A field experiment testing the utility of regulatory fit messages for promoting physical activity

Abstract

Guided by regulatory focus theory, we examined whether messages tailored to individuals' promotion-or prevention-goal orientation (regulatory focus) elicit positive thoughts and feelings about physical activity and increase participation in physical activity. Inactive participants (N = 206) were assigned randomly to receive either promotion-focused or prevention-focused messages encouraging physical activity. Two weeks after message exposure, we assessed participants' thoughts and feelings about physical activity and physical activity behavior. Tailored messages that fit individuals' regulatory focus led to greater physical activity participation and more positive feelings than non-fit messages, particularly in the promotion-focused condition. Furthermore, positive retrospective feelings about physical activity mediated the effects of the tailored messages on behavior. These findings provide support for regulatory focus theory and direction for enhancing the effectiveness of messages encouraging physical activity and other health behaviors.

A self-regulatory framework for message framing

“…In a highly influential paper, Rothman and Salovey (1997) advocated prospect theory as framework for predicting when different frames would be most effective as a function of the behavior itself (i.e., whether the behavior had certain or uncertain outcomes; see also Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, & Salovey, 1999). More recently, the focus has been on identifying individual differences that are associated with responsiveness to particular message frames (e.g., Cho & Boster, 2008;Latimer et al, 2008;Rothman, Wlaschin, Bartels, Latimer, & Salovey, 2008;Schneider et al, 2001;Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007;Uskul, Sherman, & Fitzgibbon, 2009).…”

“…In a highly influential paper, Rothman and Salovey (1997) advocated prospect theory as framework for predicting when different frames would be most effective as a function of the behavior itself (i.e., whether the behavior had certain or uncertain outcomes; see also Rothman, Martino, Bedell, Detweiler, & Salovey, 1999). More recently, the focus has been on identifying individual differences that are associated with responsiveness to particular message frames (e.g., Cho & Boster, 2008;Latimer et al, 2008; A FRAMEWORK FOR MESSAGE FRAMING 4 Rothman, Wlaschin, Bartels, Latimer, & Salovey, 2008;Schneider et al, 2001;Updegraff, Sherman, Luyster, & Mann, 2007;Uskul, Sherman, & Fitzgibbon, 2009).In this paper, we incorporate both approaches under the same self-regulatory framework (see also Rothman et al, 2008). We propose that in order to understand message framing it is useful to search for broad principles that describe behavior equally well at both the individual difference level and the situational-influence level, and, importantly, to do so with a framework that is explicit about different sensitivities to gains and losses.…”

How to Reduce the Effect of Framing on Messages About Health

“…[39][40][41] Individuals who have low educational attainment demonstrated a stronger framing effect than did highly educated individuals. 42 Similarly, people with low numeracy-who have difficulties grasping numerical concepts necessary for understanding risk communications [43][44][45] -are more susceptible to framing than those with high numeracy.…”

Health in exchange for privacy : the adoption of personalised nutrition advices

“…Similar to other studies (Latimer et al, 2008;Martinez, Duncan, Rivers, Latimer, & Salovey, 2013;Pfeffer, 2013), this study did not find support for the regulatory fit hypothesis, which predicts an increase in adoption intention when the framing of a health message matches individuals' regulatory orientations (Higgins, 2000). The results of Study 1 did show that the interaction between regulatory focus and temporal distance is affected by framing.…”