A self-regulatory framework for message framing

Abstract

After several decades of research on message framing, there is still no clear and consistent answer to the question of when emphasizing positive or negative outcomes in a persuasive message will be most effective. Whereas early framing research considered the type of recommended behavior (health-affirming vs. illness-detection) to be the determining factor, more recent research has looked to individual differences to answer this question. In this paper, we incorporate both approaches under a single framework. The framework describes the multiple self-regulatory levels at which a message can be framed and predicts when framing at each level will be most effective. Two central predictions were confirmed across four studies: (1) messages describing the pleasures of adhering to the recommended behavior are most effective for recipients in a promotion focus (who are concerned with meeting growth needs), whereas messages describing the pains of not adhering are most effective for recipients in a prevention focus (who are concerned with meeting safety needs), and (2) the content of an advocacy message is essential, as different topics induce different regulatory orientations. By showing that different message content can induce a promotion or prevention focus, past findings and theories can be accommodated within the proposed framework, and a single set of self-regulatory principles can be used to understand message framing.Keywords: message framing, gain/loss framing, regulatory focus, social influence, health (Skymall, 2009). At some level, it is clear that both advertisements are using the same approach to persuade potential buyers: "If you use our product, an outcome you want will be yours." At another level, however, it is equally apparent that the advertisements feel quite different from one another. Whereas the LaserComb can lift the weight of your miserable existence, the Laser Orb will make possible the joy of running your fingers through a thick head of hair once again.When will describing an advocated behavior in different ways influence message effectiveness? Beyond helping advertisers sell expensive and no doubt powerful hair growth products, this question of message framing has important theoretical implications. By message framing, we refer specifically to framing the outcomes of an advocated behavior in terms of either the benefits afforded by adopting the recommendation or the costs associated with failing to adopt it (i.e., what is often called "gain/loss" framing). Consistent with the theoretical and practical importance of this topic, research on message framing has been a fixture of the persuasion literature for over three decades. 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 ident...

Promoting change in meat consumption among the elderly: Factual and prefactual framing of health and well-being

“…These results suggest that the factual versus prefactual formulation of a message can be included among the message features that influence the perception of "fit" between the message and the recipient's regulatory concern. As previous research has clearly shown (Cesario et al, , 2013Lee & Aaker, 2004;Tam, Bagozzi, & Spanjol, 2010), such fit promotes a recipient's involvement in communication, which in turn can lead to changes in attitudes and behaviours.…”

“…Persuasive messages can activate growth or safety concerns in recipients (Cesario et al, 2013;Cheng, Yen, Chuang, & Chang, 2013), inducing a "regulatory fit" Freitas & Higgins, 2002;Higgins, 2000) between an individual's self-regulatory concern and the way a message is framed. Some research has shown that regulatory fit can be triggered not only by explicitly framing messages in terms of safety or growth, but also by more subtle aspects of message presentation, such as the body language of the person delivering the message .…”

“…In our research, we assumed that messages focused on well-being are connected with a growth concern, because they put an emphasis on the progressive pursuit of a good quality of life (Cesario, Corker, & Jelinek, 2013). Conversely, messages focused on health are connected with a safety concern, because they put an emphasis on the avoidance of punctual and well-defined outcomes, such as specific diseases (Lee & Aaker, 2004).…”

How do we Optimize Message Matching Interventions? Identifying Matching Thresholds, and Simultaneously Matching to Multiple Characteristics

“…Both regulatory focus and self-construal have successfully, but separately, been used in prior message matching work (for a discussion, see Sherman, Uskul, & Updegraff, 2011). Generally, previous research has found that highly promotion-focused individuals respond more favorably to gain-framed messages (messages emphasizing the benefits of compliance with a behavioral recommendation), whereas highly prevention-focused individuals respond more favorably to loss-framed messages (messages emphasizing the costs associated with failure to comply with a recommendation; Cesario, Corker, & Jelinek, 2013). For self-construal, messages containing interdependence-related appeals have been found to be more persuasive for individuals with a more interdependent self-construal, whereas messages containing independence-related appeals are more persuasive for individuals with a more independent self-construal (Lalwani & Shavitt, 2009;Gardner, Gabriel, & Lee, 1999).…”

Do hedonic motives moderate regulatory focus motives? Evidence from the framing of persuasive messages.

“…For example, a message could be phrased such that engaging in a particular behavior (e.g., drinking a juice) may result either in a promotion related outcome (e.g., provides energy) or in a prevention-related outcome (e.g., prevents clogged arteries). The message promising to promote greater energy would be mentally represented in terms of a gain, even if the message does not explicitly spell out the word "gain," and the message promising to prevent clogged arteries would be mentally represented in terms of a non-loss, even if the message does not spell out the word "non-loss" (see Cesario et al, 2013, for more details on these types of messages). Thus, we assume that messages that invoke mental representations of gain, non-gain, loss and non-loss will be psychologically equivalent to those framed as gain, non-gain, loss, and non-loss, respectively.…”