Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

An Erratum to this article was published on 29 January 2013

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  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.

References

  1. Healthy People 2020. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. Available at http://healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/default.aspx. Accessibility verified April 4, 2011.

  2. Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997; 121: 3–19.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 211: 453–458.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Myers RE. Promoting healthy behaviors: How do we get the message across? Int J Nurs Stud. 2010; 47: 500–512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 1–16

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. *Apanovitch AM, McCarthy D, Salovey P. Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychol. 2003; 22: 60–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. *Arora R. Message framing and credibility: Application in dental services. Health Mark Q. 2000; 18: 29–44

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. *Arora R, Arora A. The impact of message framing and credibility finding for nutritional guidelines. Service Mark Q. 2004; 26(1): 35–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. *Arora R, Stoner C, Arora A. Using framing and credibility to incorporate exercise and fitness in individuals’ lifestyle. J Cons Mark. 2006; 23: 199–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. *Banks SM, Salovey P, Greener S, et al. The effects of message framing on mammography utilization. Health Psychol. 1995; 14: 178–184

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. *Bannon K, Schwartz MB. Impact of nutrition messages on children’s food choice: Pilot study. Appetite. 2006; 46: 124–129

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 821–838

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. *Benz Scott L, Curbow B. The effect of message frames and CVD risk factors on behavioral outcomes. Am J Health Behav. 2006; 30: 582–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. *Berry T, Carson V. Ease of imagination, message framing and physical activity messages. Br J Health Psychol. 2010; 15: 197–211

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 192–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. *Broemer P. Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: The influence of ambivalence. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2002; 32: 685–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. *Broemer P. Ease of imagination moderates reactions to differently framed health messages. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2004; 34: 103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. *Brug J, Ruiter JA, van Assema P. The (ir)relevance of framing nutrition education messages. Nutr Health. 2003; 17: 9–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. *Chang CT. Beating the news blues: Mood repair through exposure to advertising. J Commun. 2006; 56: 198–217

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. *Chang CT. Health-care product advertising: The influences of message framing and perceived product characteristics. Psychol Mark. 2007; 24: 143–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. *Cho H, Boster FJ. Effects of gain versus loss frame antidrug ads on adolescents. J Commun. 2008; 58: 428–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 550–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. *Cox AD, Cox D, Zimet G. Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. Am Market Assoc. 2006; 70: 79–91

    Google Scholar 

  29. *Cox DS, Cox AD. Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. J Mark. 2001; 65(3): 91–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 189–196

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. *Finney LJ, Iannotti RJ. Message framing and mammography screening: A theory-driven intervention. Behav Med. 2002; 28: 5–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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)

    Google Scholar 

  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: 145–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. *Gerend MA, Cullen M. Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2008; 44: 1167–1173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 431–444

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. *Goodall C, Appiah O. Adolescents’ perceptions of Canadian cigarette package warning labels: Investigating the effects of message framing. Health Commun. 2008; 23: 117–127

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 553–559

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 189–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 505–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. *Keller PA, Lipkus IM, Rimer BK. Affect, framing, and persuasion. J Mark Res. 2003; 40: 54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 675–686

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 183–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 659–681

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. *Lauver D, Rubin M. Message framing, dispositional optimism, and follow-up for abnormal Papanicolaou tests. Res Nurs Health. 1990; 13: 199–207

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. *Lawatsch DE. A comparison of two teaching strategies on nutrition knowledge, attitudes and food behavior of preschool children. J Nutr Educ. 1990; 22: 117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 205–218

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. *Lee CKC, Brown R, Blood D. The effects of efficacy, cognitive processing and message framing on persuasion. Australas Mark J. 2000; 8: 5–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 729–730

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 64–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. *Looker A, Shannon B. Threat vs. benefit appeals: Effectiveness in adult nutrition education. J Nutr Educ. 1984; 16: 173–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 344–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. *Maheswaran D, Meyers-Levy J. The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Mark Res. 1990; 27: 361–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 330–334

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 122–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 624–628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 569–573

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  59. *Millar MG, Millar KU. Promoting safe driving behaviors: The influence of message framing and issue involvement. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2000; 30: 853–866

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1267–1275

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 1039–1050

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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: 509–524

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 351–369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 196–204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. *Ramirez A. Social influence and ethnicity of the communicator. J Soc Psychol. 1977; 102: 209–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 1179–1186

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 65–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. *Robberson MR, Rogers RW . Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1988; 18: 277–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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): 1355–1369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 408–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 256–266

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. *Schneider T, Salovey P, Pallonen U, et al. Visual and auditory message framing effects on tobacco smoking. J Appl Soc Psychol. 2001; 31: 667–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  74. *Sherman DK, Mann T, Updegraff JA. Approach/avoidance orientation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motiv Emot. 2006; 30: 165–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 2439–2464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 534–544

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 38–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 107–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. *Umphrey LR. The effects of message framing and message processing on testicular self-examination attitudes and perceived susceptibility. Commun Res Rep. 2003; 20: 97–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 249–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 126–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 535–541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 435–442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: 339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 165–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 925–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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: 692–699

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Purewal S, van den Akker OBA. A study of the effect of message framing on oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2009; 24: 3136–3143.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Hedges LV, Vevea JL. Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods. 1998; 4: 486–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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

    Google Scholar 

  103. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994; 50: 1088–1101.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  104. Sterne JA, Gavaghan D, Egger M. Publication and related bias in meta-analysis. J Clin Epi. 2000; 53: 1119–1129

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  105. Rosenthal R. The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychol Bull. 1979; 86: 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. McCaul KD, Glasgow RE, Gustafson C. Predicting levels of preventive dental behaviors. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985; 111: 601–605.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Pitiphat W, Garcia RI, Douglass CW, Joshipura KJ. Validation of self-reported oral health measures. J Public Health Dent. 2007; 62: 122–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Armitage CJ, Conner M. Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analytic review. Br J Soc Psychol. 2001; 40: 471–499.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  123. Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Meta-analytic procedures for combining studies with multiple effect sizes. Psychol Bull. 1986; 99: 400–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  128. Stuart AE, Blanton H. The effects of message framing on behavioral prevalence assumptions. Eur J of Soc Psychol. 2003; 33: 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Kent State University, Kent, OH, 44242-0001, USA

    Kristel M. Gallagher M.A. & John A. Updegraff Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Kristel M. Gallagher M.A.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John A. Updegraff Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristel M. Gallagher M.A..

Additional information

References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

About this article

Cite this article

Gallagher, K.M., Updegraff, J.A. Health Message Framing Effects on Attitudes, Intentions, and Behavior: A Meta-analytic Review. ann. behav. med. 43, 101–116 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation