The Effects of Gain- and Loss-Framed Advice Messages on Recipients’ Responses to Advice

Abstract

Features of advice messages have received considerable attention in prior research, but the framing of advice has remained underexplored. This study examined the influence of advice message framing (i.e., gain-framed message vs. loss-framed message) on recipients’ responses to advice in terms of evaluation of advice quality, facilitation of coping, and intention to implement advice. The mediating roles of regard for face and efficacy were also assessed. A total of 605 participants read and responded to a hypothetical conversation in which they received advice from a friend. Results indicated that gain-framed advice messages elicited higher evaluations of advice quality and higher perceptions of facilitation of coping in comparison with loss-framed advice messages. Recipient’s perceptions of the advice-giver’s regard for face mediated the impact of framing on evaluation of advice quality and facilitation of coping.

Keywords

gain-framed message loss-framed message regard for face response efficacy self-efficacy advice quality facilitation of coping intention to implement advice

Advice is a piece of recommendation “about what might be thought, said, or done to manage a problem” (MacGeorge, Feng, & Thompson, 2008, p. 145). Offering advice is a common way to respond to others who are experiencing difficult or stressful situations (Feng & Magen, 2016; Koenig, 2011; Lomi, Lusher, Pattison, & Robins, 2013; Reid, Schmied, & Beale, 2010). Within the field of communication, advice is commonly considered a type of informational support (for a review, see MacGeorge, Feng, & Burleson, 2011). Although advice has the potential to be supportive, helpful, and caring, it can also be seen as intrusive, rude, and critical of the recipient’s competence (Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Lehman, Ellard, & Wortman, 1986; MacGeorge et al., 2008).

Prior research on advice in supportive interactions (Feng & Burleson, 2006; MacGeorge, Feng, Butler, & Budarz, 2004; MacGeorge, Graves, Feng, Gillihan, & Burleson, 2004; MacGeorge, Guntzviller, Hanasono, & Feng, 2016) suggests three relevant criteria to assess the effectiveness of advice: advice recipient’s perception of advice quality, perceived facilitation of coping, and intention to follow advice. These three advice outcomes have been treated in past research as related but also somewhat parallel indicators of the effectiveness of advice giving in the context of interpersonal supportive interactions (e.g., Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge, Feng, et al., 2004). Given that the central function of supportive interactions is to provide assistance to an individual coping with a problematic situation, the primary goal of advice-giving in this context should be to facilitate the individual’s coping and to offer sensitive and appropriate advice. Therefore, perceived advice quality and facilitation of coping are arguably more prominent criteria than intention to follow advice.

Much research has investigated what factors may influence recipient responses to advice. These factors include features of advice message (e.g., facework, argumentation), the relationship between advice-giver and recipient (e.g., prior influence, closeness), advice-giver characteristics (e.g., expertise, trustworthiness, likability), recipient characteristics (e.g., gender, cultural orientations), as well as contextual factors such as problem severity and sequential placement of advice in supportive interactions (Feng, 2009, 2014; for a review, see MacGeorge et al., 2011). Advice research conducted by communication scholars has focused particularly on features of advice messages as an influence on advice outcomes (Feng & Burleson, 2008; Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge, Feng, et al., 2004). However, one aspect of message feature that has not been empirically studied in the advice literature is message framing.

Gain-framed messages (i.e., messages emphasizing the benefits of taking action) and loss-framed messages (i.e., messages emphasizing the costs of failing to take action) have been extensively examined in terms of their persuasive impact in the context of health communication (see Gallagher & Updegraff, 2012; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007; Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006). Advice can also be regarded as a form of persuasive communication (Arora, Finney Rutten, Gustafson, Moser, & Hawkins, 2007; Feng & Burleson, 2006), as it also involves an attempt to influence message recipients in terms of their attitude or behavior change (Perloff, 2010). From the perspective of persuasion, the theoretical framework of gain/loss message framing can thus be suitably applied to the study of advice in interpersonal supportive conversations.

Meanwhile, prior research on gain/loss framing has primarily focused on impersonal, mediated communication such as brochures or pamphlets where the message sender is not a specific individual but rather an entity. Given that face is the desired image one wants to project in a relational context, face concerns would be more salient in interpersonal conversations. By investigating the mediating roles of regard for face in the context of interpersonal advice, the current study extends the theorizing and application of gain/loss framing.

Gain-/Loss-Framings as a Feature of Advice Message

The message framing postulate was built on the basic tenets of prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981). According to prospect theory, individuals’ decisions are contingent on how information is represented, and more specifically, how the information is framed. Prospect theory assumes that the probability and value of possible results as well as the manner in which the probability is represented play a significant role in decision making (Detweiler, Bedell, Salovey, Pronin, & Rothman, 1999). The theory provides a theoretical foundation for research on message framing effects (Murphy, Rosenman, Yoder, & Friesner, 2011).

Studies on persuasion have examined the role that message framing plays in the processing of persuasive messages and identified two types of message framing: gain-framed messages and loss-framed messages (Lee & Aaker, 2004). Gain-framed messages accentuate the benefits or desirable aspects of performing a behavior, while loss-framed messages highlight the losses or undesirable aspects of not performing a behavior. Gain- and loss-framed messages are further categorized into two forms (Detweiler et al., 1999; Rothman & Salovey, 2007): (a) gain-framed message with attaining desirable outcome (“If you perform the advocated action, desirable outcome X will be obtained”); (b) gain-framed message with avoiding undesirable outcome (“If you perform the advocated action, undesirable outcome Y will be avoided”); (c) loss-framed message with not obtaining desirable outcome (“If you do not perform the advocated action, desirable outcome X will not be obtained”); and (d) loss-framed message with obtaining undesirable outcome (“If you do not perform the advocated action, undesirable outcome Y will be obtained;” O’Keefe & Jensen, 2007, p. 624).

Most prior research on gain/loss message framing has been conducted in the context of health communication. This research shows that gain-framed messages tend to be more persuasive in enhancing disease prevention behaviors such as using condoms, sunscreen, and dental floss (for reviews, see Gerend & Cullen, 2008; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009). On the other hand, loss-framed messages are more effective at promoting disease detection such as HIV testing and mammography (e.g., Cox & Cox, 2001; Ferrer, Klein, Zajac, Land, & Ling, 2012; Finney & Iannoti, 2002; Gallagher, Updegraff, Rothman, & Sims, 2011; see Rothman et al., 2006). These findings suggest that gain-framed messages may be more effective than loss-framed messages in persuading people to engage in relatively low-risk behaviors (i.e., disease prevention behaviors), whereas loss-framed messages outperform gain-framed messages in persuading people to engage in higher risk behaviors (e.g., cancer screening that has potentially significant side effects; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006). According to prospect theory, when individuals consider potential losses afforded by their decision, they are more likely to pursue a risky course of action, whereas they are predisposed to be more risk averse when considering potential gains from their decision (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; Rothman et al., 2006; Rothman & Salovey, 1997).

Risk level can be a theoretically relevant factor in the context of interpersonal advice. Of particular relevance to this study is advice in supportive interactions that involves relatively “low-risk” behaviors (e.g., problems at work or in a personal relationship) rather than extraordinarily dangerous or life-threatening emergencies. In this regard, past research findings showing the utility of gain-framed messages in promoting relatively low-risk health behaviors are translatable to the current study.

In the current study, we proposed and tested a theoretical framework that may provide insight into the mechanism underlying the association between advice message framing and recipient responses in interpersonal supportive interactions. Gain- and loss-framed advice messages may differently influence the recipient’s response to advice through perceived regard for face and efficacy. From the perspective of supportive communication, a message recipient’s perception of an advice giver’s regard for face is a significant factor influencing the recipient’s response to messages (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000); from the perspective of persuasion, efficacy is an important consideration shaping the recipient’s responses (see O’Keefe, 2015). The two mechanisms are explained in detail in the following sections.

Politeness and Facework Paradigm

In Brown and Levinson’s (1987) politeness theory, face refers to “the public self-image that every member wants to claim for himself” (p. 61). The concept of face consists of two related aspects: positive face and negative face. Positive face refers to the desire to have one’s identity liked and accepted by others, and negative face refers to the desire to have one’s autonomy respected (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Advice giving has been conceptualized as an intrinsically face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Advice giving carries the implication that the recipient lacks competence in dealing with the situation, thus threatening the recipient’s positive face (MacGeorge et al., 2008). It also threatens a recipient’s negative face in that by implicitly or explicitly advising the recipient to take a certain course of action, it constrains the recipient’s autonomy (Goldsmith, 1999; Goldsmith & Fitch, 1997; Wilson, Aleman, & Leatham, 1998). As a result, face and facework are closely related to the evaluation of advice (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge, Feng, et al., 2004; MacGeorge, Lichtman, & Pressey, 2002). Advice that is perceived as demonstrating attention to the recipient’s positive and/or negative face needs is generally seen as more sensitive, appropriate, and effective (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge et al., 2002; MacGeorge, Feng, et al., 2004). On the other hand, advice that fails to address the face concerns of the recipient (e.g., bald-on-record advice) or advice that explicitly threatens the face needs of the recipient (e.g., advice that conveys a negative attribution of the recipient) is generally perceived as unhelpful, insensitive, and intrusive (see MacGeorge et al., 2008).

Past research on supportive communication shows that a support provider can make use of various politeness strategies to reduce threat to the support recipient’s positive face, including using in-group language, describing positive consequences of an action, presupposing knowledge or common ground, or expressing understanding or sympathy with the recipient (Feng, Li, & Li, 2016; Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). On the other hand, reducing the forcefulness of the face-threatening act is useful in minimizing threat to a recipient’s negative face. A speaker can reduce threat to the target’s negative face by making the message less specific, depersonalized or using questions (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000).

From the perspective of politeness theory, message framing in terms of loss or gain can influence the face threat of a message. Specifically, a loss-framed message concentrates on the disadvantages of noncompliance (e.g., “If you do not study with others, you will get a bad grade”). A loss-framed advice message may thus be more likely to threaten a recipient’s positive face by implying that the recipient may fail to handle the situation successfully. On the other hand, a gain-framed advice message might mitigate positive face threat by decreasing the potential for disapproval or rejection. Gain-framed advice messages focus on the advantages of compliance (e.g., “If you study with others, you will get a good grade”). By implying that a recipient is capable of successfully performing the advised action and achieving positive outcomes, gain-framed messages can reduce the advice’s threat to the recipient’s positive face. The recipient may also feel more confident in his or her ability to improve the problematic situation. Most important, as aforementioned, one politeness strategy to alleviate threat to the support recipient’s positive face is to describe the positive consequences of an action (Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000). This strategy is in line with the definition of a gain-framed message.

A loss-framed message focuses on the damage or worsened situation including failure to achieve goals or high possibility of severe harm caused by noncompliance. It is germane to a warning, which may be more threatening to a recipient’s negative face. A warning is a speech act presenting a possible danger, problem, or other unpleasant things that might happen in the future, and is a common negative face-threatening act (Brown & Levinson, 1987). Seen in this light, compared with a gain-framed message, a loss-framed message may induce the recipient’s fear or anxiety about the future situation and impede the target’s freedom of action (see Dillard & Nabi, 2006; Gerend & Maner, 2011; Kahneman & Tversky, 1979; O’Keefe & Jensen, 2008; Salovey, Schneider, & Apanovitch, 2002). Based on the preceding rationale, the following hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: Gain-framed advice messages will elicit more positive responses from recipients (higher evaluation of advice quality, higher perception of facilitation of coping, and stronger intention to implement advice) than loss-framed advice messages.

Hypothesis 2: The effect of advice message framing (gain-framing vs. loss-framing) on recipients’ responses to advice will be mediated by the recipient’s perceptions of the advice-giver’s regard for face.

Efficacy

Empirical studies have showed that the efficacy of a recommended action to attain a desired outcome is an important factor in determining attitude or behavioral intentions (e.g., Floyd, Prentice-Dunn, & Rogers, 2000; Struckman-Johnson, Gilliland, Struckman-Johnson, & North, 1990; Tanner, Hunt, & Eppright, 1991; Tay & Watson, 2002; Witte & Allen, 2000). A high level of perceived efficacy increases adoption of the advised action through attitude, intention, and behavioral change (see Block & Keller, 1995).

Scholars have identified two main subdimensions of the efficacy construct: response efficacy and self-efficacy. Perceived response efficacy refers to perceptions about the effectiveness of a recommended response in deterring a threat, while perceived self-efficacy pertains to perceptions about one’s ability to perform the recommended behavior (Bandura, 1982; Keller, 2006; Rogers, 1983; Witte, Cameron, McKeon, & Berkowitz, 1996). Past research demonstrates that both response efficacy and self-efficacy are critical factors that influence individuals’ motivation to perform a recommended behavior (e.g., Epton & Harris, 2008; Lewis, Watson, & White, 2010; Maddux & Rogers, 1983; Riet, Ruiter, Werrij, & de Vries, 2008, 2010; Stanley & Maddux, 1986).

