Positively versus negatively framed product attributes: The influence of involvement

Psychology and Marketing

Volumn 16, Issue 7, 1999, Pages 613-630

  Donovan, Robert J ^a   Jalleh, Geoffrey ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033239419     PISSN: 07426046     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(199910)16:7<613::AID-MAR4>3.0.CO;2-F     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Banks, S. M., Salovey, P., Greener, S., Rothman, A. J. et al. (1995). The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology, 14, 178-184.
2. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192-203.
3. Braun, K. A., Gaeth, G. J., & Levin, I. P. (1996). Framing effects with differential impact: The role of attribute salience. ACR Conference Competitive Paper.
4. Chan, S. (1991). The effect of manipulated involvement and message framing on attitudes and intentions. Honours Thesis, The University of Western Australia, Department of Management.
5. Fazio, R. H. (1986). How do attitudes guide behavior? In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), The handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 204-243). New York: Guilford Press.
6. Ganzach, Y., & Karsahi, N. (1995). Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal Business Research, 32, 11-17.
7. Hoy, P. Y. (1991). The influence of message framing and issue involvement on persuasion. Honours Thesis, The University of Western Australia, Department of Management.
8. Jalleh, G. (1992). The impact of message framing and involvement on health behaviour advocacy. Honours Thesis, The University of Western Australia, Department of Management.
9. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision making under risk. Econometrica, 6, 621-630.
10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1982). The psychology of preferences. Scientific American, 46, 160-173.
11. Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 11, pp. 703-708). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
12. Lerman, C., Ross, E., Boyce, A., Gorchov, P. M. et al. (1992). The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. American Journal of Public Health, 82, 729-730.
13. Levin, I. P. (1987). Associate effects of information framing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 25, 85-86.
14. Levin I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research, 15, 374-378.
15. Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.
16. Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 500-510.
17. McNeil, B. J., Pauker, S. G., Sox, H. C., Jr., & Tversky, A. (1982). On the elicitation of preferences of alternative therapies. The New England Journal of Medicine, 306, 1259-1262.
18. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: Application to advertising. In L. Percy & A. Woodside (Eds), Advertising and consumer psychology (pp. 3-23). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
19. Robberson, M. R., & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277-287.
20. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.
21. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993a). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408-433.
22. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Turvey, C., & Fishkin, S. A. (1993b). Attributions of responsibility and persuasion: Increasing mammography utilization among women over 40 with an internally oriented message. Health Psychology, 12, 39-47.
23. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1987). Social judgement and social memory: The role of cue diagnosticity in negativity, positivity, and extremity biases. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 689-699.
24. Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education. Journal of Advertising Research, 36, 49-64.
25. Steffen, V. J., Sternberg, L., Teegarden, L. A., & Shepherd, K. (1994). Practice and persuasive frame: Effects on beliefs, intention, and performance of a cancer self-examination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 897-925.
26. Treiber, F. A. (1986). A comparison of the positive and negative consequences approaches upon car restraint usage. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 15-24.
27. Tykocinski, O., Higgins, E. T., & Chaiken, S. (1994). Message framing, self-discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: the motivational significance of psychological situations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 107-115.
28. Weinberger, M. G., Allen, C. T., & Dillon, W. R. (1981). Negative information: perspectives and research directions. In K. Monroe (Ed.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 8, pp. 398-404). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer Research.
29. Wilson, D. K., Kaplan, R. M., & Schneiderman, L. J. (1987). Framing of decisions and selections of alternatives in health care. Social Behaviour, 2, 51-59.
30. Wilson, D. K., Wallston, K. A., & King, J. E. (1987). The effects of message framing and self-efficacy on smoking cessation. Paper presented at the Annual Southeastern Psychological Association Convention, Atlanta, GA.
31. Wilson, D. K., Wallston, K. A., & King, J. E. (1990). Effects of contract framing, motivation to quit, and self-efficacy on smoking reduction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 531-547.