To end life or not to prolong life: The effect of message framing on attitudes toward euthanasia

Journal of Health Psychology

Volumn 18, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 693-703

  Gamliel, Eyal ^a  

^a RUPPIN ACADEMIC CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

attitudes toward euthanasia; message framing

Indexed keywords

ACTIVE EUTHANASIA; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; EUTHANASIA; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; MALE; PASSIVE EUTHANASIA; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; YOUNG ADULT; PSYCHOLOGY;

ADULT; ATTITUDE TO DEATH; COMMUNICATION; EUTHANASIA; EUTHANASIA, ACTIVE; EUTHANASIA, PASSIVE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84876976389     PISSN: 13591053     EISSN: 14617277     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1359105312455078     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Allen J, Chavez S, DeSimone S, et al. Americans' attitudes toward euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, 1936-2002. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 2006 ; 33: 5-23
2. Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychology. 1995 ; 14: 178-184
3. Baron J, Ritov I. Reference points and omission bias. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1994 ; 59: 475-498
4. Chong AM, Fok S. Attitudes toward euthanasia in Hong Kong - A comparison between physicians and the general public. Death Studies. 2004 ; 29: 29-54
5. Clemens KE, Klein E, Jaspers B, et al. Attitudes toward active euthanasia among medical students at two German universities. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2008 ; 16: 539-545
6. Cohen J Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 1988 ) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum ; 1988 :
7. Dardis FE, Shen F. The influence of evidence type and product involvement on message-framing effects in advertising. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. 2008 ; 7: 222-238
8. Frisch D. Reasons for framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1993 ; 54 (3). 399-429
9. Ganzach Y. Attribute scatter and decision outcome: Judgment versus choice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1995 ; 62 (1). 113-122
10. Ganzach Y, Karsahi N. Message framing and buying behavior: A field experiment. Journal of Business Research. 1995 ; 32: 11-17
11. Ganzach Y, Schul Y. The influence of quantity of information and goal framing on decision. Acta Psychologica. 1995 ; 89 (1). 23-36
12. Hagelin J, Nilstun T, Hau J, et al. Surveys on attitudes towards legalisation of euthanasia: Importance of question phrasing. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2004 ; 30: 521-523
13. Havaki-Kontaxaki B, Paplos K, Kontaxaki M, et al. Psychiatric trainees attitudes towards euthanasia. Annals of General Psychiatry. 2008 ; 7: 164
14. Inghelbrecht E, Bilsen J, Mortier F, et al. Attitudes of nurses towards euthanasia and towards their role in euthanasia: A nationwide study in Flanders, Belgium. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2009 ; 46: 1209-1218
15. Isaacs D. To kill or to let die?. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health. 2003 ; 39: 135-136
16. Johansen S, Hølen JC, Kaasa S, et al. Attitudes towards, and wishes for, euthanasia in advanced cancer patients at a palliative medicine unit. Palliative Medicine. 2005 ; 19: 454-460
17. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica. 1979 ; 47: 263-291
18. Keren G Perspectives on Framing. Keren G, ed. New York: Psychology Press ; 2010: 3-33.
19. Keren G, Teigen KH. Decisions by coin toss: Inappropriate but fair. Judgment and Decision Making. 2010 ; 5 (2). 83-101
20. Kogut T, Ritov I. The "identified victim" effect: An identified group, or just a single individual?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making. 2005 ; 18: 157-167
21. Kuuppelomäki M. Attitudes of cancer patients, their family members and health professionals toward active euthanasia. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2000 ; 9: 16-21
22. Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1998 ; 76: 149-188
23. Long SO. Life is more than a survey: Understanding attitudes toward euthanasia in Japan. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics. 2002 ; 23: 305-319
24. McCormack R, Clifford M, Conroy M. Attitudes of UK doctors towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: A systematic literature review. Palliative Medicine. 2012 ; 26 (1). 23-33
25. Meyerowitz BE, Chaiken S. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 1987 ; 52: 500-510
26. Müller-Busch HC, Oduncu FS, Woskanjan S, et al. Attitudes on euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and terminal sedation - A survey of the members of the German association for palliative medicine. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2005 ; 7: 333-339
27. Nilstun T, Melltorp G, Hermeren G. Surveys on attitudes to active euthanasia and the difficulty of drawing normative conclusions. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2000 ; 28: 111-116
28. Parkinson L, Rainbird K, Kerridge I, et al. Cancer patients' attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: The influence of question wording and patients' own definitions on responses. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry. 2005 ; 2: 82-89
29. Parpa E, Mystakidou K, Tsilika E, et al. Attitudes of health care professionals, relatives of advanced cancer patients and public towards euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Health Policy. 2010 ; 97: 160-165
30. Rothman AJ, Bartels RD, Wlaschin J, et al. The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication. 2006 ; 56: S202 - S220
31. Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell BT, et al. 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. 1999 ; 25 (11). 1355-1369
32. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin. 1997 ; 121 (1). 3-19
33. Rothman AJ, Updegraff JA Perspectives on Framing. Keren G, ed. New York: Psychology Press ; 2010: 257-277.
34. Ryynänen OP, Myllykangas M, Viren M, et al. Attitudes towards euthanasia among physicians, nurses and the general public in Finland. Public Health. 2002 ; 116: 322-331
35. Schlottmann A, Tring J. How children reason about gains and losses: Framing effects in judgment and choice. Swiss Journal of Psychology. 2005 ; 64 (3). 153-171
36. Shafir E. Choosing versus rejecting: Why some options are both better and worse than others. Memory & Cognition. 1993 ; 21 (4). 546-556
37. Silvoniemi M, Vasankari T, Vahlberg T, et al. Physicians' attitudes towards euthanasia in Finland: Would training in palliative care make a difference?. Palliative Medicine. 2010 ; 24: 744-746
38. Slovic P. If I look at the mass I will never act: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making. 2007 ; 2: 79-95
39. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981 ; 211: 453-458
40. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1991 ; 106: 1039-1061
41. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992 ; 5: 297-323
42. Van Bruchem-Van De Scheur A, Van Der Arend A, Van Wijmen F, et al. Dutch nurses' attitudes towards euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Nursing Ethics. 2008 ; 15: 186-198
43. Waller S. Trends in public acceptance of euthanasia worldwide. Euthanasia Review. 1986 ; 1: 33-47