By highlighting the recipient’s attaining of desirable consequences, a gain-framed advice message may make message recipients feel encouraged, reassured, or heartened by an advice giver. According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy can be enhanced by encouragement or reassurance (e.g., Boyer, Phillips, Wallis, Vouk, & Lester, 2008; Jackson, 2002; Quimby & O’Brien, 2004). Since gain-framed messages seem more optimistic in comparison with loss-framed messages, it is plausible that recipients feel more assured that they can take the advised action by thinking positively about the problematic situations. In the same vein, by focusing on positive outcomes, a gain-framed advice message may elicit higher perceptions of the response efficacy of the advised action.

By accentuating undesirable outcomes, a loss-framed advice message, however, may lead recipients to feel discouraged or demoralized. They may be more inclined to think about the problematic situation they face in a negative way by focusing on the possibility of undesirable outcomes. Shen and Dillard (2007) explained that disadvantage-framed messages (i.e., loss-framed message) yield negative emotions such as disgust, anger, fear, and sadness. Negative affective state has an adverse effect on self-efficacy. Individuals in a negative mood feel less competent, become self-critical, and have negative views toward themselves (see Cervone, 2000; Kavanagh & Bower, 1985; Rabois & Haaga, 2003; Tsai, Chen, & Liu, 2007). After being exposed to a loss-framed message, recipients tend to be more depressed and are oppressed with worry, which in turn leads to a low sense of self-efficacy (i.e., they are less confident in taking the advised action). In like manner, a loss-framed advice message may elicit lower perceptions of the response efficacy of the advised action. Thus, the above rationale suggests the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3: The effect of advice message framing (gain-framing vs. loss-framing) on recipients’ responses to advice will be mediated by a recipient’s perception of response efficacy and self-efficacy.

The two forms of each framed message are germane to the linguistic description of the “kernel state” of the outcome (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006). The kernel state refers to “the basic, root state mentioned in the message’s description of the consequence” (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2009, p. 298). In the following example: “If you study with others, you will not get a bad grade,” the kernel state is “bad grade,” (i.e., undesirable state). This statement places emphasis on positive outcomes by predicting that the undesirable state will not occur. In comparison, in a statement such as “If you study with others, you will get a good grade,” the kernel state is “good grade” (i.e., desirable state), emphasizing what will happen after compliance. Differences between gain-framed and loss-framed message might be more salient if the gain-framed message includes desirable kernel states and if the loss-framed message contains undesirable kernel states. On the other hand, differences might be reduced when the gain-framed message encompasses undesirable states and when the loss-framed message has desirable states (O’Keefe & Jensen, 2006, 2008).

The construct of “kernel state” allows us to consider the possibility that a gain-framed message that includes desirable kernel states might be more effective at eliciting positive responses to advice in comparison with a gain-framed message with undesirable kernel states. In addition, the loss-framed message containing undesirable kernel states might elicit more negative responses to advice than the loss-framed message having desirable kernel states. Thus, the following research questions were posed:

Research Question 1: Will the two forms of gain-framed advice messages differ with respect to the recipient’s evaluations of advice quality, facilitation of coping, and intention to implement advice?

Research Question 2: Will the two forms of loss-framed advice messages differ with respect to the recipient’s evaluations of advice quality, facilitation of coping, and intention to implement advice?

Method

Participants

The participants for this study were college students recruited from a large university on the West Coast of the United States. All participants received extra credit for their participation. Initially, a total of 648 participants were recruited. However, 43 participants were excluded due to more than 90% missing responses. Among the 605 respondents included in the study, the majority were female (n = 444, 73.4%). The average age was 20.51 years. The majority of respondents identified themselves as Asian American/Pacific Islander (54.7%), followed by White/Caucasian (15.2%), Hispanic (13.1%), African American/Black (1.5%), and Other (15.6%).

Procedure

Participants read a hypothetical scenario in which they discuss a problematic situation with a friend and the friend provides them with some advice. Two hypothetical problem situations (failing an exam vs. conflict with a roommate) were employed to enhance generalizability of the findings. Eight experimental advice messages were constructed, reflecting a 4 (gain, obtain desirable vs. gain, avoid undesirable vs. loss, avoid desirable, vs. loss, obtain undesirable) × 2 (exam vs. roommate) factorial design. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the eight versions. After reading the hypothetical scenario, participants completed a survey regarding their perceptions and evaluations of the advice.

Message Manipulations

O’Keefe and Jensen’s (2007) operationalization of persuasive messages was adapted to manipulate advice messages for the purpose of this study. Advice messages are framed in one of four ways to reflect (a) the desirable outcome gained by following the advice, (b) the undesirable outcome avoided by following the advice, (c) the desirable outcome forgone by not following the advice, and (d) the undesirable outcomes incurred by not following the advice. Examples of gain- and loss-famed advice messages are shown in Table 1.

Table 1.

Examples of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages.

Gain: Attain desirable	•Studying with other classmates will help you gain a better understanding of the materials. Others can help you fill in any important information that you may have missed in class. They can also help you get different perspectives on the course materials. If you study with others, you are likely to do well on the final, and you will still be able to get a good grade in this course.
Gain: Avoid undesirable	•Studying with other classmates will reduce your misunderstanding of the materials. With others’ help, you probably will not miss any important information either. By studying with others, you will not be constrained by your own perspective on the course materials. If you study with others, you are unlikely to do poorly on the final and will not get a bad grade in this course.
Loss: Avoid desirable	•If you do not study with other classmates, you may not be able to have a good understanding of the materials, and may not get from others any important information that you have missed in class. If you study on your own, you may not be able to gain different perspectives on the course materials. In the end, you may not be able to do well on the final and will not get a good grade in this course.
Loss: Attain undesirable	•If you do not study with other classmates, you may have misunderstandings of the materials that you are not aware of. You may also miss some important information that you did not take down in class. If you study on your own, you may be constrained by your own perspective on the course materials. In the end, you may still do poorly on the final, and will get a bad grade in this course.

Measures

Perception of Advice-Giver’s Regard for Face

Feng and Burleson’s (2008) 15-item scale of politeness was used to measure perceptions of the advice-giver’s regard for face.¹ The respondents rated each item on a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).² Sample items include “The advice giver did not challenge the recipient’s competence,” and “The advice did not impose too much on the recipient.” The internal consistency for these items was good ( α = .93).

Perceived Response Efficacy

Witte et al.’s (1996) three-item response efficacy subscale of the Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale was used to measure perceived response efficacy. The scale was adapted for each scenario. Example items include “Having a candid talk with my roommate works to prevent future invasion of my private time and space,” and “If I have a candid talk with my roommate, I am less likely to face future invasion of my private time and space.” The internal consistency for these items was good (α = .91).

Perceived Self-Efficacy

Witte et al.’s (1996) three-item self-efficacy subscale of the Risk Behavior Diagnosis Scale was used to measure perceived self-efficacy. Example items include “I am able to have a candid talk with my roommate to prevent future invasion of my private time and space,” and “Having a candid talk with my roommate is easy to do to prevent future invasion of my private time and space.” The internal consistency for these items was calculated at .83.

Advice Quality

Goldsmith and MacGeorge’s (2000) scale was used to measure participants’ evaluation of the overall quality of the advice message. This scale includes five items: message helpfulness, appropriateness, sensitivity, supportiveness, and effectiveness. The internal consistency for this measure was satisfactory (α = .87).

Facilitation of Coping

MacGeorge, Feng, et al.’s (2004) six-item scale was used to measure participants’ perceived facilitation of coping. Examples of the items include “I felt better able to manage any emotional distress I was having,” and “I felt I was more capable of improving the situation.” The reliability for the measure was desirable (α = .92).

Implementation Intention

MacGeorge, Feng, et al.’s (2004) three-item scale was used to measure participants’ perceived implementation intention. The three items are “I intended to do what I had been advised,” “I planned to follow the advice I was given,” and “It was my intention to use the advice I had been given.” The items exhibited good internal consistency (α = .92).

Scenario Realism

It is crucial that participants think the scenario is realistic. To measure scenario realism, this study used a version of Feng’s (2009) scale, which is composed of five items. Example items include “The scenario is believable,” and “My friend’s responses in the scenario are likely in real life.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was calculated at .82.

Gain-Framing

The study adapted Maheswaran and Meyers-Levy’s (1990) measure to assess if the framing manipulations were successful. There are two items pertaining to gain-framing: “The advice message explicitly specifies the desirable outcomes of performing the advocated behavior” and “The advice message explicitly mentions the benefits of complying with the advocated behavior.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was calculated at .85.

Loss-Framing

The two items for loss-framing are “The advice message explicitly talks about the undesirable outcomes of not performing the advocated behavior” and “The advice message explicitly talks about losing benefits by not performing the advocated behavior.” Cronbach’s alpha for this measure was calculated at .92.

Results

Manipulation Checks

The average rating for the realism of the eight scenarios was 5.88 on a 7-point scale. This result indicates that participants perceived the hypothetical conversation between the participant and a friend to be generally realistic.

An independent samples t test was conducted for the manipulation checks. Consistent with the manipulations, participants who read the gain-framed messages reported a higher rating of the extent to which the message specifies the benefits of performing the advocated behavior (M = 5.98, SD = 0.90) compared with participants who read the loss-framed messages (M = 5.01, SD = 1.69), t(602) = 8.706, p < .001. In addition, participants who read the loss-framed messages reported a higher rating of the extent to which the message specifies undesirable outcomes of not performing the advocated behavior (M = 5.78, SD = 1.27) compared with participants who read the gain-framed messages (M = 3.13, SD = 1.76), t(601) = −21.34, p < .001.

Results of t tests also revealed that the two problem types (failing an exam vs. conflict with a roommate) differed on all of the variables of interest. Advice messages in the roommate scenario received higher ratings for quality, facilitation of coping, and implementation intention than the corresponding messages in the exam scenario. Similarly, advice messages were perceived as higher in regard for face, response efficacy, and self-efficacy in the roommate scenario in comparison with those in the exam scenario (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Differences Between Problem Types Across Variables.

	Conflict with roommate		Failing exam		T	df
	M	SD	M	SD	T	df
Advice quality	5.57	0.88	5.09	1.12	−5.703***	589
Facilitation of coping	5.17	1.08	4.59	1.29	−5.940***	608
Implementation intention	5.40	1.17	4.81	1.40	−5.610***	602
Regard for face	5.21	0.82	4.64	1.13	−7.108***	603
Response efficacy	5.60	1.05	4.74	1.21	−9.350***	601
Self-efficacy	5.19	1.23	4.53	1.22	−6.609***	602

Note. df = degrees of freedom.

***

p < .001.

The Effects of Gain- and Loss-Framed Advice Messages on Recipients’ Response to Advice

Hypothesis 1 predicted that gain-framed advice messages would lead to more positive responses from recipients than loss-framed advice messages in terms of evaluation of advice quality, facilitation of coping, and intention to implement advice. A 2 × 2 multivariate analysis of variance was first conducted to test the hypothesis. The between-groups factors included manipulation of advice message framing (gain-framed advice message vs. loss-framed advice message) and problem type (failing an exam vs. conflict with a roommate). The dependent variables were advice quality, facilitation of coping, and intention to implement advice. The results revealed a significant main effect of message framing on the multivariate set of the dependent measures, λ = .93, F(3, 583) = 14.67, p < .001, η²_p = .07. In addition, a statistically significant interaction effect between message framing and problem type on the dependent variables was found, λ = .97, F(3, 583) = 5.42, p < .01, η²_p = .03.

A series of analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were then conducted to further analyze the data. The ANOVAs detected a significant main effect of message framing on recipients’ evaluation of advice quality, F(1, 587) = 26.78, p < .001, η²_p = .04 by the Bonferroni test.³ Participants who received gain-framed advice messages evaluated the advice to be of higher quality (M = 5.54, SD = 0.95) than those who received loss-framed advice messages (M = 5.13, SD = 1.07). In addition, a significant interaction effect of message framing and problem type was found, F(1, 587) = 13.4, p < .001, η²_p = .02. Within the gain-framed message conditions, a relatively small difference between the roommate scenario (M = 5.63, SD = 0.81) and the exam scenario (M = 5.46, SD = 1.08) was found; within the loss-framed message conditions, a greater difference was found between the two scenarios (roommate, M = 5.51, SD = .94; exam, M = 4.75, SD = 1.06).

There was a main effect of message framing on perceptions of facilitation of coping, F(1, 600) = 10.93, p < .01, η²_p = .02 by the Bonferroni test as well as a significant interaction effect of message framing and problem type, F(1, 600) = 11.65, p < .001, η²_p = .02. Overall, participants who received gain-framed advice messages evaluated the advice to be more facilitative of coping (M = 5.04, SD = 1.15) than those who received loss-framed advice messages (M = 4.72, SD = 1.27). In the exam scenario, gain-framed advice messages were evaluated to be more facilitative of coping (M = 4.92, SD = 1.19) than loss-framed advice messages (M = 4.28, SD = 1.3). However, in the roommate scenario, loss-framed advice messages were evaluated to be slightly more facilitative of coping (M = 5.17, SD = 1.07) than gain-framed advice messages (M = 5.16, SD = 1.1). Last, there was no significant difference between gain-framed advice and loss-framed advice in terms of intention to implement advice, F(1, 600) = .03, ns. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported.

Table 3.

Zero-Order Correlations Among Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	M	SD
1. Regard for face						4.92	1.03
2. Response efficacy	.35**					5.16	1.21
3. Self-efficacy	.35**	.71**				4.85	1.26
4. Advice quality	.76**	.40**	.35**			5.33	1.03
5. Facilitation of coping	.57**	.42**	.40**	.59**		4.87	1.22
6. Implementation intention	.52**	.46**	.45**	.65**	.56**	5.10	1.33

p < .01.

Mediators: Regard for Face and Efficacy

Hypothesis 2 anticipated that the effect of advice message framing on recipients’ responses to advice would be mediated by the recipient’s perceived regard for face. Hypothesis 3 was concerned with the mediating roles of perceived response efficacy and self-efficacy. To assess the mediating roles of perceived regard for face, response efficacy, and self-efficacy, multiple mediation analyses⁴ were conducted using PROCESS. PROCESS is a computational tool for mediation, moderation, or conditional process analysis and uses an ordinary least squares or logistic-based path analytical framework to assess direct and indirect effects in mediation models (Hayes, 2012, 2013).

Advice quality, facilitation of coping, and implementation intention were each entered as outcome variables. Advice message framing was entered as the independent variable, recipient’s perception of the advice-giver’s regard for face, response efficacy, and self-efficacy were entered as the mediators, and scenario realism was entered as a covariate variable. The results showed that the indirect effects of advice message framing on all of the dependent variables (e.g., advice quality, facilitation of coping, and implementation intention) through regard for face were significant (see Table 4). Perception of the advice-giver’s regard for face mediated the relationships between advice message framing and all dependent variables. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was supported. On the other hand, the data did not reveal any mediating roles of perceived response efficacy or self-efficacy. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Table 4.

Indirect Effects of Advice Message Framing on Responses to Advice Through Perceived Regard for Face, Response Efficacy, and Self-Efficacy.

Mediators	B	SE	Bootstrapping 95% confidence interval
Mediators	B	SE	Lower	Upper
Advice quality
Total	.36	.06	.2627	.4846
Regard for face	.35	.05	.2529	.4675
Response efficacy	.00	.00	−.0131	.0210
Self-efficacy	−.00	.00	−.0059	.0047
Facilitation of coping
Total	.31	.06	.2056	.4410
Regard for face	.27	.05	.1775	.3854
Response efficacy	.00	.02	−.0295	.0405
Self-efficacy	−.00	.00	−.0161	.0142
Implementation intention
Total	.31	.06	.2048	.4396
Regard for face	.25	.05	.1720	.3622
Response efficacy	.00	.02	−.0302	.0420
Self-efficacy	−.00	.01	−.0256	.0249

Note. SE = standard error. 5000 bootstrap samples.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Differences Between the Two Forms of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Advice Messages

Research Question 1 and Research Question 2 were concerned with the differences between the two forms of gain-framed and loss-framed advice messages in terms of the three advice outcomes. These research questions were examined with a series of ANOVA tests. The analyses did not detect any significant differences between the two forms of gain-framed advice in terms of evaluation of advice quality, F(1, 281) = .73, ns, perceived facilitation of coping, F(1, 289) = .28, ns, or intention to implement advice, F(1, 288) = .08, ns. Similarly, the data did not reveal any significant differences between the two forms of loss-framed advice with respect to evaluation of advice quality, F(1, 306) = .12, ns, perceived facilitation of coping, F(1, 311) = .66, ns, or intention to implement advice, F(1, 312) = .03, ns.

Discussion

To date, very limited research has examined the framing of advice messages as a message feature that can influence advice outcomes. This study investigated the effect of advice message framing on responses from advice recipients and explored the mechanism underlying the potential impact. In what follows, we delineate major findings of the study and discuss practical and theoretical implications, as well as limitations and directions for future research.

The results of this study showed that gain-framed advice messages gave rise to more positive responses from recipients than loss-framed advice messages in terms of advice quality and facilitation of coping. This finding suggests that when individuals receive gain-framed instead of loss-framed advice messages, they are more likely to think that the advice they received is sensitive, appropriate, and helpful; they also tend to feel that they are more capable of coping with their stress and managing the problematic situation. Meanwhile, it is important to note that, as findings from this study revealed, the magnitude of the impact of gain/loss framing on recipient responses is small. Although a repeated measures design (see Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000) may produce more significant results,⁵ message framing is still one of the many factors that combine (and interact in complicated ways) to collectively influence advice outcomes (see MacGeorge et al., 2016).

Interestingly, our data did not reveal any evidence that individuals who received gain-framed messages were more likely to follow the received advice than those who received loss-framed messages. This finding coincides with prior research indicating that evaluation of advice quality and facilitation of coping are more likely to be influenced by stylistic features of advice, whereas intention to follow advice is strongly predicted by content features of advice (Feng & MacGeorge, 2010; MacGeorge et al., 2016; MacGeorge, Feng, et al., 2004). This pattern of findings makes good sense, especially since there is a close affinity between the global assessment of advice message (advice quality) and the affective outcomes of advice (facilitation of coping; MacGeorge, Feng et al., 2004; MacGeorge et al., 2016). Our study also reinforces the notion that there are diverse indexes of the effectiveness of advice (and other forms of communication as well). To the extent that a piece of advice can facilitate the recipient’s coping with a problematic situation and improve his or her emotional state, whether the advised action will be undertaken may not matter as much in the context of interpersonal supportive communication. On the other hand, if the primary goal of advising (as in the case of professional advising where the adviser is an expert who knows the “right” solution to a problem), gaining compliance from the recipient should probably be a priority consideration.

In line with previous research that manipulated advice messages (e.g., Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000), this study also discovered an effect of problem type on many variables. In the exam scenario, there was a greater variation in responses to advice depending on whether the advice message was gain-framed or loss-framed. On the other hand, responses to advice in the roommate scenario were generally favorable. One plausible explanation for these findings is that the advised course of action in the roommate scenario (i.e., having a candid talk with the roommate) requires much less effort and time than that in the exam scenario (i.e., studying with other classmates). The level of effort required by a recommended behavior may thus serve as a moderator; that is, gain-framed messages may be more effective when the advised action is more effortful (while still being relatively low risk). Relatedly, our finding is consistent with prior research indicating that the type of action recommended in a piece of advice should influence recipient responses (Feng & Burleson, 2008). Various courses of action may be applicable for a given problem situation. For example, Feng and Burleson’s (2008) study examined three recommended acts within the same scenario of failing an exam: talking to the professor, studying with others, and dropping the course. They found that participants responded to the former two pieces of advice more positively than to the last piece of advice.

Our study also found that the effect of advice message framing on recipients’ evaluation of advice quality, facilitation of coping, and implementation intention was mediated by the recipient’s perceived regard for face of the advice. This finding supports our prediction that a recipient’s perception of the advice-giver’s regard for face is a key factor to consider in understanding the influence of gain- and loss-framing in advice messages. Gain-framed messages were viewed by recipients as more attentive to their face needs (i.e., less face threatening) than loss-framed advice messages. The perception of the advice-giver’s regard for face allows recipients to respond more positively to gain-framed advice messages in comparison with loss-framed advice messages in terms of their evaluation of advice quality, perception of the extent to which the advice assists with their coping, and intention to follow advice. This finding accords with the explanation of previous research that advice can provoke a negative response from recipients if recipients feel that the advice giver does not care about their identity or face (see Goldsmith, 1999; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; MacGeorge et al., 2008).

Our data did not reveal any mediating roles of perceived response efficacy or self-efficacy between advice message framing and the dependent variables. One obvious explanation for the lack of mediating effects of efficacy is that perceptions of efficacy are influenced by factors other than gain/loss framing. Substantial research on fear appeals, guided by theoretical frameworks such as the extended parallel process model (Witte, 1992,1998), has demonstrated that including message components that directly address the response efficacy and self-efficacy of a recommended behavior is effective at enhancing a message recipient’s perceptions of efficacy (e.g., Aljasem, Peyrot, Wissow, & Rubin, 2001; Moriarty & Stryker, 2008; Roberto, 2004; for a review, see Murray-Johnson & Witte, 2003). Advice research on message features has also found that explicit argumentation in support of the response efficacy and feasibility of an advised action promotes advice recipients’ perceptions of those features (Feng & Burleson, 2008).

In addition, individuals’ prior experience or knowledge about a problem or an advised action can influence their perceptions of the response efficacy and self-efficacy of the advice as well (see Kievik & Gutteling, 2011; Witte & Allen, 2000). As discussed earlier, the roles of efficacy have been well examined in persuasion research pertaining to health issues such as AIDS (Witte, 1994), cardiovascular disease (McKay, Berkowitz, Blumberg, & Goldberg, 2004; Rimal, 2001), asthma (Goei et al., 2010), and hearing protection (Smith et al., 2008). In these cases, individuals might lack knowledge about those issues or ways of managing them before receiving the health information, thus rendering message construction, including message framing, a more persuasive role. On the other hand, in cases where information about a recommended health behavior (e.g., quitting smoking) is already well-known, the effects of message construction on efficacy tend to be less salient (see Riet et al., 2008).

The current study found no difference between the two forms of gain-framed advice messages (attaining desirable outcome vs. avoiding undesirable outcome) or between the two forms of loss-framed advice messages (avoiding desirable outcome vs. obtaining undesirable outcome) in terms of recipient responses to advice. These results are consistent with past research that did not observe a difference in persuasiveness between the two forms of each type of message framing (e.g., Apanovitch, McCarthy, & Salovey, 2003; Detweiler et al., 1999; also see Devos-Comby & Salovey, 2002).

This study has several limitations. First, the current study used a hypothetical scenario design in which participants were asked to imagine that they are in a problematic situation. Although this methodological approach has been extensively employed in past research (e.g., Duric & Stockler, 2001; Frantz & Bennigson, 2005; Goldsmith & MacGeorge, 2000; Hirschberger, Florian, & Mikulincer, 2003) and is considered appropriate for the purpose of this study, it has its constraints (see Burleson & MacGeorge, 2002; Feng, 2014). Participants’ imagined responses to the situation might be different from their actual responses in real-life situations. Future research should consider reexamining the impact of advice message framing using an interaction design (e.g., using research confederates to provide either a loss-framed or gain-framed piece of advice to a real problem the participant is facing). Second, participants in this study were told that the advice was from their friends, which may serve as a heuristic cue for participants to engage in peripheral processing of the advice message (Petty, Rucker, Bizer, & Cacioppo, 2004) and evaluate the advice more positively (Feng & MacGeorge, 2006). This supposition is supported by the finding that the mean ratings on all three responses were above average (advice quality M = 5.33; facilitation of coping, M = 4.87; intention to implement advice, M = 5.1). The influence of message framing may be stronger if the advice source does not possess positive relational characteristics. Future research should explore the moderating role of relational closeness and other source characteristics on the effect of message framing.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Howard Giles and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on a previous draft of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biographies

JooYoung Jang is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Communication at University of California, Davis. Her primary research interests are supportive communication and intercultural communication.

Bo Feng is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at University of California, Davis. Her research focuses on the processes through which people seek, provide, and respond to various forms of social support in face-to-face and computer-mediated contexts, as well as cultural and gender similarities and differences in these processes.

References

Aljasem

L. I.

Peyrot

Wissow

Rubin

R. R.

(2001). The impact of barriers and self-efficacy on self-care behaviors in type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes Educator, 27, 393-404.

Apanovitch

A. M.

McCarthy

Salovey

(2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychology, 22, 60-67.

Arora

N. K.

Finney Rutten

L. J.

Gustafson

D. H.

Moser

Hawkins

R. P.

(2007). Perceived helpfulness and impact of social support provided by family, friends, and health care providers to women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 474-486.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura

(1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147.

Block

L. G.

Keller

P. A.

(1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192-203.

Boyer

K. E.

Phillips

Wallis

Vouk

Lester

(2008). Balancing cognitive and motivational scaffolding in tutorial dialogue. In Woolf

B. P.

Aimeur

Nkambou

Lajoie

(Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 239-249). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Brown

Levinson

S. C.

(1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Burleson

B. R.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2002). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (3rd ed., pp. 374-424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Cervone

(2000). Thinking about self-efficacy. Behavior Modification, 24, 30-56.

