In this study, the influence of source and message frame on judgments of a public service announcement was examined. The participants in the experiment were 408 undergraduate students (126 men, 280 women, 2 unknown; M age = 20.0, SD = 2.5, range = 18–23) of a Midwestern U.S. university. Message frame and source were manipulated in a between-subjects design. Two levels of the message frame were benefits of physical activity and costs of not engaging in regular physical activity; the source was a healthy or unhealthy individual. In the Healthy-source condition, “Kim Jones” set realistic goals for exercise and had a healthy lifestyle. Conversely, she was described as a sedentary individual who led an unhealthy lifestyle in the Sick-source condition. Results indicated that respondents in the conditions of gain frame–healthy source and cost frame-unhealthy source had more positive message judgment as compared to respondents in the conditions of gain frame-unhealthy source and cost frame-healthy source.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlbaJ. W.HasherL. (1983) Is memory schematic?Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203–231.
2.
BanksS. M.SaloveyP.GreenerS.RothmanA. J.MoyerA.BeauvaisJ.EpelE. (1995) The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178–184.
3.
BennettR.KottaszR. (2000) Emergency fund-raising for disaster relief. Disaster Prevention and Management, 9, 352–360.
4.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC.RodriguezR. (1986) Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1032–1043.
5.
CollinsA. M.LoftusE. F. (1975) A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.
6.
DetweilerJ. B.BedellB. T.SaloveyP.ProninE.RothmanA. J. (1999) Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196.
7.
HastieR. (1980) Memory for information which confirms or contradicts a general impression. In HastieR.OstromT. M.EbbesenE. G.WyerR. S.HamiltonD. L.CarlstonD. E. (Eds.), Person memory: The cognitive basis of social perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Pp. 155–177.
8.
HemsleyG. D.MarmurekH. H. C. (1982) Person memory: The processing of consistent and inconsistent person information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8, 433–438.
9.
HerrP. M.ShermanS. J.FazioR. H. (1983) On the consequence of priming: Assimilation and contrast effects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 323–340.
10.
HigginsE. T.KingG. (1981) Accessibility of social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In CantorN.KihlstromJ. (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interactions. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11.
HsiaoE. T. Y. (2002) Using message framing to promote regular physical activity in college-age women and men. Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State Univer. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63, 3461B. (UMI No. AAT-3059265)
12.
JohnsonB. T.EaglyA. H. (1989) Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314.
13.
JonesL. W.SinclairR. C.CourneyaK. S. (2003) The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 179–196.
14.
MaheswaranD.ChaikenS. (1991) Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25.
15.
NeisserU. (1976). Cognition and reality. New York: Plenum Press.
16.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979) Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive response. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 1915–1926.
17.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1984) Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Consumer Research, 11, 668–672.
18.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 19. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Pp. 123–205.
19.
QuillianM. R. (1968) Semantic memory. In MinskyM. (Ed.), Semantic information processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Pp. 227–270.
20.
QuillianM. R. (1969) The teachable language comprehender: A simulation program and theory of language. Communications of the ACM, 12, 459–476.
21.
RobbersonM. R.RogersR. W. (1988) Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277–287.
22.
RothmanA. J.SaloveyP. (1997) Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
23.
SaloveyP.SchneiderT. R.ApanovitchA. M. (2002) Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In DillardJ. P.PfauM. (Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, Pp. 391–406.
24.
SrullT. K. (1981) Person memory: Some tests of associate storage and retrieval models. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 316–345.
25.
SrullT. K.WyerR. S. (1989) Person memory and judgment. Psychological Review, 96, 58–83.
26.
StangorC.McMillanD. (1992) Memory for expectancy-congruent and expectancy-incongruent information: A review of the social and social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 42–61.
27.
TaylorS. E.CrockerJ. (1981) Schematic bases of social information processing. In HigginsE. T.HermanC. P.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Pp. 89–134.
28.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.
29.
WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (1980) Category accessibility: Some theoretical answers to empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information. In HigginsE. T.HermanC. P.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, Pp. 161–196.
