Using an online between-subject experiment, this study tested the effects of message framing (gain vs. loss), reference point (self vs. other), and modality (text vs. infographics) in the scenario of recycling promotion. The findings identified that modality determines under what circumstances message strategies make a difference in risk perception and optimistic bias. In particular, only when paired with infographics and other-referencing point are loss-framed messages more effective than gain-framed messages in increasing risk perception and reducing the self-other gap in perceived benefits. Moreover, risk perception variables and the self-other risk perceptual gap were significant predictors of promoted behavioral intentions.
AndersonS. M.GlassmanN. S.GoldD. A. (1998). Mental representations of the self, significant others, and non-significant others: Structure and processing of private and public aspects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 845-861. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.845
2.
AnghelcevG.SarS. (2014). In the mood for [the right kind of] social marketing communication: How congruity between consumer mood and message framing influences intentions to recycle. Journal of Social Marketing, 4, 38-57. doi:10.1108/JSOCM-04-2013-0025
3.
BaekT. H.YoonS.KimS. (2015). When environmental messages should be assertive: Examining the moderating role of effort investment. International Journal of Advertising, 34, 135-157. doi:10.1080/02650487.2014.993513
4.
BambergS. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21-32. doi:10.1016/S0272-4944(02)00078-6
5.
BuchanN. R.JohnsonE. J.CrosonR. T. A. (2006). Let’s get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60, 373-398. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2004.03.017
6.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3-5. doi:10.1177%2F1745691610393980
7.
BurnkrantR. E.UnnavaH. R. (1995). Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 17-26. doi:10.1086/209432
8.
CasalóL. V.EscarioJ.-J. (2016). Intergenerational association of environmental concern: Evidence of parents’ and children’s concern. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 48, 65-74. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.09.001
9.
CaslerK.BickelL.HackettE. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156-2160. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009
10.
ChoH.LeeJ.-S.LeeS. (2013). Optimistic bias about H1N1 flu: Testing the links between risk communication, optimistic bias, and self-protection behavior. Health Communication, 28, 146-158. doi:10.1080/10410236.2012.664805
11.
DavisJ. J. (1995). The effects of message framing on response to environmental communications. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 72, 285-299. doi:10.1177/107769909507200203
12.
de HannY.KruikemeierS.LechelerS.SmitG.van der NatR. (2018). When does an infographic say more than a thousand words?Journalism Studies, 19, 1293-1312. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2016.1267592
13.
DunlopS.WakefieldM.KashimaY. (2008). Can you feel it? Negative emotion, risk, and narrative in health communication. Media Psychology, 11, 52-75. doi:10.1080/15213260701853112
14.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
HaleyE. (1996). Exploring the construct of organization as source: Consumers’ understandings of organizational sponsorship of advocacy advertising. Journal of Advertising, 25(2), 19-35. doi:10.1080/00913367.1996.10673497
17.
HarringtonN. G.HelmeD. W.NoarS. M. (2015). Message design approaches to health risk behavior prevention. In ScheierL. M. (ed.), Handbook of adolescent drug use prevention: Research, intervention strategies, and practice (pp. 381-396). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18.
HarrisP.MiddletonW.JoinerR. (2000). The typical student as an in-group member: Eliminating optimistic bias by reducing social distance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 235-253. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0992(200003/04)30:2<235::AID-EJSP990>3.0.CO;2-G
19.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based perspective (2nd ed). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291. doi:10.2307/1914185
21.
KangJ.LinC. A. (2015). Effects of message framing and visual-fear appeals on smoker responses to antismoking ads. Journal of Health Communication, 20, 647-655. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1012242
22.
KellyB. J.HornikR. C. (2016). Effects of framing health messages in terms of benefits to loved ones or others: An experimental study. Health Communication, 31, 1284-1290. doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1062976
23.
KimY.BaekT. H.YoonS.OhS.ChoiY. K. (2017). Assertive environmental advertising and reactance: Differences between South Koreans and Americans. Journal of Advertising, 46, 550-564. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1361878
24.
KühbergerA. (1998). The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 75, 23-35. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2781
25.
LandowJ.RitchieJ.CrooksR. (2012). Infographics: The power of visual storytelling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
26.
LazardA.AtkinsonL. (2015). Putting environmental infographics center stage: The role of visuals at the elaboration likelihood model’s critical point of persuasion. Science Communication, 37, 6-33. doi:10.1177/1075547014555997
27.
LeeE.-J.KimY. W. (2016). Effects of infographics on news elaboration, acquisition, and evaluation: Prior knowledge and issue involvement as moderators. New Media & Society, 18, 1579-1598. doi:10.1177/1461444814567982
28.
LeiserowitzA. (2006). Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climate Change, 77(1-2), 45-72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
LorozP. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology & Marketing, 24, 1001-1023. doi:10.1002/mar.20193
31.
