Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Annals of Behavioral Medicine
Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2012

01-02-2012 | Original Article

Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review

Authors: Kristel M. Gallagher, M.A., John A. Updegraff, Ph.D.

Published in: Annals of Behavioral Medicine | Issue 1/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Message framing has been an important focus in health communication research, yet prior meta-analyses found limited support for using framing to increase persuasiveness of health messages.

Purpose

This meta-analysis distinguished the outcomes used to assess the persuasive impact of framed messages (attitudes, intentions, or behavior).

Methods

One hundred eighty-nine effect sizes were identified from 94 peer-reviewed, published studies which compared the persuasive impact of gain- and loss-framed messages.

Results

Gain-framed messages were more likely than loss-framed messages to encourage prevention behaviors (r = 0.083, p = 0.002), particularly for skin cancer prevention, smoking cessation, and physical activity. No effect of framing was found when persuasion was assessed by attitudes/intentions or among studies encouraging detection.

Conclusions

Gain-framed messages appear to be more effective than loss-framed messages in promoting prevention behaviors. Research should examine the contexts in which loss-framed messages are most effective, and the processes that mediate the effects of framing on behavior.
Footnotes
1
The present review focuses on a particular type of framing effect defined by Levin and colleagues [90] as “goal framing.” As opposed to “attribute framing”, which involves manipulating the health behavior as either a good thing to engage in (positive frame) or bad thing to engage in (negative frame), “goal framing” works under the assumption that the health behavior is a good thing to do and instead uses the positive frame to describe the gains associated with performing the behavior and the negative frame to describe the losses associated with not performing the behavior.
 
2
Unless otherwise specified, we report “behavior” as a combined outcome of self-reported and objective behavioral measures. We note the appropriateness of this approach as the relationship between self-reported and objective measures of behavior for the most commonly cited domains in the present analysis are typically greater than the typical attitude/intention and behavior correlation of 0.50 [9]. Indeed, we see this in the domains of smoking [107, 108], mammography [109‐113] diet [114], oral health [115‐118], and physical activity [119‐121] (all r values of >0.50, sensitivities of >0.90).
 
3
The strongest evidence for moderation by timeframe was found among studies that assessed prevention behavior. Although not significant using the more conservative random effects analyses (Q(1) = 1.810, p = 0.178), this moderation was significant in a fixed effects analysis (Q(1) = 6.802, p = 0.009), with behaviors assessed immediately after message presentation showing stronger effects of framing (k = 6, r = 0.150, p = 0.001) than behaviors assessed at a follow-up (k = 26, r = 0.077, p = 0.007). Moderation by timeframe could not be tested for attitudes/intentions as not enough studies assess these outcomes at a delayed follow-up. Furthermore, no moderation by timeframe was found for studies assessing detection behavior.
 
