The congruency hypothesis posits that approach-orientated individuals are persuaded to engage in prevention behaviours by positively framed messages; conversely, negatively framed messages are more persuasive in encouraging those who are avoidance-orientated. A 2 (frame: loss vs gain) × 2 (motivation: avoidance vs approach) design examined the effects of skin cancer information on sun-protective intentions and free sunscreen sample requests among 533 young adults. Gain-framed messages had the strongest effect on sun-protective intentions for approach-oriented individuals, whereas loss-framed messages had the strongest effect on avoidance-oriented individuals. Message framing effects on precautionary sun behaviour intentions were moderated by motivational differences.
AbromsLJorgensenCMSouthwellBG. (2003) Gender differences in young adults’ beliefs about sunscreen use. Health Education & Behavior30: 29–43.
2.
American Cancer Society (2009) Cancer Facts and Figures 2009. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society.
3.
BaumACohenL (1998) Successful behavioral interventions to prevent cancer: The example of skin cancer. Annual Review of Public Health19: 319–333.
4.
CacioppoJTGardnerWLBerntsonGG (1997) Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review1: 3–25.
5.
CarverCSWhiteTL (1994) Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology67: 319–333.
6.
CarverCSSuttonSKScheierMF (2000) Action, emotion and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin26: 741–751.
7.
CesarioJGrantHHigginsTE (2004) Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘Feeling right’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86: 388–404.
8.
CottrellRMcClamrochLBernardAL (2005) Melanoma knowledge and sun protection attitudes and behaviors among college students by gender and skin type. American Journal of Health Education36: 274–278.
9.
CraciunCSchuzNLippkeS. (2012) Facilitating sunscreen use in women by a theory-based online intervention: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Health Psychology17: 207–216.
10.
DetweilerJBBedellBTSaloveyP. (1999) Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology18: 189–196.
11.
De WitJBFDasEHHJDe HoogN. (2007) Self-regulation of health communications: A motivated processing approach to risk perception and persuasion. In: HewstoneMSchutHDe WitJ. (eds) The Scope of Social Psychology: Theory and Applications. Hove: Psychology Press, pp. 202–209.
12.
ElliotAJThrashTM (2002) Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology82: 804–818.
13.
EvansJSBT (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology59: 255–278.
14.
GallagherKMUpdegraffJA (2012) Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine43: 101–116.
15.
GerendMAShepherdJE (2007) Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology26: 745–752.
16.
GlanzKLewRSongV. (1999) Factors associated with skin cancer prevention practices in a multiethnic population. Health Education & Behavior26: 344–359.
17.
GrayJA (1990) Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition & Emotion4: 269–288.
18.
HoffnerCYeJ (2009) Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Communication24: 189–198.
19.
HwangYChoHSandsL. (2012) Effects of gain- and loss-framed messages on the sun safety behavior of adolescents: The moderating role of risk perceptions. Journal of Health Psychology17: 929–940.
20.
IdsonLCLibermanNHigginsET (2004) Imagining how you’d feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin30: 926–937.
21.
JacksonKAikenL (2000) A psychosocial model of sun-protection and sunbathing in young women: The impact of health beliefs, attitudes, norms, and self-efficacy for sun-protection. Health Psychology19: 469–478.
22.
JacksonKAikenL (2006) Evaluation of a multicomponent appearance-based sun protective intervention for young women: Uncovering the mechanisms of program efficacy. Health Psychology25: 34–46.
23.
JonesBOhCCorkeryE. (2007) Attitudes and perceptions regarding skin cancer and sun protection behaviour in an Irish population. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology8: 1097–1101.
24.
JormAFChristensenHHendersonAS. (1999) Using the BIS/BAS scales to measure behavioural inhibition and behavioural activation: Factor structure, validity and norms in a large community sample. Personality and Individual Differences26: 49–58.
25.
Karim-KosHEde VriesESoerjomataramI. (2008) Recent trends of cancer in Europe: A combined approach of incidence, survival and mortality for 17 cancer sites since the 1990s. European Journal of Cancer44: 1345–1389.
26.
KesselsLTRuiterRAJansmaBM (2010) Increased attention but more efficient disengagement: Neuroscientific evidence for defensive processing of threatening health information. Health Psychology29: 346–354.
27.
LatimerAESaloveyPRothmanAJ (2007) The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost?Journal of Health Communication12: 645–649.
28.
LauriolaMLevinIP (2001) Personality traits and risky decision-making in a controlled experimental task: An exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences31: 215–226.
29.
LeeAYAakerJL (2004) Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology86: 205–218.
30.
LibermanAChaikenS (1992) Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin18: 669–679.
31.
MannTShermanDUpdegraffJ (2004) Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology23: 330–334.
32.
MilesAWallerJHiomS. (2005) Sunsmart? Skin cancer knowledge and preventive behaviour in a British population representative sample. Health Education Research20: 579–585.
33.
National Cancer Registry (2007) Cancer in Ireland 1994–2005, a Summary: Incidence and Mortality. Cork: National Cancer Registry Board.
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 Communication12: 623–644.
35.
PettyKNKneeCRJosephAK (2013) Sunscreen use among recreational cyclists: how intentions predict reported behavior. Journal of Health Psychology18(3): 439–447.
36.
PettyRWheelerSBizerG (2000) Attitude functions and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach to matched versus mismatched messages. In: MaioGOlsonJ (eds) Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., pp. 133–162.
37.
Prentice-DunnSJonesJLFloydDL (1997) Persuasive appeals and the reduction of skin cancer risk: The roles of appearance concern, perceived benefits of a tan, and efficacy information. Journal of Applied Social Psychology27: 1041–1047.
38.
RothmanAJSaloveyP (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin121: 3–19.
39.
RothmanAJBartelsRDWlaschinJ. (2006) The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication56: S202–S221.
40.
RothmanAJMartinoSCBedellBT. (1999) The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin25: 1355–1369.
41.
RothmanAJSaloveyPAntoneC. (1993) The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology29: 408-433.
42.
ShermanDKMannTUpdegraffJS (2006) Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion30: 165–169.
43.
StantonWRJandaMBaadePD. (2004) Primary prevention of skin cancer: A review of sun protection in Australia and internationally. Health Promotion International19: 369–378.
44.
TamirMDienerE (2008) Approach-avoidance goals and well-being: One size does not fit all. In: ElliotAJ (ed.) Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 415–430.
45.
TverskyAKahnemanD (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science211: 453–458.
46.
UpdegraffJAShermanDKLuysterFS. (2007) The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology43: 249–257.
47.
WorthKASullivanH WHertelAW. (2005) Avoidance goals can be beneficial: A look at smoking cessation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology27: 107–116.
