We demonstrate the differential effects of framing health hazards as occurring every day versus every year, two reference periods that objectively refer to the present but subjectively seem different. Through three studies, we show that every day framing makes risks appear more proximal and concrete than every year framing, resulting in increased self-risk perceptions, intentions to exercise precautionary behavior, concern and anxiety about the hazard, and effectiveness of risk communication. Across different health domains, we show that, while temporal frames moderate self-positivity biases (study 1), difficulty of preventive behaviors (study 2) and outcome valence (study 3) moderate temporal framing effects.Four hundred and forty thousand Americans succumb each year to the deadly effects of tobacco smoke. (Brody 2001) What will it take to get the 3,000 teenagers who each day start smoking to resist this deadly addiction? (Brody 2001) I ncreasingly, we are exposed to statistics, such as those in the epigraphs, that frame risky behavior or occurrence of a disease in terms of a temporal frame (e.g., every day, every year, every minute). The questions that arise then are the following: Do consumers draw different inferences from these statistics depending on the time frame in which they are presented? For instance, if the article said that 1,206 Americans succumb each day to the deadly effects of to- bacco smoke (vs. the numeric equivalent of 440,000 each year), would we draw different conclusions about the risks of smoking? In this article, we examine theoretical implications of the notion that risk perceptions are likely to be systematically affected by the temporal frame in which the risk communication is set.We examine the effects of framing a health hazard statistic using two different temporal frames-every day and every year-that objectively refer to same time period (i.e., the present). We investigate individuals' subjective perceptions of these reference periods through three studies by examining (a) risk perceptions, (b) attitudes about the health hazard, (c) behavioral intention, (d) emotions, and (e) effectiveness of risk communication. We study these issues across three domains: mononucleosis, cell phone radiation, and heart disease.Our theoretical framework is based on Construal Level Theory, which proposes that people use higher-level construals-characterized as abstract and decontextualized-to represent information about distant future events as compared to information about near future events (Trope and Liberman 2003). We contend that these effects of temporal distance translate to temporal framing such that, when a health hazard statistic is presented in a day frame, the risk is construed as more proximal and concrete than when presented in a year frame, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of a health message focused on negative consequences.We demonstrate that temporal framing reduces the gap between risk perceptions of self and other people (study 1) and that the nature of preventive behavior sp...