Skip to main content
Book cover

Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation pp 1–11Cite as

Gewinn- und Verlustframing in der Gesundheitskommunikation

Part of the Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften book series (SRS)

Zusammenfassung

Gewinn- und Verlustframing sind populäre Persuasionsstrategien in der Gesundheitskommunikation und wurden in etlichen Studien zu diversen Gesundheitsrisiken und -verhaltensweisen empirisch untersucht. Während theoretische Ansätze für eine höhere Wirksamkeit von Verlust-Frames sprechen, sind die empirischen Ergebnisse inkonsistent. Meta-analytische Untersuchungen deuten darauf hin, dass Mediatoren und Moderatoren für eine unterschiedliche Effektivität der beiden Framing-Arten entscheidend sind und komplexe Zusammenhänge zwischen den Einflussvariablen berücksichtigt werden sollten.

Schlüsselwörter

  • Framing
  • Gewinne
  • Verluste
  • Gesundheitsverhalten
  • Persuasion

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Literatur

  • Abhyankar, P., O’Connor, D. B., & Lawton, R. (2008). The role of message framing in promoting MMR vaccination: Evidence of a lossframe advantage. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 13, 1–16. doi:10.1080/13548500701235732.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Benz Scott, L., & Curbow, B. (2006). The effect of message frames and CVD risk factors on behavioral outcomes. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30, 582–597. doi:10.5993/AJHB.30.6.5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, D. C. (2004). Risk, communication and health psychology. Berkshire: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosone, L., Martinez, F., & Kalampalikis, N. (2015). The effect of message framing and the nature of the targeted illness on individuals‘ intention to participate in clincial trials. Revue européenne de psychologie appliquée, 65, 171–177.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Bresnahan, M. J., Zhuang, J., & Sun, S. (2013). Influence of smoking norms and gain/loss antismoking messages on young chinese adults. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15, 1564–1571. doi:10.1093/ntr/ntt015.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_2.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario, J., Corker, K. S., & Jelinek, S. (2013). A self-regulatory framework for message framing. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 238–249. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.014.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Covey, J. (2014). The role of dispositional factors in moderating message framing effects. Health Psychology, 33, 52–65. doi:10.1037/a0029305.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Detweiler, J. B., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.18.2.189.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dijksterhuis, A., & Aarts, H. (2003). On wildebeests and humans: The preferential detection of negative stimuli. Psychological Science, 14(1), 14–18. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Dijkstra, A., Rothman, A., & Pietersma, S. (2011). The persuasive effects of framing messages on fruit and vegetable consumption according to regulatory focus theory. Psychology & Health, 26, 1036–1048. doi:10.1080/08870446.2010.526715.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Eilders, C., & Wirth, W. (1999). Die Nachrichtenwertforschung auf dem Weg zum Publikum: Eine experimentelle Überprüfung des Einflusses von Nachrichtenfaktoren bei der Rezeption. Publizistik, 44(1), 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Towards clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43, 51–58. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1993.tb01304.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, K. M., & Updegraff, J. A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annual Behavior Medicine, 43, 101–116. doi:10.1007/s12160-011-9308-7.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1970). The psychophysiological basis of introversion-extraversion. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 8, 249–266. doi:10.1016/0005-7967(70)90069-0.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1972). The structure of the emotions and the limbic system. In R. Porter & J. Knight (Hrsg.), Physiology, emotion & psychosomatic illness (S. 87–120). Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, S. J., & Hong, Y. (2015). Sensation seeking as a moderator of gain- and loss-framed HIV-test promotion message effects. Journal of Health Communication, 0, 1–10. doi:10.1080/10810730.2015.1033113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutter, R. R. C., Lawton, R., Pals, E., O’Connor, D. B., & McEachan, R. R. C. (2015). Tackling student binge drinking: Pairing incongruent messages and measures reduces alcohol consumption. British Journal of Health Psychology, 20, 498–513. doi:10.1111/bjhp.12111.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 193–206. doi:10.1257/jep.5.1.193.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Kanouse, D. E. (1984). Explaining negativity biases in evaluation and choice behavior: Theory and research. In T. C. Kinnear (Hrsg.), Advances in consumer research (Bd. 11, S. 703–708). Provo: Association for Consumer Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, H. J. (2012). The effects of gender and gain versus loss frame on processing breast cancer screening messages. Communication Research, 39, 385–412. doi:10.1177/0093650211406707.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330–334. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.23.3.330.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.500.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Nan, X. (2007). The relative persuasive effect of gain- versus lossframed messages: Exploring the moderating role of the desirability of end-states. Journalism Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 509–524. doi:10.1177/107769900708400307.