Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Methods
2.1. Identification of Relevant Investigations
2.1.1. Literature Search
2.1.2. Inclusion Criteria
2.2. Outcome Variable and Effect Size Measure
2.3. Moderator Variables
2.3.1. Advocated Behavior
2.3.2. Appeal Basis
2.3.3. Message Recipient Sex
2.4. Unit of Analysis and Meta-Analytic Procedures
3. Results
3.1. Sample Characteristics
3.2. Overall Effects
Study | r | N | Codings a |
---|---|---|---|
Block (1993) sun exposure [20] | 0.174 | 58 | 2/1/na |
Cox, Cox, & Zimet (2006) Study 1 prevention [40] | 0.013 | 139 | 2/1/41 |
Currie (2010) [41] | 0.064 | 131 | 1/2/73 |
Detweiler et al. (1999) [42] | 0.122 | 217 | 2/2/76 |
Fischer & Nabi (2001) sunscreen [43] | −0.191 | 79 | 1/1/54 |
Hoffner & Ye (2009) [28] | 0.000 | 154 | 1/1/66 |
Hwang, Cho, Sands, & Jeong (in press) [23] | −0.099 | 219 | 2/2/45 |
Ku (2008) skin cancer [44] | −0.155 | 467 | 2/1/45 |
Lee & Aaker (2004) Experiment 2 promotion [45] | 0.055 | 85 | 1/2/na |
Lee & Aaker (2004) Experiment 2 prevention [45] | −0.173 | 78 | 1/2/na |
Lee, Brown, & Blood (2000) sunscreen/clothing [46] | 0.119 | 132 | 2/1/na |
Lemieux, Hale, & Mongeau (1994) vivid high fear [19] | 0.039 | 51 | 2/1/na |
Lemieux et al. (1994) pallid high fear [19] | 0.132 | 50 | 2/1/na |
Lemieux et al. (1994) vivid low fear [19] | 0.070 | 50 | 2/2/na |
Lemieux et al. (1994) pallid low fear [19] | 0.019 | 50 | 2/2/na |
McCormick (2010) [47] | −0.114 | 154 | 1/2/na |
Nan (2011) [30] | 0.059 | 152 | 2/2/na |
Robinson (2004) Study 1 [48] | −0.013 | 96 | 1/2/100 |
Rothman et al. (1993) Experiment 2 [18] | 0.039 | 108 | 2/1/na |
Saadi (2009) Experiment 1 prevention disincentive [49] | 0.183 | 50 | 1/2/na |
Saadi (2009) Experiment 1 prevention incentive [49] | −0.137 | 50 | 1/2/na |
Schubert (2008) [50] | −0.131 | 174 | 2/2/na |
Seo (2008) verbal [31] | 0.191 | 48 | 1/2/na |
Seo (2008) visual [31] | −0.162 | 47 | 1/2/na |
Shamaskin (2009) Study 1 skin cancer prevention [33] | −0.165 | 49 | 2/1/59 |
Shen (2005) Study 1 skin cancer [35] | −0.054 | 286 | 2/2/73 |
Shen & Kollar (2011) sunscreen [51] | 0.125 | 148 | 1/2/na |
Shen & Kollar (2011) tanning [51] | −0.051 | 143 | 2/2/na |
Smith (2003) prevention [52] | −0.008 | 31 | 2/2/na |
Stoner (2010) [37] | 0.110 | 136 | 2/1/100 |
Taber (2010) [53] | −0.101 | 146 | 2/1/60 |
Thomas et al. (2010) appearance [26] | −0.079 | 183 | 2/2/na |
Thomas et al. (2010) health [26] | −0.144 | 207 | 2/1/na |
3.3. Moderating Factors
3.3.1. Advocated Behavior
3.3.2. Appeal Basis
3.3.3. Message Recipient Sex
k | N | mean r | 95% CI | Power a | Q(df) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All cases | 33 | 4,168 | −0.020 | −0.060, 0.019 | 0.99 | 47.8(32) * |
Advocated behavior | ||||||
sunscreen | 12 | 1,120 | −0.013 | −0.085, 0.060 | 0.64 | 15.4(11) |
other/multiple | 21 | 3,048 | −0.023 | −0.071, 0.025 | 0.97 | 31.8(20) * |
Appeal basis | ||||||
health | 13 | 1,776 | −0.024 | −0.094, 0.046 | 0.84 | 23.2(12) * |
other/multiple | 20 | 2,392 | −0.015 | −0.061, 0.032 | 0.93 | 23.5(19) |
Proportion of females | ||||||
>60% | 6 | 1,020 | 0.033 | −0.030, 0.096 | 0.61 | 5.1(5) |
≤60% | 6 | 1,099 | −0.119 | −0.177, −0.060 | -- | 3.7(5) |
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References
- Cancer Research UK, Key Facts: Skin Cancer; Cancer Research UK: London, UK, 2012, 2012.
