Promoting Good Behavior: Does Social and Temporal Framing Make a Difference?

Original Paper

Abstract

Social marketing research grows increasingly relevant in the face of persistent modern problems; this study examines how social and temporal framing might influence the effectiveness of social marketing campaigns. By featuring diverse contexts, this study addresses both individual and prosocial behaviors. With a basis in self-referencing and psychological distance research, as well as social dilemma theory, the authors derive hypotheses about social and temporal framing effects. A between-subjects experiment, incorporated into an online survey among a large student sample, reveals the relevance of temporal framing for enhancing intentions to change both individual and prosocial behaviors. Social framing influences behavioral intentions especially in the prosocial condition. The category of behavior determines the effectiveness of social marketing related to that behavior. However, the small effect sizes and lack of globally interpretable effects indicate that social and temporal framing do not make relevant differences in social marketing effectiveness.

Keywords

Experiment Social framing Temporal framing Social marketing effectiveness Social media 

Résumé

Le marketing social gagne de l'importance face aux problèmes sociaux persistants. Cet article examine dans quelle mesure le framing social et le framing temporel ont une influence sur l'effectivité du marketing social. Le comportement individuel ainsi que le comportement prosocial sont analysés en utilisant divers sujets du marketing social. La recherche sur le point de référence, la distance psychologique et les dilemmes sociaux constituent la base des hypothèses. Une expérience incorporée dans un questionnaire en ligne montre l'impact du framing temporel sur l'intention de changer un comportement individuel ou prosocial. Les résultats indiquent que le framing social n'avait un impact que sur l'intention comportementale individuelle. La catégorie de comportement affectue l'efficacité du marketing social. Des effets faibles et le manque d'effets globalement interprétables mettent en lumière que le framing temporel ainsi que le framing social ne jouent pas de rôle décisif quant à l'efficacité du marketing social.

Zusammenfassung

Sozialmarketing gewinnt aufgrund andauernder gesellschaftlicher und sozialer Probleme an Bedeutung. Vor diesem Hintergrund beschäftigt sich die vorliegende Studie damit, inwiefern soziales und zeitliches Framing die Wirksamkeit von Sozialmarketing beeinflussen können. Anhand verschiedener Sozialmarketingthemen wird sowohl individuelles als auch prosoziales Verhalten untersucht. Basierend auf der Forschung zu Selbstreferenz, psychologischer Distanz und sozialen Dilemmata werden Hypothesen zu sozialem und zeitlichem Framing entwickelt. Ein experimentelles Zwischensubjektdesign, welches in eine Online-Befragung eingebettet wurde, zeigt die Bedeutung von zeitlichem Framing sowohl für die Förderung der individuellen als auch der prosozialen Verhaltensänderungsabsicht. Soziales Framing beeinflusst die prosoziale Verhaltensabsicht. Die Art des Verhaltens an sich beeinflusst ebenfalls die Wirksamkeit des Sozialmarketing. Geringe Effektstärken und die mangelnde globale Interpretierbarkeit der Effekte zeigen jedoch, dass soziales und auch zeitliches Framing keine entscheidende Rolle spielen hinsichtlich der Wirksamkeit von Sozialmarketing.

Resumen

El marketing social está ganando importancia frente a problemas sociales persistentes. Este artículo analiza el impacto del framing temporal y del framing social sobre la effectividad del marketing social. El comportamiento individual y el comportamiento prosocial están tratados utilizando differentes sujetos del marketing social. La investigación del punto de referencia, de la distancia psycológica y del dilema social forman la base de las hipótesis. Un experimento incorporado en un cuestionario en línea muestra que el framing temporal tiene un impacto sobre la intención de cambiar un comportamiento individual o prosocial. Los resultados indican que el framing social solamente influye la intención del comportamiento individual. El típo de comportamiento afecta a la effectividad del marketing social. Los pequeños tamaños de efecto y la falta de efectos globales e interpretables indican que el framing social y el framing temporal no tienen un impacto importante a la effectividad del marketing social.

