Advertisement

Gewinn- und Verlustframing in der Gesundheitskommunikation

  • Anna J. M. WagnerEmail author
Chapter

Zusammenfassung

Gewinn- und Verlustframing sind populäre Persuasionsstrategien in der Gesundheitskommunikation und wurden in etlichen Studien zu diversen Gesundheitsrisiken und -verhaltensweisen empirisch untersucht. Während theoretische Ansätze für eine höhere Wirksamkeit von Verlust-Frames sprechen, sind die empirischen Ergebnisse inkonsistent. Meta-analytische Untersuchungen deuten darauf hin, dass Mediatoren und Moderatoren für eine unterschiedliche Effektivität der beiden Framing-Arten entscheidend sind und komplexe Zusammenhänge zwischen den Einflussvariablen berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Schlüsselwörter

Framing Gewinne Verluste Gesundheitsverhalten Persuasion 

Literatur

  1. Abhyankar, P., O’Connor, D. B., & Lawton, R. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a lossframe advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13548500701235732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benz Scott, L., & Curbow, B. (2006). The effect of message frames and CVD risk factors on behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30, 582–597.  https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.30.6.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berry, D. C. (2004). Risk, communication and health psychology. Berkshire: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bosone, L., Martinez, F., & Kalampalikis, N. (2015). The effect of message framing and the nature of the targeted illness on individuals‘ intention to participate in clincial trials. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 65, 171–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresnahan, M. J., Zhuang, J., & Sun, S. (2013). Influence of smoking norms and gain/loss antismoking messages on young chinese adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 1564–1571.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntt015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cesario, J., Corker, K. S., & Jelinek, S. (2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 238–249.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Covey, J. (2014). The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects. Health Psychology, 33, 52–65.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Detweiler, J. B., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.18.2.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14(1), 14–18.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dijkstra, A., Rothman, A., & Pietersma, S. (2011). The persuasive effects of framing messages on fruit and vegetable consumption according to regulatory focus theory. Psychology & Health, 26, 1036–1048.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.526715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eilders, C., & Wirth, W. (1999). Die Nachrichtenwertforschung auf dem Weg zum Publikum: Eine experimentelle Überprüfung des Einflusses von Nachrichtenfaktoren bei der Rezeption. Publizistik, 44(1), 35–57.Google Scholar
  14. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annual Behavior Medicine, 43, 101–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gray, J. A. (1972). The structure of the emotions and the limbic system. In R. Porter & J. Knight (Hrsg.), Physiology, emotion & psychosomatic illness (S. 87–120). Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hull, S. J., & Hong, Y. (2016). Sensation seeking as a moderator of gain- and loss-framed HIV-test promotion message effects. Journal of Health Communication, 21, 46–55.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2015.1033113.
  20. Hutter, R. R. C., Lawton, R., Pals, E., O’Connor, D. B., & McEachan, R. R. C. (2015). Tackling student binge drinking: Pairing incongruent messages and measures reduces alcohol consumption. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 498–513.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjhp.12111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206.  https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. In T. C. Kinnear (Hrsg.), Advances in consumer research (Bd. 11, S. 703–708). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.Google Scholar
  24. Kim, H. J. (2012). The effects of gender and gain versus loss frame on processing breast cancer screening messages. Communication Research, 39, 385–412.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211406707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.23.3.330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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(3), 500–510.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nan, X. (2007). The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus lossframed messages: Exploring the moderating role of the desirability of end-states. Journalism Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 509–524.  https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900708400307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. O’Connor, D. B., Ferguson, E., & O’Connor, R. C. (2005). Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: The role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. British of Journal Psychology, 96, 351–369.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000712605X49114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. O’Keefe, D. J. (2012). From psychological theory to message design: Lessons from the story of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive messages. In H. Cho (Hrsg.), Health communication message design: Theory, research, and practice (S. 3–20). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  30. O’Keefe, D. J., & Nan, X. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27, 776–783.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2011.640974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of non-compliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In C. S. Beck (Hrsg.), Communication yearbook 30 (S. 1–43). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 59, 51–67.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970701849388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59, 296–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European review of social psychology (S. 33–60). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rothman, A. J., & Updegraff, J. A. (2010). Specifying when and how gain- and loss-framed messages motivate healthy behavior: An integrated approach. In G. Keren (Hrsg.), Perspectives on Framing (S. 257–278). London: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  38. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299259003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2013). The effects of message features: content, structure, and style. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (S. 20–35). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2009). Message frames interact with motivational systems to determine depth of message processing. Health Communication, 24, 504–514.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903104897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 164–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9001-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 535–541.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wansink, B., & Pope, L. (2014). When do gain-framed health messages work better than fear appeals? Nutrition Reviews, 73, 4–11.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuu010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Williams, T., Clarke, V., & Borland, R. (2001). Effects of message framing on breast-cancer-related beliefs and behaviors: The role of mediating factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 925–995.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02656.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2012). Emotion, motivation, and the persuasive effects of message framing. Journal of Communication, 62, 682–700.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01655.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2009). Regulatory focus and message framing: A test of three accounts. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 435–443.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-009-9148-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Medien, Wissen und KommunikationUniversität AugsburgAugsburgDeutschland

Personalised recommendations