Literature
1.
2.
Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997; 121: 3–19.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 211: 453–458.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Edwards A, Elwyn G, Covey J, Matthews E, Roisin P. Presenting risk information—A review of the effects of “framing” and other manipulations on patient outcomes. J Health Commun. 2001; 6: 61–82.PubMedCrossRef
5.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of noncompliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. Commun Yearbook. 2006; 30: 1–43.CrossRef
6.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. J Health Commun. 2007; 12(7): 623–644.PubMedCrossRef
7.
O’Keefe DJ, Jensen JD. 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.CrossRef
8.
Myers RE. Promoting healthy behaviors: How do we get the message across? Int J Nurs Stud. 2010; 47: 500–512.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does change behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006; 132: 249–268.PubMedCrossRef
10.
*Abhyankar P, O’Connor DB, Lawton, R. The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychol Health Med. 2008; 13: 1–16PubMedCrossRef
11.
*Apanovitch AM, McCarthy D, Salovey P. Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychol. 2003; 22: 60–67PubMedCrossRef
12.
*Arora R. Message framing and credibility: Application in dental services. Health Mark Q. 2000; 18: 29–44PubMedCrossRef
13.
*Arora R, Arora A. The impact of message framing and credibility finding for nutritional guidelines. Service Mark Q. 2004; 26(1): 35–53CrossRef
14.
*Arora R, Stoner C, Arora A. Using framing and credibility to incorporate exercise and fitness in individuals’ lifestyle. J Cons Mark. 2006; 23: 199–207CrossRef
15.
*Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995; 14: 178–184PubMedCrossRef
16.
*Bannon K, Schwartz MB. Impact of nutrition messages on children’s food choice: Pilot study. Appetite. 2006; 46: 124–129PubMedCrossRef
17.
*Bartels RD, Kelly KM, Rothman AJ. Moving beyond the function of the health behavior: The effect of message frame on behavioural decision-making. Psychol Health. 2010; 25: 821–838PubMedCrossRef
18.
*Benz Scott L, Curbow B. The effect of message frames and CVD risk factors on behavioral outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2006; 30: 582–597CrossRef
19.
*Berry T, Carson V. Ease of imagination, message framing and physical activity messages. Br J Health Psychol. 2010; 15: 197–211PubMedCrossRef
20.
*Block LG, Keller PA. 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: 192–203CrossRef
21.
*Broemer P. Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: The influence of ambivalence. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2002; 32: 685–703CrossRef
22.
*Broemer P. Ease of imagination moderates reactions to differently framed health messages. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2004; 34: 103–119CrossRef
23.
*Brug J, Ruiter JA, van Assema P. The (ir)relevance of framing nutrition education messages. Nutr Health. 2003; 17: 9–20PubMedCrossRef
24.
*Chang CT. Beating the news blues: Mood repair through exposure to advertising. J Commun. 2006; 56: 198–217CrossRef
25.
*Chang CT. Health-care product advertising: The influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychol Mark. 2007; 24: 143–169CrossRef
26.
*Cho H, Boster FJ. Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. J Commun. 2008; 58: 428–446CrossRef
27.
*Consedine NS, Horton D, Magai C, Kukafka R. Breast screening in response to gain, loss, and empowerment framed messages among diverse, low-income women. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007; 18: 550–566PubMedCrossRef
28.
*Cox AD, Cox D, Zimet G. Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. Am Market Assoc. 2006; 70: 79–91
29.
*Cox DS, Cox AD. Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. J Mark. 2001; 65(3): 91–103CrossRef
30.
*Detweiler JB, Bedell BT, Salovey P, Pronin E, Rothman AJ. Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach goers. Health Psychol. 1999; 18: 189–196PubMedCrossRef
31.
*Finney LJ, Iannotti RJ. Message framing and mammography screening: A theory-driven intervention. Behav Med. 2002; 28: 5–14PubMedCrossRef
32.
*Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA. When “fit” leads to fit, and when “fit” leads to fat: How message framing and intrinsic v. extrinsic exercise outcomes interact in promoting physical activity. Psychol Health. 2011; Jan 1: 1–16 (iFirst article)
33.
*Gallagher KM, Updegraff JA, Rothman, AJ, Sims L. Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychol. 2011; 30: 145–152PubMedCrossRef
34.
