The role of message frame, perceived risk, and ambivalence in individuals' decisions to become organ donors

Health Communication

Volumn 25, Issue 8, 2010, Pages 758-769

  Cohen, Elizabeth L ^a  

^a GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION MAKING; DONOR; HUMAN; MALE; METHODOLOGY; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; STUDENT; TRANSPLANTATION; UNIVERSITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; DECISION MAKING; HUMANS; MALE; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; STUDENTS; TISSUE AND ORGAN PROCUREMENT; TISSUE DONORS; UNIVERSITIES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 78650041944     PISSN: 10410236     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2010.521923     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Ajzen, I. (2000). Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 27-58.
2. Apanovitch, A. M., McCarthy, D., & Salovey, P. (2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychology, 22, 60-67.
3. Armitage, C. J., & Connor, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1432-1443.
4. Batson, C. D., O'Quin, K., Fultz, J., Vanderplas, M., & Isen, A. M. (1983). Influence of self-reported distress and empathy on egoistic versus altruistic motivation to help. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 706-718.
5. 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.
6. Boey, K. W. (2002). A cross-validation study of nurses' attitudes and commitment to organ donation in Hong Kong. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 39, 95-104.
7. Broemer, P. (2002). Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: The influence of ambivalence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 685-703.
8. Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1993). What underlies medical donor attitudes and behavior? Health Psychology, 12, 4, 269-271.
9. Cohen, E. L. (2007). "Your loss is my gain": Examining the role of message frame, perceived risk, and ambivalence in the decision to become an organ donor. Unpublished master's thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta.
10. Cox, D., & Cox, A. (2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65, 91-103.
11. Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., & Salovey, P. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189-196.
12. Dovido, J. (1984). Helping behavior and altruism: An empirical and conceptual overview. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 17, pp. 361-427). New York: Academic Press.
13. Feeley, T. H., & Vincent, D. (2007). How organ donation is represented in newspaper articles in the United States. Health Communication, 21, 125-131.
14. Hessing, D. J., & Elffers, H. (1986). Attitude toward death, fear of being declared dead too soon, and donation of organs after death. Omega Journal of Death and Dying, 17, 115-126.
15. Hoffner, C., & Ye, J. (2009). Young adults' responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Communication, 24, 189-198.
16. Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190-210.
17. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263-291.
18. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values, and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
19. Kent, B., & Owens, R. G. (1995). Conflicting attitudes to corneal and organ donation: A study of nurses' attitudes to organ donation. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 32, 484-492.
20. MacDonald, T. K., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Cross-dimension ambivalence toward social groups: Can ambivalence affect intentions to hire feminists? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 427-441.
21. Morgan, S. E., Harrison, T. R., Walid, A. A., Long, S. D., & Stephenson, M. T. (2008). In their own words: The reasons why people will (not) sign an organ donor card. Health Communication, 23, 23-33.
22. O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. (2007). The relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644.
23. Parisi, N., & Katz, I. (1986). Attitudes toward posthumous organ donation: A critical review and synthesis of individual and next-of-kin donation decisions. Health Psychology, 16, 183-195.
24. Popp, F. C., Eggert, N., Hoy, L., Lang, S. A., Obed, A., Piso, P., Schlitt, H. J., & Dahlke, M. H. (2006). Who is willing to take the risk? Assessing the readiness for living liver donation in the general German population. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 389-394.
25. Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
26. Radecki, C. M., & Jaccard, J. (1999). Signing an organ donation letter: The prediction of behavior from behavioral intentions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1833-1853.
27. Reinhart, A. M, Marshall, H. M., Feeley, T. H., & Tutzauer, F. (2007). The persuasive effects of message framing in organ donation: The mediating role of psychological reactance. Communication Monographs, 74, 229-255.
28. Robberson, M. R., & Rogers, R. W. (1988) Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 277-287.
29. Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, 202-220.
30. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 212, 3-19.
31. Sarason, I. G., Sarason, B. R., Slichter, S. J., Beatty, P. G., Meyer, D. M., & Bolgiano, D. C. (1993). Increasing participation of blood donors in bone-marrow registry. Health Psychology, 12, 272-276.
32. Skumanich, S. A., & Kinsfather, D. P. (1996). Promoting the organ donor card: A causal model of persuasion effects. Social Science & Medicine, 43, 401-408.
33. Smith, S. W., Morrison, K., Kopfman, J. E., & Ford, L. A. (1994). The influence of prior thought and intent on the memorability and persuasiveness of organ donation message strategies. Health Communication, 6, 1-20.
34. Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let's not be indifferent about attitudinal ambivalence. In E. R. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
35. Treiber, F. A. (1986). A comparison of positive and negative consequences approaches upon car restraint usage. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 11, 15-24.
36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.
37. Umphrey, L. R. (2003). The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self-examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility. Communication Research Reports, 20, 97-105.
38. United Network for Organ Sharing. (2008). The Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network National Database. Retrieved from http://www.optn.org/latestData/step2.asp
39. Van den Berg, H., Manstead, A. S. R., van der Plight, J., & Wigboldus, D. H. J. (2005). The role of affect in attitudes toward organ donation and donor-relevant decisions. Psychology and Health, 20, 789-802.