MortonT. A.DuckJ. M. (2001). Communication and health beliefs: Mass and interpersonal influences on perceptions of risk to self and others. Communication Research, 28, 602-626. doi:10.1177/009365001028005002
32.
NewmanC. L.HowlettE.BurtonS.KozupJ. C.TangariA. H. (2012). The influence of consumer concern about global climate change on framing effects for environmental sustainability messages. International Journal of Advertising, 31, 511-527. doi:10.2501/IJA-31-3-511-527
33.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644. doi:10.1080/10810730701615198
34.
O’KeefeD. J.JensenJ. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296-316. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x
35.
O’KeefeD. J.NanX. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27, 776-783. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.640974
36.
O’KeefeD. J.WuD. (2012). Gain-framed appeals do not motivate sun protection: A meta-analytic review of randomized trials comparing gain-framed and loss-framed appeals for promoting skin cancer prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9, 2121-2133. doi:10.3390/ijerph9062121
37.
PagiaslisA.KrontalisA. K. (2014). Green consumption behavior antecedents: Environmental concern, knowledge, and beliefs. Psychology & Marketing, 31, 335-348. doi:10.1002/mar.20698
38.
PahlS.HarrisP. R.ToddH. A.RutterD. R. (2005). Comparative optimism for environmental risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.12.004
39.
PaivioA. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
40.
PaivioA. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
41.
ParkJ. S.JuI. (2016). Prescription drug advertising, disease knowledge, and older adults’ optimistic bias about the future risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Health Communication, 31, 346-354. doi:10.1080/10410236.2014.957375
42.
PerloffL. S.FetzerB. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502-510. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.502
43.
PettyR. E.BriñolP.PriesterJ. R. (2009). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In JenningsB.OliverM. B. (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 125-164). Hoboken, NJ: Routledge.
44.
ReberR.WinkielmanP.SchwarzN. (1998). Effects of perceptual fluency on affective judgments. Psychological Science, 9, 45-48. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00008
45.
SegelE.HeerJ. (2010). Narrative visualization: Telling stories with data. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16, 1139-1148. doi:10.1109/TVCG.2010.179
46.
SegevS.FernandesJ.WangW. (2015). The effects of gain versus loss message framing and point of reference on consumer responses to green advertising. Journal of Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 36, 35-51. doi:10.1080/10641734.2014.912600
47.
SeverinW. J. (1967). Another look at cue summation. AV Communication Review, 15, 233-245.
48.
ShenL.KollarL. M. M. (2015). Testing moderators of message framing effect: A motivational approach. Communication Research, 42, 626-648. doi:10.1177/0093650213493924
49.
ShepperdJ. A.CarrollP.GraceJ.TerryM. (2002). Exploring the causes of comparative optimism. Psychologica Belgica, 42, 65-98.
50.
SternP. C.DietzT.KalofL. (1993). Value orientations, gender, and environmental concern. Environment and Behavior, 25, 322-348. doi:10.1177/0013916593255002
51.
TylerT. R.CookF. L. (1984). The mass media and judgments of risk: Distinguishing impact on personal and societal level judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 693-708. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.4.693
Van de VeldeL.VerbekeW.PoppM.Van HuylenbroeckG. (2010). The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy. Energy Policy, 38, 5541-5549. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2010.04.053
54.
WeberE. U.BlaisA-R.BetzN. E. (2002). A domain-specific risk-attitude scale: Measuring risk perceptions and risk behaviors. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 15, 263-290. doi:10.1002/bdm.414
55.
WeiR.LoV.-H.LuH.-Y. (2007). Reconsidering the relationship between the third person perception and optimism bias. Communication Research, 34, 665-684. doi:10.1177/0093650207307903
56.
WeinsteinN. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 806-820. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.806
57.
WeinsteinN. D. (1982). Unrealistic optimism about susceptibility to health problems. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 5, 441-460. doi:10.1007/BF00845372
58.
WeinsteinN. D.KleinW. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15, 1-8. doi:10.1521/jscp.1996.15.1.1
59.
WhiteK.MacDonnellR.DahlD. W. (2011). It’s the mind-set that matters: The role of construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation behaviors. Journal of Marketing Research, 48, 472-485. doi:10.1509/jmkr.48.3.472
60.
WinterichK. P.NenkovG. Y.GonzalesG. E. (2019). Knowing what it makes: How product transformation salience increases recycling. Journal of Marketing, 83(4), 21-37. doi:10.1177/0022242919842167
61.
YoonH. J.La FerleC. (2018). Saving behavior messaging: Gain/loss framing, self/family orientations, and individual differences in collectivism. Journal of Advertising, 47, 146-160. doi:10.1080/00913367.2017.1408507
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
