When do gain-framed health messages work better than fear appeals?
Author(s) -
B. Wansink,
Leah G. Pope
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
nutrition reviews
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.958
H-Index - 150
eISSN - 1753-4887
pISSN - 0029-6643
DOI - 10.1093/nutrit/nuu010
Subject(s) - certainty , psychology , preference , profiling (computer programming) , style (visual arts) , social psychology , heuristic , computer science , epistemology , artificial intelligence , history , microeconomics , philosophy , archaeology , economics , operating system
Past literature reviews of gain-framed versus loss-based health messages have been inconsistent and inconclusive. To resolve this and provide a clearer pattern, this review focuses on the individual or person-specific characteristics of target audiences. The results indicate that by answering the following four questions about a target audience, one can predict whether a gain-framed or a loss-based health message will be more effective. 1) Is there a low (versus high) level of involvement in the issue? 2) Is there a high (versus low) certainty of the outcome? 3) Is there a low (versus high) preference for risk? 4) Is there a heuristic (versus piecemeal) processing style? The profiling of audiences on these factors has two distinct benefits; it resolves many of the seeming inconsistencies in past positive-negative and gain-loss message research (such as fear appeals working better with experts than nonexperts) and it helps predict which type of message will be most effective with a given audience.
Accelerating Research
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom
Address
John Eccles HouseRobert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom