Message Framing

Health Message Framing for College Campuses

602199

University of California, Santa Barbara

Psych112L

Instructor: Heejuny Kim

TA: Lauren Winczewski

Winter 2015

1

Message Framing

Abstract

Previous studies have examined the efficacy of message framing in regards to

changing health behaviors. In this study, we looked at message framing in regards to

a Meningitis B vaccine. Specifically, we looked at communally framed messages and

its relationship to pro-social behavior as a mediator . We hypothesized two things: a

gain-framed communal message would result in a higher likelihood of obtaining the

vaccine, and participants who scored higher in pro-social behaviors would have a

higher likelihood in obtaining the vaccine compared to those who scored lower.

Undergraduate men and women (N=78) were randomly assigned to one of three

messages, communal grain-framed, communal loss framed, and a control frame.

Participants were then asked to answer questions to access levels of pro-social

behavior. We found no significant differences in likelihood of getting the vaccine in

the messages presented and no significance in likelihood of getting the vaccine in

regards to their levels of pro-social behavior.

2

Message Framing

Health Message Framing for College Campuses

The influence of messages in regards to changing health behaviors has been

studied extensively. Message framing is a health communication strategy that either

emphasizes Often times, these messages are characterized in terms of either

engaging in a healthy behavior for its positive outcomes (gain-framed message) or

avoiding unhealthy behaviors to avoid its negative consequences (loss-framed

message)(Rothamn & Salovey, 1997). Although the relationship between many

health behaviors and how message-framing influences said behaviors has been

studied extensively, there is a lack of literature regarding messages encouraging the

pro-health behavior of meningitis vaccinations. More so, among the existing

literature, there is little explaining the proposed mechanism for the efficacy of

certain types of messages.

There are differences between the effectiveness of loss and gain framed

messages. According to past research on message framing, loss-framed messages

are more effective when targeting behaviors that detect the presence of a disease

(mammogram, HIV testing), whereas gain-framed messages are more effective

when targeting behaviors that prevent the onset of a disease (flossing, dieting)

(Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey, Peter 2006). These

principles derive from prospect theory, which suggests that people are more

inclined to take risks when exposed to the negative consequences of said decision,

whereas people are more hesitant to make risks when they are told of the positive

consequences (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In relation to health message framing,

loss framed messages are more effective when targeting behaviors that detect the

3

Message Framing

presence of a disease because disease detecting behaviors can be characterized as

more risky due in part to the potential to find life threatening diseases.

Alternatively, gain-framed messages are more effective in terms of targeting

behaviors that detect the presence of a disease because preventative health

behaviors are considered low risk in that they are done to prevent disease

(Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey, Peter 2006). Therefore,

assuming that a meningitis vaccination is classified as a preventative health

behavior, a gain-framed message should be more viable than a loss-framed message

in promoting the acceptance of a meningitis vaccination.

Although the literature demonstrates the efficacy between gain and loss

framed messages, some studies suggest that framing effects are more reliable when

messages are perceived to be personally relevant. In a 1999 study done by Rothman,

Salovey, Antone, Keough, & Martin, researchers found that gain-framed messaging

discussing sun protection led to greater interest in sunscreen use compared to a

loss-framed message, only among participants who were concerned about skin

cancer. Additionally, a 2007 study about message framing relative to HPV

vaccination done by Gerand & Shepherd found that a loss-framed message led to

greater HPV vaccination intentions that a gain-framed message, but only among

participants who infrequently used condoms and had more sexual partners. In both

studies, researchers found that acceptance of health behaviors were mediated by

the message recipient’s characteristics.

In assessing the characteristics of the participants in our study, we decided to

focus on communal relationships. Communal relationships are characterized by the

4

Message Framing

idea that members within a relationship feel an obligation to be concerned for the

welfare of each other. Additionally, members in a communal relationship feel the

need to give benefits in response to the needs of the other or the need to simply

please the other. Ultimately, members in communal relationships display

characteristics of altruism and pro-social behavior (Clark, Mills, Powell 1986).

Consistent with the literature above, the assumption can be made that rates of pro-

social behavior can have an effect on certain health behaviors that are relevant

within the contexts of a close community.

During the fall of 2014, UCSB was hit with a Meningitis B outbreak.

Meningitis is the inflammation of protective membranes covering the brain and

spinal cord. This inflammation can be traced to a host of sources, including viruses,

bacteria, or other microorganisms. Although UCSB’s student health center offered

vaccination clinics, many students declined to receive the vaccine. Therefore,

understanding the efficacy of certain messages is vital. Additionally, in response to

the above literature regarding the factor personal characteristics of the message

recipient, we decided to study the influence of pro-social behavior relative to

communally based messages.