- American Cancer Society, Cancer Facts & Figures; American Cancer Society: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
- US Cancer Statistics Working Group, United States Cancer Statistics: 1999-2008 Incidence and Mortality Web-Based Report; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and National Cancer Institute: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2012.
- Rogers, H.W.; Weinstock, M.A.; Harris, A.R.; Hinckley, M.R.; Feldman, S.R.; Fleischer, A.B.; Coldiron, B.M. Incidence estimate of nonmelanoma skin cancer in the United States, 2006. Arch. Dermatol. 2010, 146, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rothman, A.J.; Salovey, P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychol. Bull. 1997, 121, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salovey, P.; Schneider, T.R.; Apanovitch, A.M. Message Framing in the Prevention and Early Detection of Illness. In The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice; Dillard, J.P., Pfau, M., Eds.; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2002; pp. 391–406. [Google Scholar]
- O’Keefe, D.J.; Jensen, J.D. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. J Commun. 2009, 59, 296–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Keefe, D.J.; Jensen, J.D. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. J Health Commun. 2007, 12, 623–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akl, E.A.; Oxman, A.D.; Herrin, J.; Vist, G.E.; Terrenato, I.; Sperati, F.; Costiniuk, C.; Blank, D.; Schünemann, H. Framing of health information messages. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gallagher, K.M.; Updegraff, J.A. Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Ann. Behav. Med. 2012, 43, 101–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leygue, C.; Chappé, J.; Meyer, T.; Verlhiac, J.F. Health information framing and ambivalent attitudes toward sun exposure. Health Psychol. Rev. 2007, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Real, K.; Rimal, R.N. Assessing the Importance of Skin Cancer: Effects of Frames of Reference and Issue Involvement. In Presented at The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC, USA, 22-26 May 2001.
- Knapp-Oliver, S.; Aunaetitrakul, N.; Toh, G.; Sapkota, S.; Penny, T. Message Framing Influences Cognitive Processing and Retention of Information Regarding Skin Cancer. In Presented at The 23rd Annual Association for Psychological Science Convention, Washington, DC, USA, 24-27 May 2011.
- Buboltz, W.; Mahoney, K.T.; Walzcyk, J. Reactance and Message Frames: Does it Matter? In Presented at The Fourteenth Annual Meeting of the American Association of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 10-11 February 2011.
- Craciun, C. Motivational and Volitional Processes in Sunscreen Use: A Longitudinal Online Experiment. Ph.D. Thesis, Free University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany, 2010. Available online: http://www.diss.fu-berlin.de/diss/receive/FUDISS_thesis_000000020465 (accessed on 31 May 2012).
- Hevey, D.; Dolan, M. Approach-inhibition disposition moderates the effects of framing skin cancer information on affective responses. Psychol. Health 2008, 23 (Suppl 1), 141–142. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, H. The Influence of Fear Appeal on Persuasion Effects for Skin Cancer Public Service Announcements (PSAs) According to Fear Message Framing and Fear Type. In Presented at The Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, St. Louis, MO, USA, 10-13 August 2011.
- Rothman, A.J.; Salovey, P.; Antone, C.; Keough, K.; Martin, C.D. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 1993, 29, 408–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lemieux, R.; Hale, J.L.; Mongeau, P.A. Reducing Risk Behaviors Related to Sun Exposure: The Effects of Fear Appeals, Vividness, and Message Framing. In Presented at The Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 18-22 November 1994.
- Block, L.G. The Effects of Perceived Efficacy, Message Framing and Vividness on the Persuasiveness of a Fear Appeal. Ph.D. Thesis, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA. 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Block, L.G.; Keller, P.A. When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. J. Mark. Res. 1995, 32, 192–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cho, H.; Sands, L. Gain- and loss-frame sun safety messages and psychological reactance of adolescents. Commun. Res. Rep. 2011, 28, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, Y.; Cho, H.; Sands, L.; Jeong, S.H. Effects of gain- and loss-framed messages on the sun safety behavior of adolescents: The moderating role of risk perceptions. J. Health Psychol. 2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hevey, D.; Pertl, M.; Thomas, K.; Maher, L.; Craig, A.; Chuinneagáin, S.N. Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. Int. J. Psychol. 2008, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hevey, D.; Pertl, M.; Thomas, K.; Maher, L.; Craig, A.; Chuinneagáin, S.N. Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. J. Health Psychol. 2010, 15, 553–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thomas, K.; Hevey, D.; Pertl, M.; Chuinneagáin, S.N.; Craig, A.; Maher, L. Appearance matters: The frame and focus of health messages influences beliefs about skin cancer. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2011, 16, 418–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hoffner, C.A.; Ye, J. News about Sunscreen and Skin Cancer: The Role of Framing and Social Comparison. In Presented at The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 27-31 May 2004.
- Hoffner, C.A.; Ye, J. Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Commun. 2009, 24, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nan, X. Influence of Incidental Affect and Message Framing on Persuasion: The Case of promoting sun Protection Behaviors. In Presented at The Annual Conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL, USA, 6-9 August 2008.