*Gerend MA, Cullen M. Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008; 44: 1167–1173CrossRef
35.
*Gintner GG, Rectanus E F, Achord K, Parker B. Parental history of hypertension and screening attendance: Effects of wellness appeal versus threat appeal. Health Psycho. 1987; 6: 431–444CrossRef
36.
*Goodall C, Appiah O. Adolescents’ perceptions of Canadian cigarette package warning labels: Investigating the effects of message framing. Health Commun. 2008; 23: 117–127PubMedCrossRef
37.
*Hevey D, Pertl M, Thomas K, Maher L, Craig A, Chuinneagain SN. Body consciousness moderates the effect of message framing on intentions to use sunscreen. J Health Psychol. 2010; 15: 553–559PubMedCrossRef
38.
*Hoffner C, Ye J. Young adults’ responses to news about sunscreen and skin cancer: The role of framing and social comparison. Health Commun. 2009; 24: 189–198PubMedCrossRef
39.
*Jones LW, Sinclair RC, Courneya SC. The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors, and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003; 33: 179–196CrossRef
40.
*Jones LW, Sinclair RC, Rhodes RE, Courneya KS. Promoting exercise behaviour: An integration of persuasion theories and the theory of planned behaviour. Br J Health Psychol. 2004; 9: 505–521PubMedCrossRef
41.
*Keller PA, Lipkus IM, Rimer BK. Affect, framing, and persuasion. J Mark Res. 2003; 40: 54–64CrossRef
42.
*Knapp LG. Effects of type of value appealed to and valence of appeal on children’s dental health behavior. J Pediatr Psychol. 1991; 16: 675–686PubMedCrossRef
43.
*Lalor KM, Hailey BJ. The effects of message framing and feelings of susceptibility to breast cancer on reported frequency of breast self-examination. Int Q of Community Health Educ. 1990; 10: 183–192CrossRef
44.
*Latimer AE, Rench TA, Rivers SE, et al. Promoting participation in physical activity using framed messages: An application of prospect theory. Br J Health Psychol. 2008; 13: 659–681PubMedCrossRef
45.
*Lauver D, Rubin M. Message framing, dispositional optimism, and follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests. Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13: 199–207PubMedCrossRef
46.
*Lawatsch DE. A comparison of two teaching strategies on nutrition knowledge, attitudes and food behavior of preschool children. J Nutr Educ. 1990; 22: 117–123CrossRef
47.
*Lee AY, Aaker JL. Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2004; 86: 205–218PubMedCrossRef
48.
*Lee CKC, Brown R, Blood D. The effects of efficacy, cognitive processing and message framing on persuasion. Australas Mark J. 2000; 8: 5–17CrossRef
49.
*Lerman C, Ross E, Boyce A, et al. The impact of mailing psychoeducational materials to women with abnormal mammograms. Am J Public Health. 1992; 82: 729–730PubMedCrossRef
50.
*Levin IP, Gaeth GJ, Albaum G, Schreiber J. How positive and negative frames influence the decisions of persons in the United States and Australia. Asia Pac J Market Logist. 2001; 2: 64–71CrossRef
51.
*Looker A, Shannon B. Threat vs. benefit appeals: Effectiveness in adult nutrition education. J Nutr Educ. 1984; 16: 173–176CrossRef
52.
Maguire KC, Garnder J, Sopory P, et al. Formative research regarding kidney disease health information in a Latino American sample: Associations among message frame, threat, efficacy, message effectiveness, and behavioral intention. Commun Edu. 2010; 59: 344–359CrossRef
53.
*Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res. 1990; 27: 361–371CrossRef
54.
*Mann T, Sherman D, Updegraff J. Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychol. 2004; 23: 330–334PubMedCrossRef
55.
*McCall LA, Ginis KAM. The effects of message framing on exercise adherence and health beliefs among patients in a cardiac rehabilitation program. J Appl Biobehav Res. 2004; 9: 122–135CrossRef
56.
*McCaul KD, Johnson RJ, Rothman AJ. The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older adults obtain flu shots. Health Psychol. 2002; 21: 624–628PubMedCrossRef
57.
*McKee SA, O’Malley S, Steward WT, Neveu S, Land M, Salovey P. How to word effective messages about smoking and oral health: Emphasize the benefits of quitting. J Dent Educ. 2004; 68: 569–573PubMed
58.
*Myers-Levy J, Maheswaran D. Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic, or both types of processing occur. J Cons Psychol. 2004; 14(1–2): 159–167
59.
*Millar MG, Millar KU. Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000; 30: 853–866CrossRef
60.
*Moorman M, van den Putte B. The influence of message framing, intention to quit smoking, and nicotine dependence on the persuasiveness of smoking cessation messages. Addict Behav. 2008; 33: 1267–1275PubMedCrossRef
61.