In designing our messages, we focused on messages that appealed to the

community as apposed to messages that appealed to the individual. Within the tight

knit university setting of UCSB, students feel a sense of community amongst each

other. Because those in communal relationships are more aware of the well-being of

others, we believe that those who are more pro-social will be more influenced by

communally based health messages. Therefore, we predicted that UCSB students

5

Message Framing

who scored higher in pro-social behavior would be more influenced by communally

based messages compared to those who score lower in pro-social behaviors.

Additionally, consistent with traditional gain and loss framed messaging principles,

we believe those exposed to gain-framed messages will result in higher rates of

likelihood of getting the vaccine compared to those who saw the loss-framed

message because the Meningitis B vaccine is characterized as a preventative health

measure.

Method

Participants

78 undergraduate students recruited from UCSB participated in the study.

Participants’ ages ranged from 17-29 (M=19.75) 34 were male and 43 were female.

53 were Caucasian, 4 were African-American, 4 were Latino, 8 were Asian, 3 were

Middle Eastern, and 4 were other. Participation was voluntary and there was no

compensation.

Measures/Materials

Messages Framing: Participants were randomly assigned to one of the three

messages. The gain-framed message highlighted the benefits the community would

receive from getting the Meningitis B shot, while also informing students that the

Meningitis B shot was being offered on campus. The loss-framed message

highlighted the negative consequences the community would face from abstaining

from the Meningitis B shot, while also informing students that the Meningitis B shot

was being offered on campus. The neutral message only informed students of the

fact that the Meningitis B vaccine was being offered on campus (See Apendix A).

6

Message Framing

Likelihood: Participants were asked, on a scale from 1-7, how likely they

were to get the vaccine. The scale ranged from “very unlikely” to “very likely”.

Prosocial Personality Battery PSB) (Penner, L.A., 2002): Participants

completed two of the seven Prosocial Personality categories for a total of 13

questions. The first category, Social Responsibility, contained 7 statements.

Participants were then asked to rate, on a 7-point Likert scale from strongly

disagree (1) to strongly agree (7). A composite measure of pro-social behavior was

then calculated by averaging across all 13 items to access whether participants

scored in the high or low levels of pro-social behavior.

Health Behavior: Likelihood of getting the Meningitis B vaccine was

measured on a 7-point Likert scale from extremely unlikely (1) to extremely likely

(7).

Procedure

Participants were given access to the survey on Qualtrics through a direct URL.

Participants were randomly assigned to the three different messages. After viewing

the message, participants were asked how likely they were to get the Meningitis B

vaccine. After, participants were asked to complete the Social Responsibility and

Moral Reasoning scales from the Prosocial Personality Battery. The directions read:

“The following statements may or may not describe you, your feelings, or your

behavior. Please reach each statement carefully, and then choose the answer that

corresponds to the degree to which you agree that each situation reflects how you

would generally feel or act.” Participants then answered questions about their

demographic. Lastly, participants were debriefed and told the purpose of the study.

7

Message Framing

Results

A two-way, between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was utilized in

analyzing participant’s likelihood of getting the Meningitis B vaccine from student

health. We first predicted that students who saw the gain-framed message would be

more likely to obtain the Meningitis B vaccine compared to students who saw the

loss-framed message. However, there was no significant effect on message type and

participant’s likelihood of getting the vaccine, F(2,72)=1.562, p=.217. We also

predicted that UCSB students who scored high on the pro-social inventory would be

more likely to be persuaded to get the Meningitis B vaccine compared to UCSB

students who scored low on the pro-social behavior inventory. There was also no

significant effect of participant level of pro-social behavior on likelihood of getting

the Meningitis B vaccine, F(1, 72)=1.69, p=.824, and the interaction was non-

significant, F(2,72)=.169, p=.845. Ultimately, the results show that different types of

messages (gain, loss, or control) were neither more or less effective in persuading

participants to obtain the Meningits B vaccine. Additionally, participants’ levels of

pro-social behavior (high, low) did not influence the likelihood of getting the

Meningitis B vaccine from student health. Lastly, pro-social behavior was not a

moderator between message framing and participants’ likelihood of getting vaccine.

8

Message Framing

Discussion

Because there was a Meningits B outbreak on the UCSB campus, we had

hoped to find out what specific message would be most effective in persuading pro-

health behaviors. Consistent with the literature, we predicted a higher likelihood of

obtaining the vaccine with participants in the gain framed messaging compared to

the loss-framed messaging. However, we were unable to reject the first the null

hypothesis. Theories that were previously mentioned refereed to the idea that using

gain-framed messages were more effective in prompting preventative health

measures. However, because we did not find significant results between the gain

and loss framed messages, we must target efforts towards characteristics pertaining

to message recipient (Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey,

Peter 2006).