11.

Cox

A. D.

(2001). Communicating the consequences of early detection: The role of evidence and framing. Journal of Marketing, 65, 91-103.

12.

Detweiler

J. B.

Bedell

B. T.

Salovey

Pronin

Rothman

A. J.

(1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189-196.

13.

Devos-Comby

Salovey

(2002). Applying persuasion strategies to alter HIV-relevant thoughts and behavior. Review of General Psychology, 6, 287-304.

14.

Dillard

J. P.

Nabi

R. L.

(2006). The persuasive influence of emotion in cancer prevention and detection messages. Journal of Communication, 56, 123-139.

15.

Duric

Stockler

(2001). Patients’ preferences for adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer: A review of what makes it worthwhile. Lancet: Oncology, 2, 691-697.

16.

Epton

Harris

P. R.

(2008). Self-affirmation promotes health behavior change. Health Psychology, 27, 746-752.

17.

Feng

(2009). Testing an integrated model of advice giving in supportive interactions. Human Communication Research, 35, 115-129.

18.

Feng

(2014). When should advice be given? Assessing the role of sequential placement of advice in supportive interactions in two cultures. Communication Research, 41, 913-934.

19.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2006). Exploring the support-seeking process across cultures: Toward an integrated analysis of similarities and differences. In Orbe

M. P.

Allen

B. J.

Flores

L. A.

(Eds.), International and intercultural communication annual (pp. 243-266). Washington, DC: National Communication Association.

20.

Feng

Burleson

B. R.

(2008). The effects of argument explicitness on responses to advice in supportive interactions. Communication Research, 35, 849-874.

21.

Feng

(2016). Is a profile worth a thousand words? How online support-seeker’s profile features may influence the quality of received support messages. Communication Research, 43, 253-276.

22.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2006). Predicting receptiveness to advice: Characteristics of the problem, the advice-giver, and the recipient. Southern Communication Journal, 71, 67-85.

23.

Feng

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2010). The influences of message and source factors on advice outcomes. Communication Research, 37, 553-575.

24.

Feng

Magen

(2016). Relationship closeness predicts unsolicited advice giving in supportive interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 33, 751-767. doi:10.1177/0265407515592262

25.

Ferrer

R. A.

Klein

W. M.

Zajac

L. E.

Land

S. R.

Ling

B. S.

(2012). An affective booster moderates the effect of gain-and loss-framed messages on behavioral intentions for colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 35, 452-461.

26.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London, England: Sage.

27.

Finney

Iannoti

(2002). Message framing and mammography screening: A theory-driven intervention. Behavioral Medicine, 28, 5-14.

28.

Floyd

D. L.

Prentice-Dunn

Rogers

R. W.

(2000). A meta-analysis of research on protection motivation theory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 407-429.

29.

Frantz

C. M.

Bennigson

(2005). Better late than early: The influence of timing on apology effectiveness. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 201-207.

30.

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, 101-116.

31.

Gallagher

K. M.

Updegraff

J. A.

Rothman

A. J.

Sims

(2011). Perceived susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain-and loss-framed messages on use of screening mammography. Health Psychology, 30, 145-152.

32.

Gerend

M. A.

Cullen

(2008). Effects of message framing and temporal context on college student drinking behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1167-1173.

33.

Gerend

M. A.

Maner

J. K.

(2011). Fear, anger, fruits, and veggies: Interactive effects of emotion and message framing on health behavior. Health Psychology, 30, 420-423.

34.

Goei

Boyson

A. R.

Lyon-Callo

S. K.

Schott

Wasilevich

Cannarile

(2010). An examination of EPPM predictions when threat is perceived externally: An asthma intervention with school workers. Health Communication, 25, 333-344.

35.

Goldsmith

D. J.

(1999). Content-based resources for giving face sensitive advice in troubles talk episodes. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 32, 303-336.

36.

Goldsmith

D. J.

Fitch

(1997). The normative context of advice as social support. Human Communication Research, 23, 454-476.

37.

Goldsmith

D. J.

MacGeorge

E. L.

(2000). The impact of politeness and relationship on perceived quality of advice about a problem. Human Communication Research, 26, 234-263.

38.

Hayes

A. F.

(2012). PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. Retrieved from http://imaging.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/statswiki/FAQ/SobelTest?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=process.pdf

39.

Hayes

A. F.

(2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

40.

Hirschberger

Florian

Mikulincer

(2003). Strivings for romantic intimacy following partner complaint or partner criticism: A terror management perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 20, 675-687.

41.

Jackson

J. W.

(2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 243-254.

42.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 2, 263-291.

43.

Kavanagh

D. J.

Bower

G. H.

(1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.

44.

Keller

P. A.

(2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 109-114.

45.

Kievik

Gutteling

J. M.

(2011). Yes, we can: Motivate Dutch citizens to engage in self-protective behavior with regard to flood risks. Natural Hazards, 59, 1475-1490.

46.

Koenig

C. J.

(2011). Patient resistance as agency in treatment decisions. Social Science & Medicine, 72, 1105-1114.

47.

Lee

A. Y.

Aaker

J. L.

(2004). Bringing the frame into focus: The influence of regulatory fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 205-218.

48.

Lehman

D. R.

Ellard

J. H.

Wortman

C. B.

(1986). Social support for the bereaved: Recipients’ and providers’ perspectives on what is helpful. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 438-446.

49.

Lewis

I. M.

Watson

White

K. M.

(2010). Response efficacy: The key to minimizing rejection and maximizing acceptance of emotion-based anti-speeding messages. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 42, 459-467.

50.

Lomi

Lusher

Pattison

P. E.

Robins

(2013). The focused organization of advice relations: A study in boundary crossing. Organization Science, 25, 438-457.

51.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Burleson

(2011). Supportive communication. In Knapp

M. L.

Daly

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 317-354). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

52.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Butler

G. L.

Budarz

S. K.

(2004). Understanding advice in supportive interactions: Beyond the facework and message evaluation paradigm. Human Communication Research, 30, 42-70.

53.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Feng

Thompson

(2008). “Good” and “bad” advice: How to advise more effectively. In Motley

(Ed.), Applied interpersonal communication: Behaviors that affect outcomes (pp. 145-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

54.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Graves

A. R.

Feng

Gillihan

S. J.

Burleson

B. R.

(2004). The myth of gender cultures: Similarities outweigh differences in men’s and women’s provision of and responses to supportive communication. Sex Roles, 50, 143-175.

