This article examines the moderating influence of personal relevance on the persuasive effects of gain- and loss-framed messages. We assessed current behaviour as a proxy for personal relevance, provided 169 participants with gain- and loss-framed messages advocating skin self-examination (SSE) and assessed intention to engage in SSE as the outcome measure. The results showed that loss-framed information was more persuasive than gain-framed information, but only for low-relevance participants. This suggests that loss-framed information might be mainly effective for recipients who need little persuading and, in fact, runs the risk of ‘preaching to the choir’.
AikenLSWestSG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New York: Sage.
2.
American Cancer Society (2008a) Cancer Facts and Figures 2008. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
3.
American Cancer Society (2008b) Skin Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
4.
BerkowitzLCottinghamDR (1960) The interest value and relevance of fear arousing communications. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology60: 37–43.
5.
BlockLGWilliamsP (2002) Undoing the effects of seizing and freezing: Decreasing defensive processing of personally relevant messages. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32: 803–833.
6.
BrownSLSmithEZ (2007) The inhibitory effects of a distressing anti-smoking message on risk perceptions in smokers. Psychology and Health22: 255–268.
7.
CesarioJGrantHHigginsET (2004) Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘Feeling Right’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86: 388–404.
8.
ChaikenSLibermanAEaglyAH (1989) Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In: UlemanJBarghJ (eds) Unintended Thought. New York: Guilford, 212–252.
9.
ChangC (2005) The moderating influence of ad framing for ad-self-congruency effects. Psychology and Marketing22: 955–968.
10.
CohenJ. A. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulleting, 112, 155–159.
11.
CohenEL (2010) The role of message frame, perceived risk, and ambivalence in individuals’ decisions to become organ donors. Health Communication25: 758–769.
12.
CoxDCoxAD (2001) Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing65: 91–103.
13.
CroyleRTSunYLouieD (1993) Psychological minimization of cholesterol test results: Moderators of appraisal in college students and community residents. Health Psychology12: 503–507.
14.
DittoPHLopezDF (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and non-preferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology63: 568–584.
15.
EarlAAlbarracínD (2007) Nature, decay, and spiraling of the effects of fear-inducing arguments and HIV counseling and testing: A meta-analysis of the short- and long-term outcomes of HIV-prevention interventions. Health Psychology26: 496–506.
16.
FiskeST (1980) Attention and weight in person perception: The impact of negative and extreme behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38: 889–906.
17.
GoodAAbrahamC (2007) Measuring defensive responses to threatening messages: A meta-analysis of measures. Health Psychology Review1: 208–229.
18.
HarrisPRNapperL (2005) Self-affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin31: 1250–1263.
19.
HarrisPRMayleKMabbottLNapperL (2007) Self-affrimation reduces smokers’ defensiveness to graphic on-pack cigarette warning labels. Health Psychology26: 437–446.
20.
HastingsGSteadMWebbJ (2004) Fear appeals in social marketing: Strategic and ethical reasons for concern. Psychology and Marketing21: 961–986.
21.
HeveyDPertlMThomasKMaherLCraigANi ChuinneagainS (2010) Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. Journal of Health Psychology15: 553–559.
22.
HoffnerCYeJ (2009) Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen use and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Communication24: 189–198.
23.
JemmotJBDittoPHCroyleRT (1986) Judging health status: Effects of perceived prevalence and personal relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology50: 899–905.
24.
KahnemanD (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist58: 697–720.
25.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1984) Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist39: 341–350.
26.
KanouseDE (1984) Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behaviour: Theory and research. In: KinnearTC (ed.) Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 11). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research, 703–708.
27.
KellerPABlockLG (1999) The effect of affect-based dissonance versus cognition-based dissonance on motivated reasoning and health-related persuasion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied5: 302–313.
28.
KesselsLTERuiterRACJansmaBM (2010) Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening information. Health Psychology29: 346–354.
29.
KuhbergerA (1998) The influence of framing on risky decisions: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behaviour and Human decision Process75: 23–55.
30.
KundaZ (1987) Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology53: 636–647.
31.
KundaZ (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin108: 480–498.
32.
LauRR (1985) Two explanations for negativity effects in political behaviour. American Journal of Political Science29: 119–138.
33.
LibermanAChaikenS (1992) Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18: 669–679.
34.
LowerySEKurpiusSERBefortCBlanksEHSollenbergerSNicponMF. (2005) Body image, self-esteem, and health-related behaviours among male and female first year college students. Journal of College Student Development46: 612–623.
35.
Meyers LevyJMaheswaranD (2004) Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology14: 159–167.
36.
MillarMGMillarK (2000) Promoting safe driving behavior: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology30: 853–866.
37.
O’KeefeDJJensenJD (2006) The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In: BeckCS (ed.) Communication Yearbook 30 (Vol. 30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–44.
38.
O’KeefeDJJensenJD (2007) The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication12: 623–644.
39.
ReedBAspinwallLG (1998) Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health-risk information. Motivation and Emotion2: 99–130.
40.
RiversSESaloveyPPizarroDAPizarroJSchneiderTR (2005) Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. Journal of Health Psychology10: 65–77.
41.
RothmanAJSaloveyP (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behaviour: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin121: 3–19.
42.
RothmanAJBartelsRDWlaschinJSaloveyP (2006) The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behaviour: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication56: s202–s220.
43.
RuiterRACAbrahamCKokG (2001) Scary warnings and rational precautions: A review of the psychology of fear appeals. Psychology and Health16: 613–630.
44.
SchneiderTRSaloveyPApanovitchAMPizarroJMcCarthyDZulloJ. (2001) The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology20: 256–266.
45.
ShenLDillardJP (2007) The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research34: 433–467.
46.
ShermanDAKNelsonLDSteeleCM (2000) Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self-affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26: 1046–1058.
47.
SteeleCM (1988) The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 21: Social Psychological Studies of the Self: Perspectives and Programs. New York, NY: Academic Press, 261–302.
48.
Van ’t RietJ.RuiterR. A. C. (2011). Defensive reactions to health-promoting information: an overview and implications for future research. Health Psychology Review, document in press. DOI: 10.1080/17437199.2011.60678210.1080/17437199.2011.606782.
49.
Van’tRietJRuiterRACSmerecnikCDe VriesH (2010a) Examining the influence of self-efficacy on message-framing effects: Reducing salt consumption in the general population. Basic and Applied Social Psychology32: 165–172.
50.
Van’tRietJRuiterRACWerrijMQDe VriesH (2010b) Self-efficacy moderates message-framing effects: The case of skin cancer detection. Psychology and Health25: 339–349.
51.
WitteK (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communication Monographs59: 329–349.
52.
WitteK (1994) Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communication Monographs61: 113–134.
53.
WitteKAllenM (2000) A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behavior27: 591–615.
54.
ZhaoXNanX (2010) Influence of self-affirmation on responses to gain- versus loss-framed antismoking messages. Human Communication Research36: 493–511.
