Advertisement

Journal of Genetic Counseling

, Volume 24, Issue 5, pp 771–782 | Cite as

Framing recommendations to promote prevention behaviors among people at high risk: A simulation study of responses to melanoma genetic test reporting

  • Jennifer M. Taber
  • Lisa G. AspinwallEmail author
Original Research

Abstract

A CDKN2A/p16 mutation confers 76 % lifetime risk of developing melanoma to US residents, and high-risk individuals are counseled to use sunscreen. Generally, for patients at population risk, gain framing more effectively promotes prevention behaviors; however, it is unknown whether loss frames might more effectively promote behavioral intentions and perceived control over disease risk among high-risk patients. Undergraduates (N = 146) underwent a simulated genetic counseling and test reporting session for hereditary melanoma. Participants watched a video of a genetic counselor providing information in which genetic risk of melanoma (Low: 15 %; High: 76 %) and framed recommendations to use sunscreen (Loss: Risk may increase by 15 % if don’t use sunscreen; Gain: Risk may decrease by 15 % if use sunscreen) were manipulated. Controlling for baseline sunscreen use, high-risk participants given loss frames reported greater beliefs that sunscreen would reduce risk than high-risk participants given gain frames. Further, high-risk participants with fair skin tended to report greater intentions to use sunscreen when given loss frames versus gain frames. Perceived control over risk mediated the effect of message frame and disease risk on intentions to use sunscreen. When counseling patients with elevated cancer risk, genetic counselors may consider framing prevention behavioral recommendations in terms of potential losses.

Keywords

Reflection effect Message framing Disease risk Perceived control Melanoma Genetic testing Prevention behavior Sunscreen Intentions Response efficacy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The present study was approved by the University of Utah’s Institutional Review Board, and was carried out in accordance with universal ethical principles. We thank Wendy Kohlmann, M.S., C.G.C. for her assistance in reviewing and editing the script and for portraying the genetic counselor in the videotaped genetic counseling simulation. We also thank Karine Agajanian, Andrew Bouwhuis, John Tobias, and Watcharaporn Pengchit for their assistance, and Carol Werner, Ph. D. for her advice on the qualitative analyses. Finally, we would like to thank Bert Uchino, Ph. D. and David Sanbonmatsu, Ph. D. for their feedback as members of the first author’s supervisory committee for the Masters thesis that was the basis for this manuscript.

Jennifer M. Taber and Lisa G. Aspinwall declare that they have no conflict of interest.

