Framing studies dealing with health messages show mixed results, although a tendency in favor of negative framing. Involvement has been hypothesized to account for these conflicting results. The authors selected a realistic issue (immunization of infants) deemed high or low involving depending on the respondent’s circumstances: women with an infant or who were pregnant or intending to get pregnant in the next 12 months were deemed to be high involved; women in none of these categories were deemed to be low involved. A convenience sample of adult women was presented with a hypothetical “new” immunization that protected infants against respiratory complaints such as bronchitis and pneumonia. Side effects (the common flu) were framed positively (90% chance of no side effects) or negatively (10% chance of side effects). The authors found positive framing to be superior for low-involved respondents, but there was no framing effect for high-involved respondents.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. Atkin C, Wallack L (eds.): Mass Communication and Public Health. Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1990.
2.
2. Backer TE, Rogers EM, Sopory P: Designing Health Communication Campaigns: What Works?Newbury Park, CA, Sage, 1992.
3.
3. Kotler P, Roberto EL: Social Marketing: Strategies for Changing Public Behavior. New York, Free Press, 1989.
4.
4. Egger G, Donovan RJ, Spark R: Health and the Media: Principles and Practices for Health Promotion. Sydney, McGraw-Hill, 1993.
6. Kahneman D, Tversky A: Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica6: 621-630, 1979.
7.
7. Kahneman D, Tversky A: The psychology of preferences. Scientific American46: 160-173, 1982.
8.
8. Tversky A, Kahneman D: The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211: 453-458, 1981.
9.
9. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S: The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol52: 500-510, 1987.
10.
10. Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res27: 361-367, 1990.
11.
11. Rothman AJ, Salovey P, Antone C, Keough K, Martin CD: The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J Exp Soc Psychol29: 408-433, 1993.
12.
12. Rothman AJ, Salovey P, Turvey C, Fishkin SA: Attributions of responsibility and persuasion: Increasing mammography utilization among women over 40 with an internally oriented message. Health Psychol12: 39-47, 1993.
13.
13. Rothman AJ, Salovey P: Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychol Bull121(1): 3-19, 1997.
14.
14. Block LG, Keller PA: When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. J Mark Res32: 192-203, 1995.
15.
15. Wilson DK, Kaplan RM, Schneiderman LJ: Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Soc Behav2: 51-59, 1987.
16.
16. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, Rothman AJ, Moyer A, Beauvais J, Epel E: The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol14: 178-184, 1995.
17.
17. Robberson MR, Rogers RW: Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol18: 277-287, 1988.
18.
18. Wilson DK, Wallston KA, King JE: The Effects of Message Framing and Self-Efficacy on Smoking Cessation. Paper presented at the Annual Southeastern Psychological Association Convention, Atlanta, GA, 1987.
19.
19. Treiber FA: A comparison of the positive and negative consequences approaches upon car restraint usage. J Pediat Psychol11: 15-24, 1986.
20.
20. Wilson DK, Wallston KA, King JE: Effects of contract framing, motivation to quit, and self-efficacy on smoking reduction. J Appl Soc Psychol20: 531-547, 1990.
21.
21. Lerman C, Ross E, Boyce A, Gorchov PM, McLaughlin R, Rimer B, Engstrom P: The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. Am J Public Health82: 729-730, 1992.
22.
22. Steffen VJ, Sternberg L, Teegarden LA, Shepherd K: Practice and persuasive frame: Effects on beliefs, intention, and performance of a cancer self-examination. J Appl Soc Psychol24: 897-925, 1994.
23.
23. Tykocinski OE, Higgins T, Chaiken S: Message framing, self-discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: The motivational significance of psychological situations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull20: 107-115, 1994.
24.
24. Kanouse DE: Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research, in Kinnear TC (ed.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11). Provo, UT, Association for Consumer Research, 1984, pp. 703-708.
25.
25. Weinberger MG, Allen CT, Dillon WR: Negative information: Perspectives and research directions, in Monroe K (ed.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 8). Ann Arbor, MI, Association for Consumer Research, 1981, pp. 398-404.
26.
26. Ganzach Y, Karsahi N: Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. J Bus Res32: 11-17, 1995.
27.
27. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Application to advertising, in Percy L, Woodside A (eds.): Advertising and Consumer Psychology. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1983, pp. 3-23.
28.
28. Chaiken S: Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol45: 805-818, 1980.
29.
29. Braun KA, Gaeth GJ, Levin IP: Framing effects with differential impact: The role of attribute salience, in Brucks M, MacInnis DJ (eds.): Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 24). Provo, UT, Association for Consumer Research, 1997, pp. 405-411.
30.
30. Donovan RJ, Corti B, Holman CDJ, West D, Pitter D: Evaluation of sponsorship effectiveness. Health Prom J Aust3: 63-67, 1993.
31.
31. Rossiter JR, Percy L: Advertising and Promotion Management. New York, McGraw-Hill, 1987.
32.
32. Smith SM, Petty RE: Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Bull22: 257-268, 1996.
33.
33. Marteau TM: Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol28: 89-94, 1989.
34.
34. McNeil BJ, Pauker SG, Sox HC Jr, Tversky A: On the elicitation of preferences of alternative therapies. N Engl J Med306: 1259-1262, 1982.
35.
35. Purdon SE, Wilson DK, Edom PL: The Cognitive Mediation of Persuasive Messages in Health Psychology. Paper presented at the Annual American Psychological Association Conference, New York, 1987.
36.
36. Wilson DK, Chaiken S, Axom D: The Cognitive Mediation of Message Framing in Persuasion. Paper presented at the Annual Midwestern Psychological Association Convention, Chicago, 1986.
37.
37. Lauver D, Rubin M: Message framing, dispositional optimism, and follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests. Res Nurs Health13(3): 199-207, 1990.
38.
38. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, Harrington HL, Langley J, Moffitt TE, Silva PA: Personality differences predict health-risk behaviors in young adulthood: Evidence from a longitudinal study. J Pers Soc Psychol73: 1052-1063, 1997.
39.
39. Caspi A, Begg D, Dickson N, Langley J, et al: Identification of personality types at risk for poor health and injury in late adolescence. Criminal Behav Mental Health5: 330-350, 1995.
40.
40. Donovan RJ: Public health advertising: Guidelines for health promotion professionals. Health Prom J Aust1: 40-45, 1991.
