To test whether message framing (ie, gain vs. loss) and risk type (ie, health vs appearance risk) in skin cancer prevention messages interact with one’s prior experience. Design: Two experiments with a 2 (message framing: gain vs loss) × 2 (risk type: health vs appearance risk) factorial design were conducted.
Setting:
The participants were given a URL to the experiment website via e-mail. On the first page of the website, the participants were told that they would be asked to evaluate a skin cancer print public service announcement (PSA): Online experiments.
Participants:
A total of 397 individuals participated (236 for experiment 1 and 161 for experiment 2).
Apparatus:
Four versions of the skin cancer print PSAs were developed. Four PSAs were identical except for the 2 manipulated components: message framing and risk type.
Measures:
Measures were adopted from Cho and Boster (message framing), Jones and Leary and Kiene et al. (risk type), De Vries, Mesters, van’t Riet, Willems, and Reubsaet and Knight, Kirincich, Farmer, and Hood (prior experience), and Hammond, Fong, Zanna, Thrasher, and Borland and Hoffner and Ye (behavioral intent).
Analysis:
General linear models were used to test hypotheses.
Results:
Three-way interactions among message framing, risk type, and prior experience were found: When the intent of the message was to encourage sunscreen use, the effects of message framing and risk type were shown to be the exact opposite directions from when the intent was to discourage indoor/outdoor tanning.
Conclusion:
To discourage tanning among those with prior experience, messages emphasizing losses in terms of one’s health will work better. For those with no prior experience, messages emphasizing potential appearance losses will work better for discouraging tanning while messages emphasizing gains like improving appearance will do a better job in encouraging sunscreen use.
RogersHWWeinstockMAFeldmanSRColdironBM. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer (keratinocyte carcinomas) in the US population, 2012. JAMA Dermatol. 2015;151(10): 1081–1086. Doi:10.100/jamadermatol.2015.1187
MonfrecolaGFabbrociniGPosteraroGPiniD. What do young people think about the dangers of sunbathing, skin cancer and sunbeds? A questionnaire survey among Italians. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2000;16(1):15–18.
7.
ElwoodJMGallagherRPDavisonJHillGB. Sunburn, suntan and the risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma—the western Canada melanoma study. Br J Cancer. 1985;51(4):543–549.
8.
KohHKGellerAC. Melanoma control in the United States: current status. Recent Results Cancer Res. 1995;139:215–224.
9.
WakefieldMA. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behavior. Lancet. 2010;376(9748):1261–1271.
10.
TewksburyDScheufeleDA. News framing theory and research. In: JenningsBOliverMB, eds. Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Routledge; 2009:17–33.
11.
KahnemanDTverskyA. Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979;47(2):263–292.
12.
TverskyAKahnemanD. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–458.
13.
GrayJBHarringtonNG. Narrative and framing: a test of an integrated message strategy in the exercise context. J Health Commun. 2011;16(3):264–281.
14.
YuNAhernLAConnolly-AhernCShenF. Communicating the risks of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: effects of message framing and exemplification. Health Commun. 2010;25(8):692–699.
15.
ChoHBosterFJ. Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. J Commun. 2008;58(3):428–446.
16.
GoodallCAppiahO. Adolescents’ perceptions of Canadian cigarette package warning labels: investigating the effects of message framing. Health Commun. 2008;23(2):117–127.
17.
MaheswaranDMeyers-LevyJ. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res. 1990;27(3):361–367.
18.
O’KeefeDJJensenJD. The advantages of compliance of the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analysis review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In: BeckCS, ed. Communication Yearbook30. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2006:1–43.
19.
O’KeefeDJWuD. Gain-framed messages do not motivate sun protection: a meta-analytic review of randomized trials comparing gain-framed and loss-framed appeals for promoting skin cancer prevention. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2012;9(6):2121–2133.
20.
O’KeefeDJ. From psychological theory to message design: lessons from the story of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive messages. In: ChoH, ed. Health Communication Message Design: Theory and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012:3–20.
21.
HeveyDPertlMThomasKMaherLCraigANi ChuinneagainS. Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. J Health Psychol. 2010;15(4):553–559.
22.
MahlerHIMKulikJAGibbonsFX. Effects of appearance-based intervention on sun protection intentions and self-reported behaviors. Health Psychol. 2003;22(2):199–209.
23.
