Advertisement

Framing-Effekte im Gesundheitsbereich

  • Christian von SikorskiEmail author
  • Jörg Matthes
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Dem spezifischen Framing von persuasiven Botschaften im Gesundheitsbereich kommt eine große Bedeutung zu, da solche Kommunikate relevante Einflüsse auf erwünschte sowie gesundheitsförderliche Verhaltensweisen von Individuen hervorrufen können. Der Beitrag differenziert zunächst zwischen Äquivalenz- und Betonungs-Framing und zeigt deren Relevanz in der Gesundheitskommunikation. Der Schwerpunkt liegt im Folgenden auf den in der Literatur zur Gesundheitskommunikation bisher weniger beachteten Betonungs-Frames. Basierend auf einer Diskussion von zentralen Befunden werden anschließend Anregungen für die zukünftige Forschung gegeben.

Schlüsselwörter

Framing-Effekte Gewinn- und Verlustframe Betonungs-Frame Verantwortungszuschreibung Prospect theory 

Literatur

  1. Barry, C. L., Brescoll, V. L., & Gollust, S. E. (2013). Framing childhood obesity: How individualizing the problem affects public support for prevention. Political Psychology, 34(3), 327–349.  https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cacciatore, M. A., Scheufele, D. A., & Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it…and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7–23.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2015.1068811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman, R., Thorson, E., & Wilkins, L. (2011). Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 941–954.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2011.561918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cotten, S. R., & Gupta, S. S. (2004). Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Social Science & Medicine, 59(9), 1795–1806.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Covey, J., Matthews, E., & Pill, R. (2001). Presenting risk information – A review of the effects of „framing“ and other manipulations on patient outcomes. Journal of Health Communication, 6(1), 61–82.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730150501413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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, 101–106.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Haack, G., von Sikorski, C., Hänelt, M., & Schierl, T. (2018). Onlineinformationen zur Förderung einer informierten Entscheidung über die Teilnehme an einer Darmkrebsfrüherkennung. Evaluation und Rezeptionsanalyse eines Themenmoduls auf dem Frauen- und Männergesundheitsportal der Bundeszentrale für gesundheitliche Aufklärung (BZgA). Bundesgesundheitsblatt.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-018-2841-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iyengar, S. (1991). Is anyone responsible? How television frames political issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim S. J., & Niederdeppe, J. (2014). Emotional expressions in antismoking television advertisements: consequences of anger and sadness framing on pathways to persuasion. Journal of Health Communication, 19(6), 692–709.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.837550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kim, S.-H., & Willis, L. A. (2007). Talking about obesity: News framing of who is responsible for causing and fixing the problem. Journal of Health Communication, 12(4), 359–376.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701326051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lwin, M. O., Ho, S. S., Younbo, J., Leng, T. Y., Wardoyo, R. J., & Jung, K. H. (2016). Effects of exergaming and message framing in school environments on physical activity attitudes and intentions of children and adolescents. Journal of Health Communication, 21(9), 969–978.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1153759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Major, L. H. (2009). Break it to me harshly: The effects of intersecting news frames in lung cancer and obesity coverage. Journal of Health Communication, 14(2), 174–188.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730802659939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Matthes, J. (2007). Framing-Effekte. Zum Einfluss der Politikberichterstattung auf die Einstellungen der Rezipienten. Munich: Fischer.Google Scholar
  16. Matthes, J. (2010). Frames in political communication: Toward clarification of a research program. In S. Allan (Hrsg.), Rethinking communication: Keywords in communication research (S. 123–136). Cresskill: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
  17. Matthes, J. (2012). Framing politics: An integrative approach. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(3), 247–259.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211426324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthes, J. (2014). Framing. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  19. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mokdad, A. H., Marks, J. S., Stroup, D. F., & Gerberding, J. L. (2004). Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291(10), 1238–1245.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.291.10.1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Noar, S. M. (2006). A 10-year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? Journal of Health Communication, 11(1), 21–42.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730500461059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). 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. Communication Yearbook, 30, 1–43.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15567419cy3001_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encountering disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623–644.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2009). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encountering disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication, 59(7), 296–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Price, V., & Tewksbury, D. (1997). News values and public opinion: A theoretical account of media priming and framing. In G. A. Barett & F. J. Boster (Hrsg.), Progress in communication sciences: Advances in persuasion (Bd. 13, S. 173–212). Greenwich: Ablex.Google Scholar
  26. Riles, J. M., Sanglang, A., Hurley, R. J., & Tewksbury, D. (2015). Framing cancer for online news: Implications for popular perceptions of cancer. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 1018–1040.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rimer, B. K., & Kreuter, M. W. (2006). Advancing tailored health communication: A persuasion and message effects perspective. Journal of Communication, 56(1), 184–201.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00289.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Scheufele, D. A., & Tewksbury, D. (2007). Framing, agenda setting, and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 9–20.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00326.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shen, L. (2010). The effect of message frame in anti-smoking public service announcements on cognitive response and attitude toward smoking. Health Communication, 25(1), 11–21.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10410230903473490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. von Sikorski, C., & Schierl, T. (2012). Effects of news frames on recipients’ information processing in disability sports. Journal of Media Psychology, 24(3), 113–123.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-1105/a000069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sikorski, C. von, & Knoll, J. (2019). Framing political scandals: Exploring the multimodal effects of isolation cues in scandal news coverage on candidate evaluations and voting intentions. International Journal of Communication, 13, 206–228.Google Scholar
  33. Smith, R. A. (2007). Media depictions of health topics: Challenge and stigma formats. Journal of Health Communication, 12(3), 233–249.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701266273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sniderman, P., Brody, R., & Tetlock, P. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Webb, M. S., Baker, E. A., & Rodriguez de Ybarra, D. (2010). Effects of culturally specific cessation messages on theoretical antecedents of behavior among low-income African American smokers. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 24(2), 333–341.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fachbereich PsychologieUniversität Koblenz-LandauLandauDeutschland
  2. 2.Advertising and Media Effects Research Group, Institut für Publizistik- und KommunikationswissenschaftUniversität WienWienÖsterreich

Personalised recommendations