摘要

当今社会正面临着很多持久性的现代问题,在这样的背景下,社会营销学的研究也发展迅速;本实验旨在探究社会和时空框架如何影响社会营销活动的效率。通过对不同背景地分析,该研究讨论了个体行为和亲社会行为。作者在自我参照和心理距离研究以及社会困境理论的基础上,推导出有关社会和时间框架效应的假设。作者通过一个大学生样本的网络调查进行了一次主体间实验,揭示了采用时空框架来增强改变个体和亲社会行为的意图的重要性。社会框架对行为意图的影响在亲社会的情况下更为明显。行为的类别决定了与之相关的社会营销的效率。然而,由于影响规模较小且缺乏全局性的影响,表明社会和时间框架在社会营销中并没有与之相当的影响。

要約

社会的なマーケティングの研究では、ますますの持続的な現代的な問題は、顔には役に立ちます。この研究社会的、社会的時間枠のマーケティングキャンペーンの効果の影響かもしれない方法を考察します。 多様なコンテキストを特色にすることによって、この調査は、個人および 動作アドレス。 自己の参照と心理的な距離研究の基礎と、社会的ジレンマ論と同様、著者は、社会的、時間的な組み立て効果について仮説派生しています。

ملخص

بحث اجتماعي تسويق وتنمو باطراد في ظل استمرار المشاكل المعاصرة, فكيف تبحث هذه الدراسة وضع واجتماعية, زمني قد يؤثر على فاعلية حملات تسويقية الاجتماعي. من سياقات مختلفة تظهر هذه الدراسة تعالج التصرفات الفردية. أساسا في المرجعية الذاتية والنفسية المسافة, وكذلك بحث اجتماعي مأزق والنظرية, في الكتاب عن فرضيات تنجم الاجتماعي, وزمنية صياغة نتائجها.

