2002
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.133
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The effects of message framing on behavioral prevalence assumptions

Abstract: Based on attribution theory and the logic of conversational norms, we predicted that image-based health communications can alter prevalence estimates for health behaviors. In two studies, participants were exposed either to a positively-framed or negatively-framed communication advocating for specific health behaviors. As predicted, participants who read a health communication rated healthy behaviors as less common when positive attributes were associated with healthy choices than when negative attributes were… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
10
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Isen and Noonberg (1979) and Pancer, Deforest, Rogers, and Schmirler (1979) varied charitable appeals by having accompanying pictures depict either a needy child or a child who had received assistance (see also Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980, Experiment 2;Gore et al, 1998). healthy decisions" (p. 848; similarly, see Stuart & Blanton, 2003). For examples of various other (excluded) imperfect realizations, see Cameron and Leventhal (1995), Christophersen and Gyulay (1981), Gibson (1962), Gierl, Helm, andSatzinger (2000), Hart (1972), Kirscht, Haefner, and Eveland (1975), Krishnamurthy, Carter, and Blair (2001), Lehmann (1970), Melvin (1995), Orth, Oppenheim, and Firbasova (in press), and Van Den Heuvel (1982) .…”
Section: Gain and Loss Frames 12mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Isen and Noonberg (1979) and Pancer, Deforest, Rogers, and Schmirler (1979) varied charitable appeals by having accompanying pictures depict either a needy child or a child who had received assistance (see also Cunningham, Steinberg, & Grev, 1980, Experiment 2;Gore et al, 1998). healthy decisions" (p. 848; similarly, see Stuart & Blanton, 2003). For examples of various other (excluded) imperfect realizations, see Cameron and Leventhal (1995), Christophersen and Gyulay (1981), Gibson (1962), Gierl, Helm, andSatzinger (2000), Hart (1972), Kirscht, Haefner, and Eveland (1975), Krishnamurthy, Carter, and Blair (2001), Lehmann (1970), Melvin (1995), Orth, Oppenheim, and Firbasova (in press), and Van Den Heuvel (1982) .…”
Section: Gain and Loss Frames 12mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…87). Similarly, the framing of a message may also convey other implicit information such as the prevalence of the advocated behavior [128], which may also exert a direct effect on behavior. Lastly, gain-framed messages promoting prevention behavior appear to stimulate greater levels of information processing and better subsequent memory than loss-framed messages [129].…”
Section: Making Sense Of the Findings: Prevention Behaviorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, researchers have suggested that loss-framed health messages should also be utilized when individuals are uncertain of behavioral norms (Stuart and Blanton, 2003;Blanton, Stuart and VandenEijnden, 2001). They contend that positive frames, which praise people for engaging in healthy behavior, may imply that few people actually perform the behavior in question.…”
Section: Message Framingmentioning
confidence: 99%