Skip to main content

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

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna J. M. Wagner .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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