Effects of Previous Fruit Intake, Descriptive Majority Norms, and Message Framing on Fruit Intake Intentions and Behaviors in Dutch Adults Across a 1-Week Period

Reading or Listening to a Gain- or Loss-Framed Health Message: Effects of Message Framing and Communication Mode in the Context of Fruit and Vegetable Intake

“…Although not with auditory messages, previous studies have confirmed that, especially for those with low issueinvolvement and low baseline consumption, gain-framed messages are more persuasive (Gerend & Shepherd, 2016;Maheswaran & Meyers-Levy, 1990). In addition, studies have reported higher fruit consumption after being exposed to a positive frame for participants with a higher perceived fruit intake at baseline (De Bruijn et al, 2015), while others showed that loss-framed messages resulted in higher fruit and vegetable intake when baseline intentions were higher (Godinho et al, 2016). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore the moderating effects of baseline consumption and intention in relation to both message framing and communication mode.…”

“…Further research could investigate whether a combination of both positive and negative message framing is equally effective. Moreover, studies could investigate whether the effect of perceived consumption of fruit and vegetables can be replicated when baseline consumption is conceptualized in terms of actual intake (e.g., De Bruijn et al, 2015). In addition, studies can investigate whether other indicators of involvement show similar effects in interaction with message framing and communication mode, and other moderators such as approach and avoidance orientation could be taken into account (Covey, 2014;Sherman, Mann, & Updegraff, 2006).…”

“…Loss-framed messages have been found to be more effective among those with a higher baseline intention (Godinho, Alvarez, & Lima, 2016), and there is some initial evidence that gain-framed messages are especially effective for those with a low baseline consumption (Gerend & Shepherd, 2016). Overall, the effects of indicators of involvement in relation to message framing are still somewhat ambiguous (De Bruijn, Visscher, & Mollen, 2015;Gerend & Shepherd, 2016) and have not been investigated in interaction with communication mode through which a message is presented. Yet, based on the available evidence, it can initially be expected that gain-framed messages are especially effective for people with a lower baseline consumption or intention, and it seems valuable to explore these effects in interaction with communication mode as well.…”

The Longitudinal Associations between Perceived Descriptive Peer Norms and Eating and Drinking Behavior: An Initial Examination in Young Adults

“…Likewise, it has been shown that if children are led to believe that their peers are eating a lot of vegetables they increase their own consumption of vegetables (Sharps and Robinson, 2015, 2016). A smaller number of intervention studies have examined whether providing consumers with information about descriptive peer norms influences future consumer behavior measured immediately afterwards or up to 1 week later, but results have been mixed (Stok et al, 2012; Mollen et al, 2013; Robinson et al, 2013b, 2014a; de Bruijn et al, 2015; Verkooijen et al, 2015). Thus, at present the long term effect that perceived descriptive peer norms have on behavior is unclear (Robinson, 2015).…”

Temporal Consequences, Message Framing, and Consideration of Future Consequences: Persuasion Effects on Adult Fruit Intake Intention and Resolve

“…Intentions are key outcomes in persuasive strategies (McGuire, 1984), but main effects of framed messages have often been absent for fruit intake intentions (Brug, Ruiter, & van Assema, 2003;De Bruijn, Visscher, & Mollen, 2015;Dijkstra, Rothman, & Pietersma, 2011;Van Assema, Martens, Ruiter, & Brug, 2001) and other health-related intentions (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012;O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007). This has led scholars to conclude that framing effects can be expected for behavioral outcomes but not for intentional outcomes (Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012).…”