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

References

  1. Abhyankar, P., O’Connor, D. B., & Lawton, R. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a loss-frame advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  2. Aspinwall, L. G., Leaf, S. L., Dola, E. R., Kohlmann, W., & Leachman, S. A. (2008). CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting improves early detection intentions and practices in high-risk melanoma families. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 17(6), 1510–1519.Google Scholar
  3. Aspinwall, L. G., Leaf, S. L., Kohlmann, W., Dola, E. R., & Leachman, S. A. (2009). Patterns of photoprotection following CDKN2A/p16 genetic test reporting and counseling. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 60(5), 745–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartels, R. D., Kelly, K. M., & Rothman, A. J. (2010). Moving beyond the function of the health behavior: the effect of message frame on behavioral decision-making. Psychology & Health, 25(7), 821–838.Google Scholar
  5. Bishop, D. T., Demenais, F., Goldstein, A. M., Bergman, W., Bishop, J. N., Bressac-de Paillerets, B., et al. (2002). Geographical variation in the penetrance of CDKN2A mutations for melanoma. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 94(12), 894–903.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(2), 192–203.Google Scholar
  7. Cameron, L. D., Sherman, K. A., Marteau, T. M., & Brown, P. M. (2009). Impact of genetic risk information and type of disease on perceived risk, anticipated affect, and expected consequences of genetic tests. Health Psychology, 28(3), 307–316.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Covey, J. (2014). The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects. Health Psychology, 33(1), 52–65.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18(2), 189–196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Fallah, M., Pukkala, E., Sundquist, K., Tretli, S., Olsen, J. H., Tryggvadottir, L., & Hemminki, K. (2014). Familial melanoma by histology and age: Joint data from five Nordic countries. European Journal of Cancer, 50(6), 1176–1183.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Fagley, N. S. (1993). A note concerning reflection effects versus framing effects. Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 451–452.Google Scholar
  12. Figueiras, M. J., & Alves, N. C. (2007). Lay perceptions of serious illnesses: An adapted version of the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire (IPQ-R) for healthy people. Psychology & Health, 22(2), 143–158.Google Scholar
  13. Frosch, D. L., Mello, P., & Lerman, C. (2005). Behavioral consequences of testing for obesity risk. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 14(6), 1485–1489.Google Scholar
  14. Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101–116.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gandini, S., Sera, F., Cattaruzza, M. S., Pasquini, P., Zanetti, R., Masini, C., et al. (2005). Meta-analysis of risk factors for cutaneous melanoma: III. Family history, actinic damage and phenotypic factors. European Journal of Cancer, 41(14), 2040–2059.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein, A. M., Chan, M., Harland, M., Hayward, N. K., Demenais, F., Bishop, D. T., et al. (2007). Features associated with germline CDKN2A mutations: a GenoMEL study of melanoma-prone families from three continents. Journal of Medical Genetics, 44(2), 99–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based Approach. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  18. Howlader, N., Noone, A.M., Krapcho, M., Garshell, J., Miller, D., Altekruse, S.F., et al. (eds) (2014). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2011, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, https://doi.org/seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2011/, based on November 2013 SEER data submission, posted to the SEER web site.
  19. Jones, L. W., Sinclair, R. C., & Courneya, K. S. (2003). The effects of source credibility and message framing on exercise intentions, behaviors and attitudes: An integration of the elaboration likelihood model and prospect theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 179–196.Google Scholar
  20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  21. Kahneman, D., Tversky, A., & Bazerman, M. H. (2005). Conflict resolution: A cognitive perspective. Negotiation, decision making and conflict management. (pp. 116–134). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typological and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Manne, S., & Lessin, S. (2006). Prevalence and correlates of sun protection and skin self-examination practices among cutaneous malignant melanoma survivors. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(5), 419–434.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2006). Self-regulation and the behavioural response to DNA risk information: A theoretical analysis and framework for future research. Social Science & Medicine, 62(6), 1360–1368.Google Scholar
  25. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Moss-Morris, R., Weinman, J., Petrie, K. J., Horne, R., Cameron, L. D., & Buick, D. (2002). The revised illness perception questionnaire (IPQ-R). Psychology & Health, 17(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  27. National Cancer Institute (2003). What You Need to Know About Melanoma. Retrieved June 29, 2010 from https://doi.org/www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/wyntk/melanoma/allpages
  28. 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(2), 296–316.Google Scholar
  29. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Riggs, A. L., & Giuliano, T. A. (2007). Running in the family or swimming in the gene pool: discriminating between family history and genetic risk in illness perceptions. Journal of Health Psychology, 12(6), 883–894.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., & Keough, K. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29(5), 408–433.Google Scholar
  34. Sanderson, S. C., & Michie, S. (2007). Genetic testing for heart disease susceptibility: potential impact on motivation to quit smoking. Clinical Genetics, 71(6), 501–510.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., Zullo, J., et al. (2001). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20(4), 256–266.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Senior, V., Marteau, T. M., & Weinman, J. (2005). Perceptions of control over heart disease in people with an inherited predisposition to raised cholesterol. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 10(1), 16–30.Google Scholar
  37. Shields, A. E., Lerman, C., & Sullivan, P. F. (2004). Translating emerging research on the genetics of smoking into clinical practice: Ethical and social considerations. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 6(4), 675–688.Google Scholar
  38. Shiloh, S., Ben-Sinai, R., & Keinan, G. (1999). Effects of controllability, predictability, and information-seeking style on interest in predictive genetic testing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1187–1195.Google Scholar
  39. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Updegraff, J. A., & Rothman, A. J. (2013). Health message framing: Moderators, mediators, and mysteries. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(9), 668–679.Google Scholar
  41. Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132(2), 249–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© National Society of Genetic Counselors, Inc. 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of UtahSalt Lake CityUS

Personalised recommendations