*Myers RE, Ross EA, Wolf TA, Balshem A, Jepson C, Millner L. Behavioral interventions to increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 1991; 29: 1039–1050PubMedCrossRef
62.
*Nan X. The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus loss-framed messages: Exploring the moderating role of the desirability of end-states. Journalism Mass Comm Q. 2007; 84: 509–524CrossRef
63.
*O’Connor DB, Ferguson E, O’Connor RC. Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: The role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. Br J Psychol. 2005; 96: 351–369PubMedCrossRef
64.
*Park P, Simmons RK, Prevost AT, Griffin SJ. A randomized evaluation of loss and gain frames in an invitation to screening for type 2 diabetes: Effects on attendance, anxiety and self-rated health. J Health Psychol. 2010; 15: 196–204PubMedCrossRef
65.
*Ramirez A. Social influence and ethnicity of the communicator. J Soc Psychol. 1977; 102: 209–213CrossRef
66.
*Richardson JL, Milam J, McCutchan A, et al. Effect of brief safer-sex counseling by medical providers to HIV-1 seropositive patients: A multi-clinic assessment. AIDS. 2004; 18: 1179–1186PubMedCrossRef
67.
*Rivers SE, Salovey P, Pizarro DA, Pizarro J, Schneider TR. Message framing and pap test utilization among women attending a community health clinic. J Health Psychol. 2005; 10: 65–77PubMedCrossRef
68.
*Robberson MR, Rogers RW . Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1988; 18: 277–287CrossRef
69.
*Rothman AJ, Martino SC, Bedell B, Detweiler JB, Salovey P. The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behaviors. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1999; 25(11): 1355–1369CrossRef
70.
*Rothman A J, Salovey P, Antone C, Keough K, Martin CD. The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. J Exp Soc Psychol. 1993; 29: 408–433CrossRef
71.
*Schneider TR, Salovey P, Apanovitch AM, et al. The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychol. 2001; 20: 256–266PubMedCrossRef
72.
*Schneider T, Salovey P, Pallonen U, et al. Visual and auditory message framing effects on tobacco smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001; 31: 667–682CrossRef
73.
*Shannon B, Rowan ML. Threat vs. benefit appeals for motivating adults to participate in a weight-control class. J American Diet Assoc. 1987; 87: 1612–1614
74.
*Sherman DK, Mann T, Updegraff JA. Approach/avoidance orientation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motiv Emot. 2006; 30: 165–169PubMedCrossRef
75.
*Steward WT, Schneider TR, Pizarro J, Salovey P. Need for cognition moderates responses to framed smoking-cessation messages. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2003; 33: 2439–2464CrossRef
76.
*Toll BA, O’Malley SS, Katulak NA, et al. Comparing gain- and loss-framed messages for smoking cessation with sustained release bupropion: A randomized control trial. Psychol Addict Behav. 2007; 21: 534–544PubMedCrossRef
77.
*Trupp RJ, Corwin EJ, Ahijevych KL, Nygren T. The impact of educational message framing on adherence to continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Behav Sleep Med. 2011; 9: 38–52PubMedCrossRef
78.
*Tykocinski OE, Higgins T, Chaiken S. Message framing, self- discrepancies, and yielding to persuasive messages: The motivational significance of psychological situations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1994; 20: 107–115CrossRef
79.
*Umphrey LR. The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self-examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility. Commun Res Rep. 2003; 20: 97–105CrossRef
80.
*Updegraff JA, Sherman DK, Luyster FS, Mann TL. The effects of message quality and congruency on perceptions of tailored health communications. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2006; 43: 249–257CrossRef
81.
*Urban AB, Stout PA, Zimet GD, Blake DR. The influence of message framing on adolescent females’ intention to obtain Chlamydia screening. J Adolesc Health. 2006; 38: 126–127CrossRef
82.
*Uskul AK, Sherman DK, Fitzgibbon J. The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2009; 45: 535–541CrossRef
83.
*an Assema P, Martens M, Ruiter R, Brug J. Framing of nutrition education messages in persuading consumers of the advantages of a healthy diet. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2001; 14: 435–442PubMedCrossRef
84.
*van ‘t Riet J, Ruiter RAC, Werrij MQ, Candel MJJM, de Vries H. Distinct pathways to persuasion: The role of affect in message-framing effects. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2009; doi:10.​1002/​ejsp.​722
85.
*van't Riet J, Ruiter RAC, Werrij MQ, de Vries H. Investigating message-framing effects in the context of a tailored intervention promoting physical activity. Health Educ Res. 2009; doi:10.​1093/​her/​cyp061
