financial and effort cost PEB intentions, while perceived effectiveness additionally predicted effort-cost PEB. Interaction effects further showed that perceived benefit exerted a stronger positive influence on effort-cost PEB under we-framing, whereas delayed trap influenced financial-cost PEB positively under I-framing but negatively under we-framing. These findings demonstrate that cost type and agency framing jointly shape consumer intentions. The study contributes by highlighting agency as a mechanism that extends discussions of PEB beyond altruism to consumer empowerment and well-being, and offers practical guidance for tailoring communication strategies to promote sustainable behavior.