References

  1. Ajzen, I., & Madden, T. J. (1986). Prediction of goal-directed behavior: Attitudes, intentions, and perceived behavioral control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22(5), 453–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albanese, R., & Van Fleet, D. D. (1985). Rational behavior in groups: The free-riding tendency. Academy of Management Review, 10(2), 244–255.Google Scholar
  3. Andreasen, A. R. (2003). A social marketing research agenda for consumer behavior researchers. Advances in Consumer Research, 20(1), 1–5.Google Scholar
  4. Arthur, D., & Quester, P. (2004). Who’s afraid of that ad? Applying segmentation to the protection motivation model. Psychology & Marketing, 21(9), 671–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bagozzi, R. P. (1981). Attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A test of some key hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(4), 607–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Batson, C. D. (1990). How social an animal? The human capacity for caring. American Psychologist, 45(3), 336–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bellezza, F. S. (1984). The self as a mnemonic device: The role of internal cues. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(3), 506–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bennett, R. (1996). Effects of horrific fear appeals on public attitudes towards AIDS. International Journal of Advertising, 15(3), 183–202.Google Scholar
  11. Biener, L., Ji, M., Gilpin, E. A., & Albers, A. B. (2004). The impact of emotional tone, message, and broadcast parameters in youth anti-smoking advertisements. Journal of Health Communication, 9(3), 259–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradburn, N. M., & Mason, W. M. (1964). The effect of question order on responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 1(4), 57–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnkrant, R. E., & Unnava, H. R. (1995). Effects of self-referencing on persuasion. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, D. T. (1957). Factors relevant to the validity of experiments in social settings. Psychological Bulletin, 54(4), 297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chandran, S., & Menon, G. (2004). When a day means more than a year: Effects of temporal framing on judgments of health risk. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(2), 375–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  18. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cronbach, L. J., Rajaratnam, N., & Gleser, G. C. (1963). Theory of generalizability: A liberalization of reliability theory. British Journal of Statistical Psychology, 16(2), 137–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dawes, R. M. (1980). Social dilemmas. Annual Review of Psychology, 31(1), 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. De Dreu, C. K. W., & McCusker, C. (1997). Gain-loss frames and cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1093–1106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dillman, D. A., & Redline, C. D. (2004). Testing paper self-administered questionnaires: Cognitive interview and field test comparisons. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 299–317). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunlop, S. M., Wakefield, M., & Kashima, Y. (2010). Pathways to persuasion: Cognitive and experiential responses to health-promoting mass media messages. Communication Research, 37(1), 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Edney, J. J. (1980). The commons problem: Alternative perspective. American Psychologist, 35(2), 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ellen, P. S., & Madden, T. J. (1990). The impact of response format on relations among intentions, attitudes, and social norms. Marketing Letters, 1(2), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Entnam, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Feldman, J. M., & Lynch, J. G. (1988). Self-generated validity and other effects of measurement on belief, attitude, intention and behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(3), 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. C. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(2), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. George, J. M. (1992). Extrinsic and intrinsic origins of perceived social loafing in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 191–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gordon, R., McDermott, L., & Hastings, G. (2008). Critical issues in social marketing: A review and research agenda. In A. Sargeant & W. W. Wymer (Eds.), The Routledge companion to nonprofit marketing (pp. 333–346). Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Gould, S. J. (1988). Consumer attitudes towards health and health care: A differential perspective. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 22(1), 96–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenhow, C. (2009). Engaging youth in social media: Is Facebook the new media frontier? A NewsCloud—University of Minnesota Research Report Executive, 1–13.Google Scholar
  33. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis. A global perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. Helmig, B., & Thaler, J. (2010). On the effectiveness of social marketing—what do we really know? Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 22(4), 264–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Igou, E. R. (2008). ‘How long will I suffer?’ versus ‘How long will you suffer?’ A self-other effect in affective forecasting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 899–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Pemberton, M. B., Wieselquist, J., McIlraith, S. A., Currey, D. P., et al. (1998). Long-term outcome maximization and the reduction of interindividual-intergroup discontinuity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 695–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jayanti, R. K., & Burns, A. C. (1998). The antecedents of preventive health care behavior: An empirical study. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26(1), 6–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jones, S. C., & Owen, N. (2006). Using fear appeals to promote cancer screening: Are we scaring the wrong people? International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 11(2), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1996). The motivational impact of temporal focus: Thinking about the future and the past. Annual Review of Psychology, 47(1), 593–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Keller, P. A., & Block, L. G. (1996). Increasing the persuasiveness of fear appeals: The effect of arousal and elaboration. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 448–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. King, K. W., & Reid, L. (1989). Fear arousing anti-drinking and driving PSAs: Do physical injury threats influence young adults? Current Issues & Research in Advertising, 12(1), 155–175.Google Scholar
  45. Klein, S. B., & Loftus, J. (1988). The nature of self-referent encoding: The contributions of elaborative and organizational processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(1), 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Komorita, S. S., & Parks, C. D. (1994). Social dilemmas. Dubuque, IA: Brown.Google Scholar
