Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis

Abstract

Previous research has indicated that the way in which a message is framed affects the amount of persuasion it elicits. Various processes have been suggested to account for the differential persuasiveness of negatively (or loss-) framed messages versus positively (or gain-) framed messages. The authors hypothesized that differential processing of negatively and positively framed messages is a factor that contributes to the differential persuasiveness that has been observed. Experiment 1 demonstrated that message frames are consequential in determining the extent to which a message is scrutinized. Experiment 2 provided evidence for a mechanism by which this occurs. Specifically, by manipulating the expected framing and the actual framing of messages, the authors found that either negatively or positively framed messages could lead to more extensive processing, depending on which was less expected.

Dissociação de modos de processamento em persuasão

“…Exposição a uma mensagem de conteúdo inesperado Confronto com informação inesperada que promove surpresa (factor motivacional) ou quebra expectativas tende a aumentar a probabilidade de elaboração da mensagem e assim aumentar o impacto da qualidade dos argumentos e diminuir impacto de pistas periféricas (e.g., Baker & Petty, 1994;Maheswaran & Chaiken, 1991;Smith & Petty, 1996;ver também Ziegler, Diehl, & Ruther, 2002 Pressão temporal/rapidez de apresentação Quer situações de pressão temporal para processamento de (factor de capacidade) informação (e.g., Kruglanski & Freund, 1983;Ratneshwar & Chaiken, 1991) quer elevada rapidez na apresentação de uma mensagem (e.g., Smith & Shaffer, 1991) diminuem capacidade de elaboração da mensagem, pelo que se associam a menor impacto de qualidade de argumentos e favorecem mudança de atitudes por via periférica.…”

Information and Persuasion: Achieving Safe Water Behaviors in Kenya

“…In practice, the way a decision is framed can have large effects on people's choices by altering their "reference points," even when the underlying logic of a decision has not changed (Tversky and Kahneman 1981, Rabin 1998, Block and Keller 1995, Smith and Petty 1996, Bertrand et al 2009). With respect to POU adoption, we test the relative merits of emphasizing what is to be gained from usage of a POU product, with what could be lost from not using a safe water technology.…”

Persuasion in ambient intelligence

“…The framing principle refers to the opportunity a persuader has to reframe the request (Smith and Petty 1996). For example, the price of one pack of cigarettes is relatively low, however framing this option as the total amount of money required for a years' worth of smoking most probably leads to the attitude that smoking is expensive.…”