Message Frame effects

The positive or negative consequences included in threat appeals can been discussed in terms of gain or loss framed messages (e.g. Edwards et al, 2001). Gain framed messages emphasise the advantages of adopting the recommendation (i.e. specific advantages, or the avoidance of disadvantages, are presented) whereas loss framed messages emphasise the disadvantages of failing to adopt the recommendation (i.e. specific disadvantages, or failure to benefit from advantages, are presented). The general principles of theory relating to message framing is that individuals exposed to a gain framed message will respond differently in terms of cognitive evaluations (e.g. persuasion) to individuals exposed to a loss framed message (Rothman et al, 1999). Whilst a number of studies have demonstrated that gain framed messages are more effective in a general sense (e.g. Cox et al, 2006;

Reinhart et al, 2007) these results have not been consistently upheld across the literature.

Indeed, empirical research has shown that in some cases loss framed messages are more effective than gain framed messages (e.g. Rivers et al, 2005; Schneider et al, 2001).

Equally, a number of research studies have reported no difference between gain framed and loss framed messages in terms of their effectiveness (e.g. Brug et al, 2003; Jones et al, 2004; O'Keefe and Jensen, 2006). That said, rather than adopting generalised measures of effectiveness, the approach taken in the present thesis is to examine the influence of

message frame (namely loss and loss avoidance) on the cognitive and emotional constructs as identified in the new conceptual framework presented in figure 11. First the influence of message frame on anticipated emotions will be examined, second a consideration of the influence of message frame on cognitive appraisals and third, the influence of message frame on immediate emotions.

To recap, anticipated emotions are cognitions about emotions that are expected to be experienced in the future if a certain event does or does not occur (Baumgartner et al,

2008). These evaluations are based on the assumption that an individual engages with mental simulation and therefore imagines how they would feel if the future event were to occur. Essentially anticipated emotions are emotional forecasts based on an imagining of positive or negative consequences. Van T’Riet et al (2010) examined the effectiveness of message frame as mediated by positive or negative emotions. When exposed to a gain framed message, participants reported experiencing positive emotions which correlated with increased acceptance of message and favourable attitude toward the behaviour. In addition, participants who were exposed to a loss framed message, reported increased negative emotions and an increased intention to engage in the recommended behaviour. As such, loss framed messages, where the consequence is by definition negative, will likely generate thoughts associated with the loss occurring, and thus negative anticipated emotions. For example, if the loss frame threat appeal is the threat of serious injury caused by a car crash resulting from speeding. An individual would anticipate the negative emotions they would feel associated with the loss (injuries), for example anticipated fear, shame, humiliation or depressed feelings. Alternatively loss avoidance message frames are positive as they encourage individuals to imagine the emotional experience associated with avoiding a loss.

If a loss avoidance threat appeals depicts a scenario where an individual avoids an accident and severe injuries because they chose to obey the speed limit, an individual would likely anticipate the positive emotions associated with that, for example anticipated relief or hope.

As such,

H1: Loss framed messages will generate negative anticipated emotions.

H2: Loss avoidance framed messages will generate positive anticipated emotions.

There is strong empirical evidence that indicates message frame influences cognitive appraisals. For example, perceptions of severity and susceptibility are widely acknowledged to be generated by loss framed messages (Rothman et al, 2006; Bartels et al, 2010).

Indeed, the perception of risk associated with perceived severity and susceptibility are fundamental to the persuasive mechanism that underpins loss framed messages (Block and Keller, 1995; O’Conner et al, 2005). Indeed, studies have demonstrated that loss framed messages generate perceptions of severity and susceptibility which subsequently created behavioural intentions to engage in behaviours such as flossing (Mann et al, 2004), HPV prevention measures (Block and Keller, 1995) and reduce alcohol consumption (Gerend and Cullen, 2008). However, there is little evidence to suggest that loss avoidance messages influence perceptions of severity and susceptibility, and it seems unlikely that such a causal mechanism would exist. As such it is hypothesised that use of a loss frame

increases perceptions of severity and susceptibility, but no specific hypothesis is drawn here regarding loss avoidance framed messages. To state this more formally:

H3: Loss framed messages increase perceptions of a) severity and b) susceptibility.