  47. Kotler, P., & Armstong, G. (2009). Principles of marketing. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  48. Kotler, P., Roberto, N., & Lee, N. (2002). Social marketing—improving the quality of life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Kuiper, N. A., & Rogers, T. B. (1979). Encoding of personal information: Self-other differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(4), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review and two-component model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
  51. Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(2), 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lenhart, A. (2009). Pew internet project data memo. Washington: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  53. Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear communications. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 119–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2), 149–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Lindenmeier, J. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering and message framing. Voluntas—International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Loroz, P. S. (2007). The interaction of message frames and reference points in prosocial persuasive appeals. Psychology and Marketing, 24(11), 1001–1023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mangold, W. G., & Faulds, D. J. (2009). Social media: The new hybrid element of the promotion mix. Business Horizons, 52(4), 357–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (1992). When timing matters: The influence of temporal distance on consumers’ affective and persuasive responses. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Newcomb, M. D., Mercurio, C. S. A., & Wollard, C. A. (2000). Rock stars in anti-drug-abuse commercials: An experimental study of adolescents’ reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(6), 1160–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  61. O’Cass, A., & Griffin, D. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of social issue advertising believability. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 15(1/2), 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peracchio, L. A., & Luna, D. (1998). The development of an advertising campaign to discourage smoking initiation among children and youth. Journal of Advertising, 27(3), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Perdue, B. C., & Summers, J. O. (1986). Checking the success of manipulations in marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(4), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(3), 502–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Perreault, W. D., & Darden, W. R. (1975). Unequal cell sizes in marketing experiments. Journal of Marketing Research, 12(3), 333–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Platt, J. (1973). Social traps. American Psychologist, 28(8), 641–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reardon, J., & Miller, C. (2008). Smoking prevention messages for adolescents: How intensity, valence, and recipient of consequences affect attitude toward the ad and intent to smoke. The Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(1), 67–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale selection and evaluation. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 1–15). San Diego: Gulf Professional Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Roch, S. G., & Samuelson, C. D. (1997). Effects of environmental uncertainty and social value orientation in resource dilemmas. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 70(3), 221–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the health belief model. Health Education and Behavior, 15(2), 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Russell, D. W., & Russell, C. A. (2010). Here or there? Consumer reactions to corporate social responsibility initiatives: Egocentric tendencies and their moderators. Marketing Letters, 21(1), 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  75. Shoham, A., Ruvio, A., Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Schwabsky, N. (2006). Market orientations in the nonprofit and voluntary sector: A meta-analysis of their relationships with organizational performance. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(3), 453–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, S., & Petty, R. E. (1996). Message framing and persuasion: A message processing analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A. (2003). Effects of short-term cosmetic versus long-term health fear appeals in anti-smoking advertisements on the smoking behavior of adolescents. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 3(2), 157–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Smith, K. H., & Stutts, M. A. (2006). The influence of individual factors on the effectiveness of message content in anti-smoking advertisements aimed at adolescents. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 40(2), 261–293. E.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Strathman, A., Gleicher, F., Boninger, D. S., & Edwards, C. S. (1994). The consideration of future consequences: Weighing immediate and distant outcomes of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(4), 742–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Tourangeau, R. (2004). Experimental design considerations for testing and evaluating questionnaires. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. M. E. Lessler, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires (pp. 209–224). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Uhrig, J., Bann, C., Williams, P., & Evans, W. D. (2010). Social networking websites as a platform for disseminating social marketing interventions: An exploratory pilot study. Social Marketing Quarterly, 16(1), 2–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wagner, J. A, I. I. I. (1995). Studies of individualism-collectivism: Effects on cooperation in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 152–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Webb, D. J., Green, C. L., & Brashear, T. G. (2000). Development and validation of scales to measure attitudes influencing monetary donations to charitable organisations. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Weinstein, N. D. (1984). Why it won’t happen to me: Perceptions of risk factors and susceptibility. Health Psychology, 3(5), 431–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. White, K., & Peloza, J. (2009). Self-benefit versus other-benefit marketing appeals: Their effectiveness in generating charitable support. Journal of Marketing, 73(4), 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education and Behaviour, 27(5), 591–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wymer, W. (2010). Rethinking the boundaries of social marketing: Activism or advertising? Journal of Business Research, 63(2), 99–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Wymer, W. (2011). Developing more effective social marketing strategies. Journal of Social Marketing, 1(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhao, G., & Pechmann, C. (2007). The impact of regulatory focus on adolescents’ response to antismoking advertising campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(4), 671–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The John's Hopkins University 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business Administration, Public & Nonprofit ManagementUniversity of MannheimMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations