The persuasive effects of framing messages on fruit and vegetable consumption according to regulatory focus theory

Psychology and Health

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 1036-1048

  Dijkstraa, Arie ^a   Rothmanb, Alexander ^b   Pietersma, Suzanne ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

Defensiveness; Message framing; Personalisation; Regulatory focus theory

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIET; FEMALE; FRUIT; HUMAN; MALE; NETHERLANDS; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK REDUCTION; THEORETICAL MODEL; VEGETABLE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; DIET; FEMALE; FRUIT; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, THEORETICAL; NETHERLANDS; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; RISK REDUCTION BEHAVIOR; VEGETABLES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 80052162973     PISSN: 08870446     EISSN: 14768321     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2010.526715     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Baumeister, R.F., Vohs, K.D., DeWall, C.N., Zhang, L. (2007). How emotion shapes behavior: Feedback, anticipation, and reflection, rather than direct causation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 167-203.
2. Beckmann, J.S., Young, M.E. (2007). The feature positive effect in the face of variability: Novelty as a feature. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 33, 72-77.
3. Brendl, C.M., Higgins, E.T., Lemm, K.M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1028-1051.
4. Broemer, P. (2002). Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: The influence of ambivalence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 685-703.
5. Dijkstra, A. (2008). The psychology of tailoring-ingredients of computer-tailored persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 765-784.
6. Harris, P.R., Napper, L. (2005). Self-affirmation and the biased processing of threatening health-risk information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1250-1263.
7. Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300.
8. Idson, L.C., Liberman, N., Higgins, E.T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-274.
9. Jenkins, H.M. (1973). Noticing and responding in a discrimination based on a distinguishing element. Learning and Motivation, 4, 115-137.
10. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A. (1984). Choices, values and frames. American Psychologist, 39, 341-350.
11. Kunda, Z. (1987). Motivated interference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 669-679.
12. Latimer, A.E., Salovey, P., Rothman, A.J. (2007). The effectiveness of gain-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost? Journal of Health Communication, 12, 645-649.
13. Lee, A.Y., Aaker, J.L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.
14. Leventhal, H. (1971). Fear appeals and persuasion: The differentiation of a motivational construct. American Journal of Public Health, 61, 1208-1224.
15. Liberman, A., Chaiken, S. (1992). Defensive processing of personally relevant health messages. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 669-679.
16. Mann, T., Sherman, D., Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330-334.
17. Na, E.Y. (1999). Is biased processing of strong attitudes peripheral? An extension of the dual process model of attitude change. Psychological Reports, 85, 589-605.
18. O'Keefe, D.J., Jensen, J.D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed, loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644.
19. Pietersma, S., Dijkstra, A. (2010). Do behavioral health intentions engender health behavior change? A study on the moderating role of self-affirmation on actual fruit intake versus vegetable intake. Manuscript under review.
20. Reed, M.B., Aspinwall, L.G. (1998). Self-affirmation reduces biased processing of health- risk information. Motivation and Emotion, 22, 99-132.
21. Rogers, T.B., Kuiper, N.A., Kirker, W.S. (1999). Self-reference and the encoding of personal information. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 139-148). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
22. Rothman, A.J., Martino, S.C., Bedell, B.T., Detweiler, J.B., Salovey, P. (1999).The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1355-1369.
23. Rothman, A.J., Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.
24. Rothman, A.J., Wlaschin, J., Bartels, R., Latimer, A., Salovey, P. (2008). How persons and situations regulate message framing effects: The study of health behavior. In A. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 475-486). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
25. Sherman, D.A.K, Nelson, L.D., Steele, C.M. (2000). Do messages about health risks threaten the self? Increasing the acceptance of threatening health messages via self- affirmation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1046-1058.
26. Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H., Higgins, E.T. (2004). How regulatory focus enhances motivational strength during goal pursuit. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 39-54.
27. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.