Similar to the appraisals discussed above, an individual’s perceived efficacy (both self- efficacy and response efficacy) is also a cognitive appraisal specifically associated with the examination of the action recommendation presented as part of the threat appeal (e.g.

Ruiter et al, 2001; Witte, 1992). In the threat appeals context, response efficacy is an individual’s belief that the recommended action will avert or reduce the threat (Ruiter et al, 2001) and self-efficacy is the belief that an individual is capable of adopting the

recommended response (Witte, 1992). When presented with loss avoidance messages in a threat appeals context, individuals are more likely to have higher self-efficacy and response efficacy, because the message presents the recommended action as an effective means by which to reduce the threat presented (Witte and Allen, 2000). In other words, the loss-avoidance message implies the effectiveness of the recommended action (e.g. slow down when driving) in reducing the threat, meaning the viewer has a clearer path to reducing the threat that is presented. As such,

H4: Loss avoidance messages increase perceptions of a) self-efficacy and b) response efficacy.

Given that the message frame of loss, or loss avoidance, in the threat appeals context focuses on either the advantages of adopting the recommendation (e.g. avoiding a loss) or emphasise the disadvantages of failing to adopt the recommendation (e.g. suffering a loss) respectively, it is unlikely that the message frame will generate an immediate visceral emotional response in individuals (for example the fight or flight fear mechanisms resultant from an immediate threat as outlined in section 4.2.2 and 3.1.2.) Rather, the immediate emotions experienced as a result of message frame manipulations are far more likely to be anticipatory emotions (Baumgartner et al, 2008). Given that the threat is not immediately present when an individual is exposed to a threat appeal, the short term and long term consequences of engaging (or not) in the recommended behaviour (e.g. Gerrend and Cullen, 2008; Apanovitch et al, 2003; Kiene et al, 2005) are important. This is in line with the idea of anticipatory emotions, as these are emotions experienced in the present, but are caused by consideration of the prospect of a future event (Baumgartner et al, 2008). As already discussed in depth, anticipatory emotions are distinct from anticipated emotions, where an individual imagines how they would feel if the future event actually occurred. As

such, anticipatory emotions are based on the uncertainty of future events. For example, an individual may be exposed to a threat appeal and experience anticipatory hope at the time of exposure (i.e. hope for desired events in the future) or anticipatory worry at the time of exposure about undesired events in the future. Baumgartner et al (2008, p686) identify

“hope and fear [as] the prototypical categories of positive and negative anticipatory emotions”. As argued in section 4.2.4 some researchers (e.g. Passyn and Sujan, 2006) have measured what appear to be anticipatory emotions (e.g. fear and hope) but have unfortunately not distinguished them from immediate visceral responses, despite their distinct conceptual nature. Research has shown that loss framed messages generate fear (Witte and Allen, 2000). However, the distinction between anticipatory emotions and visceral immediate responses is not usually clearly determined. As such, it is expected that exposure to a loss framed message will evoke anticipatory fear at the prospect of

experiencing the aversive outcomes integral to the presented loss, therefore;

H5: Loss framed messages will generate fear

Whilst gain framed messages are likely to generate anticipatory hope at the prospect of experiencing a gain as presented in the message (Connor et al, 2012), this is not directly applicable to a threat appeals context. As will be discussed in chapter 5, it is actually not possible to operationalise a truly gain framed threat appeal, and as such loss avoidance appeals are more appropriate. Carrera et al (2012) found that there was a clear increase in positive anticipatory emotions (in their case joy) evoked from a loss avoidance message concerning binge drinking behaviours. The present thesis follows this general logic that loss avoidance messages should generally result in an increase in positive anticipatory

emotions, but in this case (due to the context of investigation discussed in Chapter 5 and elsewhere) it is considered the positive anticipatory emotion of relief is most appropriate (Bagozzi et al, 2003). Thus;

H6: Loss avoidance messages will generate anticipatory relief.