Abstract
Consumers’ purchasing choices are highly sensitive to the way product message is presented. However, it is unclear how consumers’ sense of power interacts with the framed message to influence their decision to purchase. Based on the approach-inhibition theory of power, the present research investigates this question by manipulating power with different experimental paradigms across three studies (a role-imagination task in Study 1, a semantic priming task in Study 2, and a self-designed advertising post in Study 3). The results consistently revealed that the high-power consumers reported greater intention to purchase a product in response to a gain-framed message than a loss-framed message; conversely, the low-power consumers reported greater purchase intention in response to a loss-framed message than a gain-framed message. The present findings contribute to the literature on the individual differences in the message framing effect, and provide helpful insights for developing advertising strategies based on consumers’ power state.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1362–1377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362
Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324
Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). How regulatory fit affects value in consumer choices and opinions. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.1.1
Baek, T. H., & Yoon, S. (2017). Guilt and shame: Environmental message framing effects. Journal of Advertising, 46(3), 440–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1321069
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980
Chang, C. (2007). Interactive effects of message framing, product perceived risk, and mood: The case of travel healthcare product advertising. Journal of Advertising Research, 47(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0021849907070067
Chang, C. (2010). Message framing and interpersonal orientation at cultural and individual levels: Involvement as a moderator. International Journal of Advertising: The Quarterly Review of Marketing Communications, 29(5), 765–794. https://doi.org/10.2501/S0265048710201452
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A. Y., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationship orientation as a moderator of the effects of social power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173
Choi, C., & Mattila, A. S. (2014). The effects of promotion framing on consumers' price perceptions: The moderating role of a personal sense of power. Journal of Service Management, 25(1), 149–160. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-11-2012-0234
Covey, J. (2014). The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects. Health Psychology, 33(1), 52–65. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029305
Dodds, W. B., Monroe, K. B., & Grewal, D. (1991). Effects of price, brand, and store information on buyers’ product evaluations. Journal of Marketing Research, 28(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172866
Dubois, D., Rucker, D. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Super size me: Product as a signal of status. Journal of Consumer Research, 38(6), 1047–1062. https://doi.org/10.1086/661890
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E. (2007). Using message framing to promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine. Health Psychology, 26(6), 745–752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.6.745
Guinote, A. (2017). How power affects people: Activating, wanting, and goal seeking. Annual Review of Psychology, 68, 353–381. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010416-044153
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280
Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 1–46). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60381-0
Inesi, M. E. (2010). Power and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 112, 58–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.01.001
Ito, T. A., Larsen, J. T., Smith, N. K., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1998). Negative information weighs more heavily on the brain: the negativity bias in evaluative categorizations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(4), 887–900. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.887
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2), 265–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265
Kim, C. S., & Aggarwal, P. (2016). The customer is king: Culture-based unintended consequences of modern marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 33(3), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2015-1273
Krishnamurthy, P., Carter, P., & Blair, E. (2001). Attribute framing and goal framing effects in health decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 382–399. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2962
Lauriola, M., Russo, P. M., Lucidi, F., Violani, C., & Levin, I. P. (2005). The role of personality in positively and negatively framed risky health decisions. Personality and Individual Differences, 38, 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2004.03.020
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. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1998.2804
Li, X., Jain, S. S., Shen, Y. A., & Jain, S. P. (2021). Power and message framing: the case of comparative advertising. Customer Needs and Solutions, 8(1), 41–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s40547-020-00110-9
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008). 8 social hierarchy: The self-reinforcing nature of power and status. Academy of Management annals, 2(1), 351–398. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211628
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x
Putrevu, S. (2010). An examination of consumer responses toward attribute- and goal-framed messages. Journal of Advertising, 39(3), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367390301
Roy, R., & Sharma, P. (2015). Scarcity appeal in advertising: Exploring the moderating roles of need for uniqueness and message framing. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 349–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018459
Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Dubois, D. (2012). Power and consumer behavior: How power shapes who and what consumers value. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 352–368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2011.06.001
Shen, F., & Chen, Q. (2007). Contextual priming and applicability: Implications for ad attitude and brand evaluations. Journal of Advertising, 36(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.2753/JOA0091-3367360105
Shen, F., Sheer, V. C., & Li, R. (2015). Impact of narratives on persuasion in health communication: A meta-analysis. Journal of Advertising, 44(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1018467
Smith, G. E. (1996). Framing in advertising and the moderating impact of consumer education. Journal of Advertising Research, 36(5), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1996.tb00388.x
Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H., & Dijksterhuis, A. P. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2), 378–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.1.67
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683
Whitson, J. A., Liljenquist, K. A., Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Cadena, B. (2013). The blind leading: Power reduces awareness of constraints. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(3), 579–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.009
Yoon, H. J., & Carrie, L. F. (2018). Saving behavior messaging: Gain/loss framing, self/family orientations, and individual differences in Collectivism. Journal of Advertising, 47(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2017.1408507
Zhang, Y., & Buda, R. (1999). Moderating effects of need for cognition on responses to positively versus negatively framed advertising messages. Journal of Advertising, 28(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.1999.10673580
Zou, X., Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2020). Risk preference: How decision maker’s goal, current value state, and choice set work together. Psychological Review, 127(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000162
Data availability
All data without identifiable information for all three studies are posted as a supplement online at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/yxb5p/?view_only=068097a0c2c142d2ad7a8fd3cac2eb5b).
Funding
This research was supported by Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of Ministry of Education of China (Grant No. 20YJC190033).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Z.Z. developed the study concept. S.W. conducted Study 1, and L.H. conducted Study 2 and Study 3. L.H. analyzed and interpreted the data under supervision of Z.Z. . L.H. provided the first draft of the manuscript. Z.Z provided critical revisions of the manuscript. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in this study.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committee, with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Conflicts of interest/Competing interests
Authors declare no potential conflict of interest or competing financial interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
ESM 1
(DOCX 920 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huang, L., Wu, S. & Zou, Z. Power and message framing: An examination of consumer responses toward goal-framed messages. Curr Psychol 42, 16766–16775 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02930-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02930-5