Practice and Persuasive Frame: Effects on Beliefs, Intention, and Performance of a Cancer Self‐Examination¹

Abstract

Many behaviors are performed less frequently than intended because they require knowledge and skill to overcome behavioral barriers. This experiment tested effects of two factors, direct experience and message frame, that were hypothesized to affect men's intention to perform the testicle self-exam for cancer (TSE) and their actual exam performance, in part by affecting their knowledge and beliefs about overcoming TSE performance barriers. Men's experience performing the TSE on a life-like model and the frame (negative, positive, or neutral) of the recommendation promoting the exam were manipulated factorially. Consistent with prediction, men who practiced (vs. did not practice) the self-exam: (a) endorsed stronger beliefs about behavior-specific knowledge (e.g., ability to imagine a lump), (b) held more positive intention, and (c) translated that intention more consistently into self-reported action, in part because their behavior-specific knowledge increased their tendency to act on their intention. Consistent with action phase theory (Gollwitzer, 1990), intention related more strongly to behavior-specific beliefs than to general, long-term beliefs, and more strongly than attitude related to behavior-specific beliefs. These findings have practical and theoretical implications for promoting healthful and other intended behaviors.'We thank Shelly Chaiken for providing BSE brochures containing the framing manipulation used in Meyerowitz and Chaiken's (1987) experiment. We also thank Roy Lilly for data analytic advice, for their help collecting or managing data. We are grateful to Suzi Aberasturi and Linda Kern for helping analyze the data. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

The influence of fear appeals, message design, and masculinity on men's motivation to perform the testicular self‐exam

“…Several studies have attempted to discover the best methods for men to learn about testicular cancer, the TSE, and how to perform it. For example, increased TSE performance was found for men who had the opportunity to practice performing the TSE on a life-like model (Steffen, Sternberg, & Teegarden, 1994; see also Neef, Scutchfield, Elder, & Bender, 1991;Steffen & Grubber, 1991). Furthermore, Katz et al, (1995) found the best predictors of cancer awareness and self examination were fear of developing cancer and the self-rated confidence that the self-exam was being done correctly.…”

How to Reduce the Effect of Framing on Messages About Health

“…Differences between studies in participants' numeracy skills because of the use of convenience samples and nonprobabilistic sampling methods could possibly explain why some reported no framing effects, [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] whereas others found strong effects of message frames. 10,[35][36][37][38] More importantly, our study is unique in its efforts to investigate whether visual aids can overcome framing effects when communicating important health information in participants who were disadvantaged by their lack of numerical skills: When visual aids were added to the numerical information about the risk of the surgical procedure, framing was reduced or disappeared in participants with low numeracy.…”

“…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. 46,47 Other studies, however, reported no differences between framing conditions or even found framing effects in the opposite direction to that hypothesized ( [48][49][50][51][52][53][54] ; see 55,56 for reviews), leaving open a number of important questions related to the effects of different health message frames. First, to the best of our knowledge all the studies about framing were conducted on convenience samples of specific groups of participants (e.g., patients with particular diseases or students [2][3][4][5][6] ).…”

Positively versus negatively framed product attributes: The influence of involvement

“…For example, in a randomized trial, Lerman, Ross, Boyce, Gorchov et al (1992) found no difference for positively versus negatively framed booklets on adherence to subsequent annual mammography among women with prior abnormal mammograms (but both experimental groups showed greater adherence (66 -67%) than the control conditions (53 -55%). In a study similar to that of the Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987) BSE study, Steffen, Sternberg, Teegarden, and Shepherd (1994) found no framing effects for testicle self-examination (TSE). Tykocinski, Higgins, and Chaiken (1994) found no difference for framing overall, but a significant interaction with the personality construct of self-discrepancy.…”