The Effects of Framing and Fear on Ratings and Impact of Antimarijuana PSAs

Abstract

A laboratory experiment, funded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, involved 243 U.S. undergraduate students and employed a 2 (gain-framed vs. loss-framed) × 2 (high vs. low threat) plus control group pretest-posttest experimental design to assess the combined effects of frame (gain vs. loss) and level of threat of public service announcements (PSAs) about marijuana on attitudes, beliefs, and intentions related to marijuana, as well as the relationship of message condition to ratings of PSAs. Results suggest that loss-framed messages may lead to greater perceived threat, as well as reactance, and gain-framed messages may lead to a greater reduction in positive attitudes toward marijuana than loss-framed messages. Finally, frame and threat may interact in a complex way. Further research is suggested to replicate these findings. A substantial body of carefully crafted and systematic research studies examining both content and features of messages increasingly informs mass media prevention efforts, including the development of public service announcements (PSAs). Although the significance of messages on commercial broadcast stations may be diminishing with the increasing role and impact of new media, many of the basic questions addressed by this research are likely to apply across media channels. Nonetheless, important questions about what makes a message effective in changing an individual's attitudes or behavior remain to be answered. In this paper, the authors focus on two theoretically derived strategies that offer possibilities for developing persuasive messages: framing and threat.

‘Join us on our journey’: exploring the experiences of children and young people with type 1 diabetes and their parents

“…A study focusing on sun protection showed that the relative effect of message framing is better understood in the context of perceived risk level and perceived effectiveness of the protection (Hwang, Cho, Sands & Jeong, 2012). Similar results were reported from a study looking at the complexity of the way frame and threat may interact (Zimmerman, Cupp, Abadi, Donohew, Gray, Gordon & Grossl, 2014). Using public announcements on marijuana as intervention messages, this study confirmed that loss-frames were more effective with high perceived risk, but strong effects were also noted with low perceived risk.…”

The same old story? Continuity and change in Swedish print media constructions of cannabis

“…Beaudoin & Hong, 2012;Primack, Kraemer, Fine, & Dalton, 2009;Stryker, 2003) and the influence of anti-cannabis media campaigns (e.g. Alvaro et al, 2013;Kang, Cappella & Fishbein, 2009;Zimmerman et al, 2014).…”

Public service announcements: A literature review and way forward

“…T A B L E 1 (Continued) The literature in this area advocates the use of the following types of appeals: fear (Zimmerman et al, 2014); humour (Iles & Nan, 2017); nurturance (Bleakley et al, 2015); risk type (Jones & Leary, 1994); sidedness (Lienemann & Siegel, 2018); framing (Zimmerman et al, 2014); social and self-esteem (Kim et al, 2018).…”

“…Using content analysis, Niederdeppe et al (2017) found that anti-alcohol PSAs were consistent with the tenets of the EPPM, and to some extent, the ELM. In the area of anti-marijuana PSAS (Zimmerman et al, 2014) used the EPPM and prospect theory to find that avoiding loss-framed moderate threat messages is better and policy makers may use loss-framed low threat or gain-framed high/low threat appeals.…”

“…While PSAs are a type of advertising, they differ from regular advertising as they are intended to persuade consumers to change attitudes and/or perform behaviours that are beneficial to them and society as a whole, whereas advertisements are designed to get consumers to purchase a product. Even in advertising, generally, literature review papers address specific types of advertising such as fear (Zimmerman et al, 2014) and humour appeals (Yoon, 2018). In general, PSA research has dealt with measuring awareness, recall, usage and attitudes, testing copy, media research, custom research, syndicated research, pre‐testing research and post‐testing research (Datta & Choudhury, 2019).…”