Objective: This experimental study investigates the impact of message frame and risk perceptions upon willingness to consider living organ donation. Design: A 2 (gain vs. loss) by 2 (liver vs. kidney) by 2 (involved vs. not involved) between-group study was conducted. Method: Eighty-seven participants completed a questionnaire after reading a vignette designed to invite participants to consider living kidney or liver donation. Results: Within a gain frame scenario, willingness to donate was significantly higher when the risk of donating was lower. Conclusion: The results have important implications for the generalizability of framing theories and the promotion of living organ donation.
AbhyankarPO’ConnerDBLawtonR (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Health, Psychology and Medicine, 13(1), 1–16.
2.
AbounaGM (2008). Organ shortage crisis: problems and possible solutions. Transplantation Proceedings, 40(1), 34–38.
3.
AndreoniJ (1990). Impure altruism and donations to public goods: A theory of warm glow giving. The Economic Journal, 100(401), 464–477.
4.
ApanovitchAMMcCarthyDSaloveyP (2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychology, 22, 60–67.
5.
BartelsRDKellyKMRothmanAJ (2010). Moving beyond the function of the health behavior: the effect of message frame on behavioural decision making. Psychology and Health, 25(7), 821–838.
BelghitiJDurandF (2000). Living donor liver transplantation: present and future. British Journal of Surgery, 87(11), 1441–1443.
8.
DetweilerJBBedellBTSaloveyPProninERothmanAJ (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196.
9.
DonovanRJ (2000). Positive versus negative framing of a hypothetical infant immunization: The influence of involvement. Health Education and Behavior, 27, 82–95
10.
DovidioJFPiliavinJASchroederDAPennerLA (2006). The social psychology of prosocial behaviour. London: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
11.
FergusonE (2011). Personality is of central concern to understand health: Towards a theoretical model for health psychology. Health Psychology Review [Epub 26 July] doi:10.1080/17437199.2010.54798510.1080/17437199.2010.547985.
12.
FergusonEFarrellKLawrenceC (2008). Blood donation is an act of benevolence rather than altruism. Health Psychology, 27(3), 327–336.
13.
FergusonEGallagherL (2007). Message framing with respect to decisions about vaccination: the roles of frame valence, frame method and perceived risk. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 667–680.
14.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJARothmanAJSimsL (2011). Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss- framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychology, 30(2), 145–152.
15.
GerendMAManerJK (2011). Fear, anger, fruits, and veggies: interactive effects of emotion and message framing on health behaviour. Health Psychology, 30, 420–423.
16.
GriffinASWestSA (2003). Kin discrimination and the benefit of helping in cooperatively breeding vertebrates. Science, 302, 634–636.
17.
GrivaKZiegelmannJPThompsonDJayasenaDDavenportA.HarrisonM. (2002). Quality of life and emotional responses in cadaver and living related renal transplant recipients. Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation, 17(12), 2204–2211.
18.
HeveyDPertlMThomasKMaherLCraigANi ChuinneagainS (2010). Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. Journal of Health Psychology, 15(4), 553–559.
19.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.
20.
LatimerAESaloveyPRothmanAJ (2007). The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost?Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 645–649.
21.
LernerJSKeltnerD (2001) Fear, anger and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.
22.
LevinIPSchneiderSLGaethGJ (1998). All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.
23.
MaheswaranDMeyers-LevyJ (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Market Research, 23, 361–367.
24.
MarcosAFisherRAHamJMShiffmanMLSanyalAJLuketicVAC. (2000). Liver regeneration and function in donor and recipient after right lobe adult to adult living donor liver transplantation. Transplantation, 69(7), 1375–1379.
25.
MatasAJBartlettSTLeichtmanABDelmonicoFL (2003). Morbidity and mortality after living kidney donation, 1999–2001: survey of United States transplant centers. American Journal of Transplantation, 3(7), 830–834.
26.
McGregorLMHayesPCO’CarrollRE (2008). Living liver donation: attitudes of the general public and general practitioners in Scotland. Psychology and Health, 23(5), 603–616.
27.
McGregorLMSwansonVHayesPCForsytheJLRO’CarrollRE (2010). Considering living donor liver transplantation: a qualitative study of patients and their potential donors. Psychology and Health, First published on: 07 May 2009 (iFirst).
28.
MiddletonPFDuffieldMLynchSVPadburyRTAHouseTStantonP. (2006). Living donor liver transplantation - adult donor outcomes: a systematic review. Liver Transplantation, 12, 24–30.
29.
MillarMGMillarKU (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 853–866.
30.
MurrayJE (1982). Reflections on the first successful kidney transplantation. World Journal of Surgery, 6(3), 372–376.
31.
NHS Blood and Transplant (2009). Transplant activity in the UK: 2008–2009.
32.
NowakMA (2006). Five rules for the evolution of cooperation. Science, 314(5805), 1560–1563
33.
O’ConnerDBFergusonEO’ConnerRC (2005). Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: the role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. British Journal of Psychology, 96(3), 351–370.
34.
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 Communication, 12, 623–644.
35.
O’KeefeDJJensenJD (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 296–316.
36.
PettyRECacioppoJT (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp.123–205). Orlando: Academic Press.
37.
PurewalSvan den AkkerOBA (2009). A study of the effect of message framing on oocyte donation. Human Reproduction, 24(12), 3136–3134.
38.
ReinhartAMMarshallHMFeeleyTHTutzauerF (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: the mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74(2), 229–255.
39.
RothmanAJSaloveyP (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: the role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.
40.
RothmanAJSaloveyPAntoneCKeoughKMartinCD (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408–433.
41.
WerrijMQRuiterRACVan ‘T ReitJDe VriesH (2011). Self-efficacy as a potential moderator of the effects of framed health messages. Journal of Health Psychology, 16(2), 199–207.