Consistent with the idea that those who identify with communally based

relationships would display higher levels of pro-social behavior, we also predicted

that students at UCSB who scored highly on a pro-social behavior inventory would

be more likely to get the Meningitis B vaccine compared to students who scored

lower on the pro-social behavior inventory. Similarly to our first hypothesis, we

were unable to reject the second null hypothesis. Stating both the gain and loss

messages in terms of the community did not lead to a significant interaction

between the types of messages participants read and their levels of pro-social

behavior on the likelihood that they would get the vaccine.

There were many limitations that contributed to the outcomes of our study.

The most significant limitation we faced was the fact that many of our participants

9

Message Framing

had already received the Meningitis B vaccine. This could have skewed our results

in the sense that even though some participants scored high on pro-social behavior,

they may have reported that they were “extremely unlikely” to receive the

Meningitis B vaccine. To remedy this, we would have to pool from a sample where

no one received the Meningitis B vaccine. Ultimately, future research should pool

from a larger sample size of individuals who have not received the Meningitis B

vaccine along with compensation. Additionally measures of participant behavior

need to be more accurate. Future research should also consider adding more

conditions that include individual based messages alongside communally based

messages. By doing so, there could potentially be a distinction between the efficacy

of messages characterized towards the individual versus messages characterized by

the community.

Additionally, we pooled our participants from a convenient sample.

Therefore, results from our study ultimately cannot be generalized to the larger

public. To remedy this issue, we would have to take larger strides in collecting a

larger and more representative sample. Additionally, because there was no

monetary compensation for our study, those who participated were probably more

pro-social to begin with. This results in our median split of high and low social

behavior to be less significant. To fix this, we would have to provide some sort form

of compensation for our participants.

Lastly, because our participants’ responses were self-reported, their results

were less accurate than if we had recorded each individual’s pro-social behavior

10

Message Framing

ourselves. In the same manner, we were also unable to see if participants got the

Meningitis B vaccine or not upon completion of the survey.

Ultimately, there is continuing growth in the literature for the efficacy

of message framing. Although this study does not point to any conclusive evidence

as pro-social behavior being a significant mediator, previous studies have shown

other dominant factors in mediating the relationship between message framing and

the enactment of pro-health behaviors. With a more stringent design, future

researchers may be able to find observable and measurable results.

11

Message Framing

References

Clark, M.S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in communal and

and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

51(2), 333-338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.333

Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E. (2007). Using message framing to promote

acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology, 26(6),

745-752. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.6.745

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under

risk Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/617870011?accountid=14522

Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy

behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3

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, 11, 1355–1369. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0324-5234.142.2.4

Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The strategic use of

gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory

can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, S202–220.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037.0562.5234.142.4.2

12

Message Framing

Appendix A

Gain-Framed Message

There are many benefits to getting the Meningitis B Vaccine.

First, if you decide to get the Meningitis B Vaccine, it will increase the

chances of protecting against the contraction and spread of Meningitis

B to your housemates, peers, and friends.

Second, getting the Meningitis B Vaccine will help keep those around

you in good health. Student Health is offering the Meningitis B

Vaccine.

Loss-Framed Message

There are many risks to not getting the Meningitis B Vaccine.

First, if you decide not to get the Meningitis B Vaccine, you run the

risk of contracting and spreading Meningitis B to your housemates,

peers, and friends.

Second, not getting the vaccine might put the health of those around

you at risk. Student Health is offering the Meningitis B Vaccine.

Control Message

Student Health is offering the Meningitis B Vaccine.

13

Message Framing

Appendix B

Social Responsibility Questions:

1. When people are nasty to me, I feel very little responsibility to treat

them well.

2. I would feel less bothered about leaving litter in a dirty park than in

a clean one.

3. No matter what a person has done to us, there is no excuse for

taking advantage of them.

4. With the pressure for grades and the widespread cheating in school

nowadays, the individual who cheats occasionally is not really as

much at fault.

5. It doesn’t make much sense to be very concerned about how we act

when we are sick and feeling miserable.

6. If I broke a machine through mishandling, I would feel less guilty if

it was already damaged before I used it.

7. When you have a job to do, it is impossible to look out for

everybody's best interest.

14

Message Framing

Moral Reasoning Questions:

1. My decisions are usually based on my concern for other people.

2. My decisions are usually based on what is the most fair and just way to

act.

3. I choose alternatives that are intended to meet everybody's needs.

4. I choose a course of action that maximizes the help other people receive.

5. I choose a course of action that considers the rights of all people involved.

6. My decisions are usually based on concern for the welfare of others.

15