Table 3.

Results of Framing Studies (Immunization Scenarios)

Study	Results	Effect Modifiers	Quality Criterion
Positive Versus Negative Framing
O'Connor 199627	No framing effect on actual immunization rates, positively framed information increased expectations of benefits of immunization and decreased expectation of incurring side effects, P < .05.	Not examined.	1b, 2a, 3a, 3b, 5a
Donovan 200014	No framing effect for intention to immunize or desire for more information when analyzed separately, favored behavior in positive frame when combined, P < .05. More favorable attitudes toward immunization in positive frame, P < .05.	Low involved respondents showed more favorable attitudes and intentions to immunize or seek information in positive frame. Analyses adjusted for age.	2a, 3b, 5a
Kuhn 199718	Vaccine described vaguely favored in negative frame.	“Vague” vaccine favored in negative frame when vagueness described verbally and low estimate (of 2 conflicting studies) presented first (P < .001), favored in positive frame when high estimate presented first.	2a
Gain Versus Loss Framing
Rothman 199930 Study 1	No framing effect.	Stratified by need for cognition—both low and high groups not influenced by framing.	2a
Probability Versus Life Expectancy
Morris 200138	More likely to favor vaccine when framed as probability, P < .01.	Those accepting vaccine willing to pay more for it when framed as life expectancy with high magnitude of benefit (age 60), P < .01.	1a, 2a, 5a

Quality criterion met by each study: 1a, consecutive sample; 1b, representative target group; 2a, randomized parallel group; 2b, within-subjects order of presentation randomized; 3a, attempts blinding of researchers; 3b, attempts blinding of participants; 4a, no information control group; 4b, mixed frame control group; 5a, parallel groups comparable on baseline characteristics; 5b, within-subjects baseline characteristics reported.