|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
|
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 22, No. 3,
257-268 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167296223004
© 1996 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.
Message Framing and Persuasion: A Message Processing Analysis
Stephen M. Smith
North Georgia College, ssmith{at}nug-get.ngc.peachneLedu
Richard E. Petty
Ohio State University, petty.1{at}osu.edu
Previous research has indicated that the way in which a message is framed affects the amount of persuasion it elicits. Various processes have been suggested to account for the differential persuasiveness of negatively (or loss-) framed messages versus positively (or gain-) framed messages. The authors hypothesized that differential processing of negatively and positively framed messages is a factor that contributes to the differential persuasiveness that has been observed. Experiment 1 demonstrated that message frames are consequential in determining the extent to which a message is scrutinized. Experiment 2 provided evidence for a mechanism by which this occurs. Specifically, by manipulating the expected framing and the actual framing of messages, the authors found that either negatively or positively framed messages could lead to more extensive processing, depending on which was less expected.

CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:

|
 |

|
 |
 
T. R. Schneider
Getting the Biggest Bang for Your Health Education Buck: Message Framing and Reducing Health Disparities
American Behavioral Scientist,
February 1, 2006;
49(6):
812 - 822.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
M.-D. L. Seidel and J. D. Westphal
Research Impact: How Seemingly Innocuous Social Cues in a CEO Survey Can Lead to Change in Board of Director Network Ties
Strategic Organization,
August 1, 2004;
2(3):
227 - 270.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
L. M. Evans and R. E. Petty
Self-Guide Framing and Persuasion: Responsibly Increasing Message Processing to Ideal Levels
Pers Soc Psychol Bull,
March 1, 2003;
29(3):
313 - 324.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. Ziegler, M. Diehl, and A. Ruther
Multiple Source Characteristics and Persuasion: Source Inconsistency as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny
Pers Soc Psychol Bull,
April 1, 2002;
28(4):
496 - 508.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
S. J. Blumberg
Guarding against Threatening HIV Prevention Messages: An Information-Processing Model
Health Educ Behav,
December 1, 2000;
27(6):
780 - 795.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
R. J. Donovan and G. Jalleh
Positive versus Negative Framing of a Hypothetical Infant Immunization: The Influence of Involvement
Health Educ Behav,
February 1, 2000;
27(1):
82 - 95.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|

|
 |

|
 |
 
A. J. Rothman, S. C. Martino, B. T. Bedell, J. B. Detweiler, and P. Salovey
The Systematic Influence of Gain-and Loss-Framed Messages on Interest in and Use of Different Types of Health Behavior
Pers Soc Psychol Bull,
November 1, 1999;
25(11):
1355 - 1369.
[Abstract]
[PDF]
|
 |
|
|