86.
*van 't Riet J, Ruiter RAC, Werrij MQ, de Vries H. Self-efficacy moderates message-framing effects: The case of skin-cancer detection. Psychol Health. 2010; 25: 339–349CrossRef
87.
*van't Riet J, Ruiter RAC, Smerecnik C, de Vries H. Examining the influence of self-efficacy on message-framing effects: Reducing salt consumption in the general population. Basic App Soc Psychol. 2010; 32: 165–172CrossRef
88.
*Williams T, Clarke V, Borland R. Effects of message framing on breast-cancer-related beliefs and behaviors: The role of mediating factors. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001; 31: 925–95CrossRef
89.
*Yu N, Ahern LA, Connolly-Ahern C, Shen F. Communicating the risks of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: Effects of message framing and exemplification. Health Commun. 2010; 25: 692–699PubMedCrossRef
90.
Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth, GJ. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Org Beh Human Dec Proces. 1998; 76: 149–188.CrossRef
91.
Lucidi F, Russo PM, Mallia L, Devoto A, Lauriola M, Violani C. Sleep related car crashes: Risk perception and decision-making processes in young drivers. Accid Anal Prev. 2006; 38: 302–309.PubMedCrossRef
92.
Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. A study of the effect of message framing on oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24: 3136–3143.PubMedCrossRef
93.
Toll BA, Salovey P, O’Malley SS, Mazure C, Latimer A, McKee SA. Message framing for smoking cessation: The interaction of risk perceptions and gender. Nicotine Tob Res. 2008; 10: 195–200.PubMedCrossRef
94.
Fucito LM, Latimer AE, Salovey P, Toll BA. Nicotine dependence as a moderator of message framing effects on smoking outcomes. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 39: 311–317.PubMedCrossRef
95.
Levin IP, Gaeth GJ, Schreiber J, Lauriola M. A new look at framing effects: Distribution of effect sizes, individual differences, and independence of types of effects. Organ Behavior Hum Dec. 2002; 88: 411–429.CrossRef
96.
Kiene SM, Barta WD, Zelenski JM, Cothran DL. Why are you bringing up condoms now? The effect of message content on framing effects of condom use messages. Health Psychol. 2005; 24: 321–326.PubMedCrossRef
97.
Szklo AS, Coutinho ESF. The influence of smokers’ degree of dependence on the effectiveness of message framing for capturing smokers for a Quitline. Addict. Behav. 2010; 35: 620–624.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Ferguson E, Gallagher L. Message framing with respect to decisions about vaccination: The roles of frame valence, frame method and perceived risk. Br J Psychol. 2007; 98: 667–680.PubMedCrossRef
99.
Cherubini P, Rumiati R, Rossi D, Nigro F, Calabro A. Improving attitudes toward prostate examinations by loss-framed appeals. J App Soc Psychol. 2005; 35: 732–744.CrossRef
100.
Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998; 4: 486–504.CrossRef
101.
Biostat (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis) [computer program]. Borenstein M, Rothstein H; Ver 2.2.023/2005.
102.
Rosenthal R. Meta-analytic procedures for social research (Rev. ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1991
103.
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994; 50: 1088–1101.PubMedCrossRef
104.
Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epi. 2000; 53: 1119–1129CrossRef
105.
Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 638–641.CrossRef
106.
Duval S, Tweedie R. Trim and fill: A simple funnel-plot-based method of testing and adjusting for publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics. 2000; 56: 455–463.PubMedCrossRef
107.
Patrick DL, Cheadle A, Thompson DC, Diehr P, Koepsell T, Kinne S. The validity of self-reported smoking: A review and meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84: 1086–1093.PubMedCrossRef
108.
Vartiainen E, Seppala T, Lillsunde P, Puska P. Validation of self reported smoking by serum cotinine measurement in a community-based study. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002; 56: 167–170.PubMedCrossRef
109.
Lawrence VA, De Moor C, Glenn ME. Systematic differences in validity of self-reported mammography behavior: A problem for intergroup comparisons? Prev Med. 1999; 29: 577–80.PubMedCrossRef
110.
King ES, Rimer BK, Trock B, Balshem A, Engstrom P. How valid are mammography self-reports? Am J Public Health. 1990; 80: 1386–1388.PubMedCrossRef
111.
Degnan D, Harris R, Ranney J, Quade D, Earp JA, Gonzalez J. Measuring the use of mammography: Two methods compared. Am J Public Health. 1992; 82: 1386–1388.PubMedCrossRef
112.