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, D. B., Ferguson, E., & O’Connor, R. C. (2005). Intentions to use hormonal male contraception: The role of message framing, attitudes and stress appraisals. British of Journal Psychology, 96, 351–369. doi:10.1348/000712605X49114.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J. (2012). From psychological theory to message design: Lessons from the story of gain-framed and loss-framed persuasive messages. In H. Cho (Hrsg.), Health communication message design: Theory, research, and practice (S. 3–20). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J., & Nan, X. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27, 776–783. doi:10.1080/10410236.2011.640974.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The advantages of compliance or the disadvantages of non-compliance? A meta-analytic review of the relative persuasive effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages. In C. S. Beck (Hrsg.), Communication yearbook 30 (S. 1–43). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease detection behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2008). Do loss-framed persuasive messages engender greater message processing than do gain-framed messages? A meta-analytic review. Communication Studies, 59, 51–67. doi:10.1080/10510970701849388.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 296–316. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01417.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Peeters, G., & Czapinski, J. (1990). Positive-negative asymmetry in evaluations: The distinction between affective and informational negativity effects. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Hrsg.), European review of social psychology (S. 33–60). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3–19.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A. J., & Updegraff, J. A. (2010). Specifying when and how gain- and loss-framed messages motivate healthy behavior: An integrated approach. In G. Keren (Hrsg.), Perspectives on Framing (S. 257–278). London: Psychology Press/Taylor & Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey, P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed messages on interest in and use of different types of health behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1355–1369. doi:10.1177/0146167299259003.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2013). The effects of message features: content, structure, and style. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Hrsg.), The SAGE handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (S. 20–35). Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2009). Message frames interact with motivational systems to determine depth of message processing. Health Communication, 24, 504–514. doi:10.1080/10410230903104897.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Sherman, D. K., Mann, T., & Updegraff, J. A. (2006). Approach/avoidance motivation, message framing, and health behavior: Understanding the congruency effect. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 164–168. doi:10.1007/s11031-006-9001-5.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131–142. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.1.131.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453–458.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Uskul, A. K., Sherman, D. K., & Fitzgibbon, J. (2009). The cultural congruency effect: Culture, regulatory focus, and the effectiveness of gain- vs. loss-framed health messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 535–541. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.12.005.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Wansink, B., & Pope, L. (2014). When do gain-framed health messages work better than fear appeals? Nutrition Reviews, 73, 4–11. doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuu010.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T., Clarke, V., & Borland, R. (2001). Effects of message framing on breast-cancer-related beliefs and behaviors: The role of mediating factors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 925–995. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02656.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2012). Emotion, motivation, and the persuasive effects of message framing. Journal of Communication, 62, 682–700. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01655.x.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  • Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2009). Regulatory focus and message framing: A test of three accounts. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 435–443. doi:10.1007/s11031-009-9148-y.

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Medien, Wissen und Kommunikation, Universität Augsburg, Universitätsstr. 10, 86159, Augsburg, Deutschland

    Anna J. M. Wagner

Authors
  1. Anna J. M. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna J. M. Wagner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophische Fakultät, Universität Erfurt, Erfurt, Germany

    Constanze Rossmann

  2. Dortmund, Germany

    Matthias R. Hastall

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this entry

Cite this entry

Wagner, A.J.M. (2017). Gewinn- und Verlustframing in der Gesundheitskommunikation. In: Rossmann, C., Hastall, M. (eds) Handbuch Gesundheitskommunikation. Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10948-6_42-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-10948-6_42-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-10948-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-10948-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Referenz Sozialwissenschaften & Recht