Meeting the challenge of the global biodiversity and climate crisis requires developing effective communication strategies to engage specific audiences and stakeholders. One popular communication tactic is to “frame” messages, using subtle differences in word choice and message presentation to influence the preferences and behaviors of others. Though common in politics, mass communication, and marketing, framing has been less commonly used for conservation messaging, and there is limited empirical evidence demonstrating its efficacy for encouraging people to act on urgent environmental issues. Within the context of a real-world, bird conservation campaign, we tested how messages framed as pessimistic (population losses), optimistic (population recoveries or gains), or a combination of both, affected participants emotional responses and behavioral intentions, including willingness to donate to conservation causes, adopt individual conservation actions, and support conservation policy. We also investigated how participants’ wildlife value orientations (Domination and Mutualism) and perceptions of risks to bird populations affected willingness to engage in the three behaviors. In 2020, we administered a national, web-based survey to a random sample of U.S. adults (n= 1,998), that used language directly from the “3 Billion Bird” campaign designed by Cornell Lab of Ornithology and partners. The survey design included four experimental vignettes (no frame/control, optimistic/gain frame, pessimistic loss frame, combined frame). Our results show that pessimistic (loss-framed) messages best encouraged donations, and that respondents were more likely to donate and adopt personal conservation behaviors when they experienced strong emotions that aligned with the valence of the message frame they were exposed to (i.e., negative emotions with pessimistic/loss frames, and positive emotions with optimistic/gain frames). Additionally, participants who experienced strong negative emotions after seeing the pessimistic/loss message were more likely to engage politically. In contrast, the combined optimistic/pessimistic message performed no better than the control, even when emotions were elevated. In terms of wildlife value orientations, individuals with stronger mutualistic tendencies were most likely to engage in all three behaviors. Paradoxically, we found that both optimistic/gain and pessimistic/loss messages reduced intentions to engage in personal conservation behaviors in both mutualistic and domination-oriented populations. Results suggest that perceptions of emotions and risk may trigger confirmation bias or motivated reasoning in those oriented towards domination, who reported that risks to bird populations were more controllable, less dreadful, and experienced more positive emotions. Conversely, those oriented towards mutualism reported strong perceptions of “dread” risks and negative emotions. Overall, this work provides empirical evidence for strategically leveraging message framing, wildlife value orientations, risk perceptions, and emotions to promote conservation behaviors.