Etzi S, Lane DS, Grimson R. The use of mammography vans by low-income women: The accuracy of self-reports. Am J Public Health. 1994; 84: 107–109.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Gordon NP, Hiatt RA, Lampert DI. Concordance of self-reported data and medical record audit for six cancer screening procedures. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993; 85: 566–570.PubMedCrossRef
114.
Martin LJ, Su W, Jones PJ, Lockwood GA, Tritchler DL, Boyd NF. Comparison of energy intakes determined by food records and doubly labeled water in women participating in a dietary-intervention trial. Am J Clin Nutr. 1996; 63: 483–490.PubMed
115.
Sniehotta FF, Soares VA, Dombrowksi SU. Randomised controlled trial of a 1-minute intervention changing oral self-care behaviour. J Dent Res. 2007; 86: 641–645.PubMedCrossRef
116.
Schüz B, Sniehotta FF, Wiedemann A, Seeman R. Adherence to a daily flossing regimen in university students: Effects of planning when, where, how and what to do in the face of barriers. J Clin Periodontol. 2006; 33: 612–619.PubMedCrossRef
117.
McCaul KD, Glasgow RE, Gustafson C. Predicting levels of preventive dental behaviors. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985; 111: 601–605.PubMed
118.
Pitiphat W, Garcia RI, Douglass CW, Joshipura KJ. Validation of self-reported oral health measures. J Public Health Dent. 2007; 62: 122–128.CrossRef
119.
Hayden-Wade HA, Coleman KJ, Sallis JF, Armstrong C. Validation of the telephone and in-person interview versions of the 7-day PAR. Med Sci Sports Exer. 2003; 35:801–809.CrossRef
120.
Jacobs DR, Ainsworth BE, Hartman TJ, Leon AS. A simultaneous evaluation of 10 commonly used physical activity questionnaires. Med Sci Sports Exer. 1993; 25: 81–91.CrossRef
121.
Hagstromer M, Oja P, Sjostrom M. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ): A study of concurrent and construct validity. Public Health Nutr. 2006; 9: 755–762.PubMedCrossRef
122.
Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001; 40: 471–499.PubMedCrossRef
123.
Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychol Bull. 1986; 99: 400–406.CrossRef
124.
Rothman AJ, Updegraff, JA. Specifying when and how gain- and loss-framed messages motivate healthy behavior: An integrated approach. In Keren G, ed. Perspectives on Framing. London: Psychology Press; 2010: 257–277.
125.
Strecher VJ, DeVellis BM, Becker MH, Rosenstock IM. The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Edu Quar. 1986; 13: 73–92.CrossRef
126.
Rhodes SD, Hergenrather KC. Using an integrated approach to understand vaccination behavior among young men who have sex with men: Stages of change, the health belief model, and self-efficacy. J Comm Health. 2003; 28: 347–362.CrossRef
127.
Strecher VJ, DeVellis BM, Becker MH, Rosenstock IM: The role of self-efficacy in achieving health behavior change. Health Educ Q. 1986; 13: 73–92.PubMedCrossRef
128.
Stuart AE, Blanton H. The effects of message framing on behavioral prevalence assumptions. Eur J of Soc Psychol. 2003; 33: 93–102.CrossRef
129.
O’Keefe, DJ, Jensen, JD. Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Comm Studies, 2008; 59; 51–67.CrossRef
130.
Latimer AE, Salovey P, Rothman AJ. The effectiveness of gain framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behavior: Is all hope lost? J Health Commun. 2007; 12: 645–649.PubMedCrossRef
131.
Noar SM, Benac C, Harris M. Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. Psychol Bull. 2007; 133: 673–693.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review
Authors
Kristel M. Gallagher, M.A.
John A. Updegraff, Ph.D.
Publication date
01-02-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Annals of Behavioral Medicine / Issue 1/2012
Print ISSN: 0883-6612
Electronic ISSN: 1532-4796
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Other articles of this Issue 1/2012

Annals of Behavioral Medicine 1/2012 Go to the issue

Original Article

Progression of Coronary Artery Calcification in Black and White Women: Do the Stresses and Rewards of Multiple Roles Matter?

Letter to the Editor

The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index

Letter to the Editor

‘The Habitual Use of the Self-report Habit Index’: A Reply

Original Article

A Culturally Adapted Telecommunication System to Improve Physical Activity, Diet Quality, and Medication Adherence Among Hypertensive African–Americans: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Original Article

Social and Material Adversity from Adolescence to Adulthood and Allostatic Load in Middle-Aged Women and Men: Results from the Northern Swedish Cohort

Original Article

The Associations of Multiple Dimensions of Discrimination and Abdominal Fat in African American Adults: The Jackson Heart Study