- Nan, X. Influence of incidental affect and message framing on persuasion: The case of promoting sun protection behaviors. Int. Pub. Health J. 2011, 3, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
- Seo, K.W. Effects of Visual Images in Health Message Framing. M.S. Thesis, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. 2008. Available online: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/paper/8704/4021 (accessed on 31 May 2012). [Google Scholar]
- Seo, K.; Shen, F. The Interactive Effects of Visual Images and Message Framing on Health-Related Persuasion. In Presented at The Annual Conference of the International Communication Association, Chicago, IL, 21-25 May 2009.
- Shamaskin, A. Getting the Message Across: Examining Information Presentation and Healthcare Decision Making among Older Adults. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA. 2009. Available online: ecommons.cornell.edu/bitstream/1813/12656/1/THESIS.doc (accessed on 31 May 2012). [Google Scholar]
- Shamaskin, A.M.; Mikels, J.A.; Reed, A.E. Getting the message across: Age differences in the positive and negative framing of health care messages. Psychol. Aging 2010, 25, 746–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L. The Interplay of Message Framing, Cognition and Affect in Persuasive Health Communication. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, MI, USA. 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L.; Dillard, J.P. The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Commun. Res. 2007, 34, 433–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stoner, S.A. Goal Framing of Health Related Behaviors: What Factors Contribute to the Persuasiveness of a Message? Ph.D. Thesis, West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV, USA. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Stoner, S. Goal framing of health related behaviors: What factors contribute to the persuasiveness of a message? Gerontologist 2009, 49 (Suppl. 2), 115. [Google Scholar]
- Borenstein, M.; Rothstein, H. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, Version 2.2.023, Biostat: Englewood, NJ, USA, 2005.
- Cox, A.D.; Cox, D.; Zimet, G. Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. J. Mark. 2006, 70, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Currie, S.A. The influence of Message Framing and Health Locus of Control upon Intentions to Using Sunscreen. Undergraduate Thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Detweiler, J.B.; Bedell, B.T.; Salovey, P.; Pronin, E.; Rothman, A.J. Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychol. 1999, 18, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fischer, J.C.; Nabi, R. Priming Frames: Can Framing Effects Extend Beyond Message Topic? In Presented at The Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, Washington, DC, USA, 24-28 November 2001.
- Ku, A.W. The Impact of Health Advertising on Health Risk Perceptions and Behavioural Intention. M.S. Thesis, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, A.Y.; Aaker, J.L. Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 86, 205–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.K.-C.; Brown, R.; Blood, D. The effects of efficacy, cognitive processing and message framing on persuasion. Australas. Mark. J. 2000, 8, 5–17. [Google Scholar]
- McCormick, M. Does Lateral Attention Affect Health Behavior?: Investigating Hemispheric Influences in Framed Health Messages. M.S. Thesis, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC, USA. 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Robinson, N.G. Young Women’s Sun-protective Attitudes and Behaviours: The Role of Social Influence Factors. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. 2004. Available online: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/16042/1/Natalie_Robinson_Thesis.pdf (accessed on 31 May 2012). [Google Scholar]
- Saadi, Y.M. Policy and Prevention: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of Contingency-based Intervention on the Adoption of Cancer Screening Behavior. Undergraduate Thesis, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Schubert, B.L. A UV Protection Intervention for Skin Cancer Prevention. Undergraduate Honors Thesis, Department of Psychology, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA. 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Shen, L.; Kollar, L.M. Searching for Moderators of Message Framing Effect: A Motivational Approach. In Presented at The Annual Conference of the National Communication Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 17-20 November 2011.
- Smith, L.L. Communicating Effective Skin Cancer Messages. In Presented at The International Communication Association Conference, San Diego, CA, USA, 23-27 May 2003.
- Taber, J.M. Hypothetical Genetic Disease Risk Moderates the Effect of Message Framing on Sunscreen Attitudes and Intentions. M.S. Thesis, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 2010. Available online: http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/us-etd2&CISOPTR=199116 (accessed on 31 May 2012). [Google Scholar]
- Lipsey, M.W.; Wilson, D.B. Practical Meta-Analysis; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2001; pp. 138–140. [Google Scholar]
- Hedges, L.V.; Pigott, T.D. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol. Methods 2001, 6, 203–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ioannidis, J.P. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005, 2, 696–701. [Google Scholar]
- Ioannidis, J.P. Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 2005, 294, 218–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, S. Message Effects Research: Principles of Design and Analysis; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Jackson, S.; Brashers, D. M > 1: Analysis of treatment x replication designs. Hum. Commun. Res. 1994, 20, 356–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackson, S.; Jacobs, S. Generalizing about messages: Suggestions for design and analysis of experiments. Hum. Commun. Res. 1983, 9, 169–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
O’Keefe, D.J.; Wu, D. Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 2121-2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062121
O’Keefe DJ, Wu D. Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2012; 9(6):2121-2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062121
Chicago/Turabian StyleO’Keefe, Daniel J., and Daisy Wu. 2012. "Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9, no. 6: 2121-2133. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9062121