MahlerHIMKulikJAHarrellJCorreaAGibbonsFXGerrardM. Effects of UV photographs, photoaging information, and use of sunless tanning lotion on sun protection behaviors. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(3):373–380.
24.
RogersRWCognitive and Physiological Processes in Fear Appeals and Attitude Change: A Revised Theory of Protection Motivation. In: CacioppoJTPettyRE, eds. Social Psychophysiology. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1983:153–176.
25.
UngerLSStearnsJMThe Use of Fear and Guilt Messages in Television Advertising: Issues and Evidence. In: MurphyPELaczniakGR, eds. American Marketing Association Educators’ Proceedings. Chicago, IL: American Marketing Association; 1983:16–20.
26.
RothmanAJSaloveyP. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):3–19.
27.
MeyerowitzBEChaikenS. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1987;52(3):500–510.
28.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJA. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: a meta-analytic review. Ann Behav Med. 2012;43(1):101–116.
29.
HoffnerCYeJ. Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: the role of framing and social comparison. Health Commun. 2009;24(3):189–198.
30.
MaysDZhaoX. The influence of framed messages and self-affirmation on indoor tanning behavioral intentions in 18-to 30-year-old women. Health Psychol. 2016;35(2):123–130.
31.
MaysDTercyakKP. Framing indoor tanning warning messages to reduce skin cancer risks among young women: implications for research and policy. Am J Public Health. 2015;105(8):e70–e76.
32.
HeveyDDolanM. Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing and skin cancer prevention: a test of the congruency hypothesis. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(8):1003–1012.
33.
Van’t RietJCoxADCoxD.. Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? A new investigation of a widely held notion. Psychol Health. 2014:29(8):933–949.
34.
HwangYChoHSandsLJeongSH. Effects of gain- and loss-framed messages on the sun safety behavior of adolescents: the moderating role of risk perceptions. J Health Psychol. 2012;17(6):929–940.
35.
JonesJRLearyMR. Effects of appearance-based admonitions against sun exposure on tanning intentions in young adults. Health Psychol. 1994;13(1):86–90.
36.
CornelisECaubergheVDe PelsmackerP. Being healthy or looking good? The effectiveness of health versus appearance-focused arguments in two-sided messages. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(9):1132–1142.
37.
TuongWArmstrongAW. Effect of appearance-based education compared with health-based education on sunscreen use and knowledge: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2014;70(4):665–669.
38.
WilliamsALGroganSClark-CarterDBuckleyE. Appearance-based interventions to reduce ultraviolet exposure and/or increase sun protection intentions and behaviours: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Br J Health Psychol. 2013;18(1):182–217.
39.
CafriGThompsonJKRoehrigMvan den BergPJacobsenPBStarkS. An investigation of appearance motives for tanning: the development and evaluation of the Physical Appearance Reasons For Tanning Scale (PARTS) and its relation to sunbathing and indoor tanning intentions. Body Image. 2006;3(3):199–209.
40.
GreeneKBrinnLS. Messages influencing college women’s tanning bed use: statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility. J Health Commun. 2003;8(5):443–461.
41.
BaekTHShenLReidLN. Effects of message framing in anti–binge drinking PSAs: the moderating role of counterfactual thinking. J Health Commun. 2013;18(4):442–458.
42.
KieneSMBartaWDZelenskiJMCothranDL. Why are you bringing up condom use now? The effect of message content on framing effects of condom use messages. Health Psychol. 2005;24(3):321–326.
43.
De VriesHMestersIvan’t RietJWillemsKReubsaetA. Motives of Belgian adolescents for using sunscreen: the role of action plans. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15(7):1360–1366.
44.
KnightJMKirincichANFarmerERHoodAF. Awareness of the risk of tanning lamps does not influence behavior among college students. Arch Dermatol. 2002;138(10):1311–1315.
45.
HammondDFongGTZannaMPThrasherJFBorlandR. Tobacco denormalization and industry beliefs among smokers from four countries. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(3):225–232.
46.
MillarMGMillarKUPromoting safe driving behaviors: the influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000;30(2):853–866.
47.
AbromsLJorgensenCMSouthwellBGGellerACEmmonsKM. Gender differences in young adults’ beliefs about sunscreen use. Health Educ Behav. 2003;30(1):29–43.
48.
ChoHHallJGKosmoskiCFoxRLMastinT. Tanning skin cancer risk, and prevention: a content analysis of eight popular magazines that target female readers, 1997-2006. Health Commun. 2010;25(1):1–10.
