Lateralized goal framing: How health messages are influenced by valence and contextual/analytic processing

Abstract

The effectiveness of health messages has been shown to vary due to the positive or negative framing of information, often known as goal framing. In two experiments we altered, the strength of the goal framing manipulation by selectively activating the processing style of the left or right hemisphere (RH). In Experiment 1, we found support for the contextual/analytic perspective; a significant goal framing effect was observed when the contextual processing style of the RH - but not the analytic processing style of the left hemisphere (LH) - was initially activated. In Experiment 2, support for the valence hypothesis was found when a message that had a higher level of personal involvement was used than that in Experiment 1. When the LH was initially activated, there was an advantage for the gain- vs. loss-framed message; however, an opposite pattern - an advantage for the loss-framed message - was obtained when the RH was activated. These are the first framing results that support the valence hypothesis. We discuss the theoretical and applied implications of these experiments.

Commonalities and Differences Among Frames: A Unification Model

“…This should result in a message framing effect under conditions of both left as well as right hemisphere activation. Consistent with this prediction, McCormick and Seta (), using a message framing manipulation, reported an advantage for gain‐framed messages under conditions of left hemisphere activation for a message promoting HPV vaccination among participants who had not been vaccinated but were currently in a sexual relationship; the typical advantage for loss‐framed messages was found when right hemisphere processing was initially activated.…”

“…Furthermore, although FTT explains why responses to framing manipulations are affected by differences between gist and verbatim processing, it does not address findings that go beyond differences in gist and verbatim processing. With the risky choice framing manipulation, for example, responses have been shown to be affected by the match between frame/message‐target characteristics (e.g., valence) as well as the match between perceivers' sensitivity to these characteristics (e.g., McCormick & Seta, ; McElroy, Seta, & Waring, ). FTT does not predict these results.…”

“…The effectiveness of framing manipulations is influenced by whether people use an analytic or holistic processing style (e.g., McElroy & Seta, ). Individuals who process information with a holistic/contextual style are more likely to be affected by framing manipulations than those who engage in an analytic style (e.g., Jasper, Fournier, et al, ; Jasper, Wolf, et al, ; McCormick & Seta, , b, ; McElroy & Seta, ; Murch & Krawczyk, ; Seta et al, ). The unification model would lead one to predict these differences.…”

An overcorrection framing effect

“…Research has shown that typical framing effects are often more likely for individuals who process information with a holistic/contextual than an analytic style and for those who do not process the information very elaborately (with a System 1 compared with the more elaborative processing style of System 2; (e.g., Jasper, Fournier, & Christman, ; Kahneman, ; McCormick & Seta, ; McElroy & Seta, ; Murch & Krawczyk, ; Seta et al, ). According to the unification model, this is the case because perceivers who process with a holistic/contextual or System 1 processing style are especially likely to include the psychological implications of the frame into their cognitive representation of the judgmental target and less likely to expand the meaning of the message by including unintended implications, such as information that is in opposition with the frame's meaning.…”

“…Research has shown that typical framing effects are often more likely for individuals who process information with a holistic/contextual than an analytic style and for those who do not process the information very elaborately (with a System 1 compared with the more elaborative processing style of System 2; (e.g., Jasper, Fournier, & Christman, 2014;Kahneman, 2011;McCormick & Seta, 2016;McElroy & Seta, 2004;Murch & Krawczyk, 2014;Seta et al, 2010).…”