Understanding Consumer Responses to Product Risk Information

Abstract

Two experiments examine how message framing moderates consumer responses to product risk information. The findings suggest that contrary to an influential theory, consumers exposed to loss-framed messages exhibit a general aversion to product risk involving both short-term adverse effects and more permanent harm. In contrast, consumers exposed to gain-framed messages differentiate among different types of product risk. They essentially ignore temporary product risks but give considerable decisional weight to risks of permanent harm. This article discusses the implications of these findings for those who design and regulate promotional messages that contain product risk disclosures.

Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? Revisiting the link between prospect theory and message framing

“…As several authors have done before us (Cox et al, 2006;O'Keefe & Jensen, 2006), we argue that the tenets of the risk-framing hypothesis are flawed. Even if its predictions are partly supported by empirical evidence, the model simply does not deliver a satisfactory explanation of these findings.…”

“…Some authors have criticised the notion that the risk associated with the advocated behaviour determines the relative effectiveness of gain-and loss-framed messages, both on empirical and on theoretical grounds (Cox, Cox, & Zimet, 2006;O'Keefe & Jensen, 2006). However, it should be noted that the momentum of the risk-framing hypothesis has not been slowed by those previous criticisms.…”

Consumer Response to Drug Risk Information:The Role of Positive Affect

“…However, we believe that under certain circumstances, consumers' actual weighting of severity and likelihood information will deviate markedly from these expected utility models-the perception of risk may be dependent on other elements of the situation. Risk may be evaluated relative to the perceived benefit (Alhakami and Slovic 1994;Finucane et al 2000) or influenced by the frame in which the message is presented (Cox, Cox, and Zimet 2006). Weinstein (2000, p. 65) notes that "it is surprising that empirical studies of health-protective behavior provide little support for a perceived probability by perceived severity interaction."…”

“…Other studies suggest that consumers often ignore risk disclosures (e.g., Menon et al 2003), and some have even suggested that such risk statements can actually enhance consumers' product evaluations (e.g., Goetzl 2000). More recent research has suggested that consumers subjectively evaluate product risk statements depending on whether statements of product benefits are gain or loss framed (Cox, Cox, and Zimet 2006). However, little is known about the contingencies that govern whether advertised risk disclosures have a negative, neutral, or positive impact on consumer brand attitudes and intentions.…”

A research on the impact of EWOM source credibility and personal innovativeness

“…Last part of the survey is about participants' descriptive information such as age, gender, marital status, education level, employment status and income per month. Cox and Cox (2001), Cox, Cox and Zimet (2006), Cox (1967), Dowling and Staelin (1964), Roselius (1971) Online Shopping Intention (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1977) Personal Innovativeness Agarwal and Prasad (1998) Population of the research contains individuals that buy goods and services online in Turkey. A sample of 280 university students in Turkey has been selected by Convenience sampling method.…”