55.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Guntzviller

L. M.

Hanasono

L. K.

Feng

(2016). Testing advice response theory in interactions with friends. Communication Research, 43, 211-231.

56.

MacGeorge

E. L.

Lichtman

R. M.

Pressey

L. C.

(2002). The evaluation of advice in supportive interactions: Facework and contextual factors. Human Communication Research, 28, 451-463.

57.

Maddux

J. E.

Rogers

R. W.

(1983). Protection motivation and self-efficacy: A revised theory of fear appeals and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 469-479.

58.

Maheswaran

Meyers-Levy

(1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361-367.

59.

McKay

D. L.

Berkowitz

J. M.

Blumberg

J. B.

Goldberg

J. P.

(2004). Communicating cardiovascular disease risk due to elevated homocysteine levels: Using the EPPM to develop print materials. Health Education & Behavior, 31, 355-371.

60.

Moriarty

C. M.

Stryker

J. E.

(2008). Prevention and screening efficacy messages in newspaper accounts of cancer. Health Education Research, 23, 487-498.

61.

Murphy

S. M.

Rosenman

Yoder

J. K.

Friesner

D. L.

(2011). Patients’ perceptions and treatment effectiveness. Applied Economics, 43, 3275-3288.

62.

Murray-Johnson

Witte

(2003). Looking toward the future: Health message design strategies. In Thompson

T. L.

Dorsey

A. M.

Miller

K. I.

Parrott

(Eds.), Handbook of health communication (pp. 473-495). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

63.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2015). Persuasion: Theory and research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

64.

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. In Beck

C. S.

(Ed.), Communication yearbook 30 (pp. 1-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

65.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Jensen

J. D.

(2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623-644.

66.

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.

67.

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.

68.

Perloff

R. M.

(2010). The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century. New York, NY: Routledge.

69.

Petty

R. E.

Rucker

D. D.

Bizer

G. Y.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(2004). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Seiter

J. S.

Gass

R. H.

(Eds.), Perspectives on persuasion, social influence, and compliance gaining (pp. 65-89). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

70.

Quimby

J. L.

O’Brien

K. M.

(2004). Predictors of student and career decision-making self-efficacy among nontraditional college women. Career Development Quarterly, 52, 323-339.

71.

Rabois

Haaga

D. A.

(2003). The influence of cognitive coping and mood on smokers’ self-efficacy and temptation. Addictive Behaviors, 28, 561-573.

72.

Reid

Schmied

Beale

(2010). “I only give advice if I am asked”: Examining the grandmother’s potential to influence infant feeding decisions and parenting practices of new mothers. Women and Birth, 23, 74-80.

73.

Riet

Ruiter

R. A. C.

Werrij

M. Q.

de Vries

(2008). The influence of self-efficacy on the effects of framed health messages. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 800-809.

74.

Riet

Ruiter

R. A. C.

Werrij

M. Q.

de Vries

(2010). Self-efficacy moderates message-framing effects: The case of skin-cancer detection. Psychology & Health, 25, 339-349.

75.

Rimal

R. N.

(2001). Perceived risk and self-efficacy as motivators: Understanding individuals’ long-term use of health information. Journal of Communication, 5, 633-654.

76.

Roberto

A. J.

(2004). Putting communication theory into practice: The extended parallel process model. Communication Teacher, 18, 38-43.

77.

Rogers

R. W.

(1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude change: A revised theory of protection motivation. In Cacioppo

Petty

(Eds.), Social psychophysiology (pp. 153-176). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

78.

Rothman

A. J.

Bartels

R. D.

Wlaschin

Salovey

(2006). The strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of Communication, 56, 202-220.

79.

Rothman

A. J.

Salovey

(1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3-19.

80.

Rothman

A. J.

Salovey

(2007). The reciprocal relation between principles and practice: Social psychology and health behavior. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 826-849). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

81.

Salovey

Schneider

T. R.

Apanovitch

A. M.

(2002). Message framing in the prevention and early detection of illness. In Dillard

J. P.

Pfau

(Eds.), The persuasion handbook: Theory and practice (pp. 391-406). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

82.

Shen

Dillard

J. P.

(2007). The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34, 433-467.

83.

Smith

S. W.

Rosenman

K. D.

Kotowski

M. R.

Glazer

McFeters

Keesecker

N. M.

Law

(2008). Using the EPPM to create and evaluate the effectiveness of brochures to increase the use of hearing protection in farmers and landscape workers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36, 200-218.

84.

Stanley

M. A.

Maddux

J. E.

(1986). Cognitive processes in health enhancement: Investigation of a combined protection motivation and self-efficacy model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 101-113.

85.

Struckman-Johnson

C. J.

Gilliland

R. C.

Struckman-Johnson

D. L.

North

T. C.

(1990). The effects of fear of AIDS and gender on responses to fear-arousing condom advertisements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 1396-1410.

86.

Tanner

J. F.

Jr. Hunt

J. B.

Eppright

D. R.

(1991). The protection motivation model: A normative model of fear appeals. Journal of Marketing, 55, 36-45.

87.

Tay

Watson

(2002). Changing drivers’ intentions and behaviors using fear-based driver fatigue advertisements. Health Marketing Quarterly, 19, 55-68.

88.

Tsai

W. C.

Chen

C. C.

Liu

H. L.

(2007). Test of a model linking employee positive moods and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1570-1583.

89.

Tversky

Kahneman

(1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211, 453-458.

90.

van Peer

Hakemulder

Zyngier

. (2012). Scientific methods for the humanities. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.

91.

Wilson

S. R.

Aleman

C. G.

Leatham

G. B.

(1998). Identity implications of influence goals: A revised analysis of face-threatening acts and application to seeking compliance with same-sex friends. Human Communication Research, 25, 64-96.

92.

Witte

(1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs, 59, 329-349.

93.

Witte

(1994). Fear control and danger control: A test of the extended parallel process model (EPPM). Communications Monographs, 61, 113-134.

94.

Witte

(1998). Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: Using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Andersen

P. A.

Guerrero

L. K.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication and emotion: Research, theory, applications, and contexts (pp. 423-450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

95.

Witte

Allen

(2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27, 591-615.

96.

Witte

Cameron

K. A.

McKeon

J. K.

Berkowitz

J. M.

(1996). Predicting risk behaviors: Development and validation of a diagnostic scale. Journal of Health Communication, 1, 317-342.