TABLE 2 |.
Overview of studies testing message framing effects.
| Study | Health topic(s) | Study population | Message frames compared | Framing effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bannatyne and Abel (2015) | Anorexia nervosa | University students (76% female) | Four etiological (i.e., causal) frames: | Perceptions about responsibility |
|
Multifactorial condition increased perceptions that individuals were responsible for their condition compared with the biological/genetic and environmental conditions Multifactorial and sociocultural conditions increased perceptions that individuals were to blame for their condition compared with the other conditions |
|||
| Bigman (2014) | Sexually transmitted | Black, white | Study 1: | Risk perceptions |
| infections (STIs) |
|
Social comparison frame did not increase perceived risk for the more at-risk group (blacks) compared with impact (black risk only) or non-comparative frames Social comparison frame produced lower perceived risk for less at-risk group (whites) compared with impact (white risk only) frame |
||
| Skin cancer | Black, white | Study 2: | Risk perceptions | |
| (incidence) |
|
Social comparison frame did not increase perceived risk for more at-risk group (whites) compared with impact (white risk only) and non-comparative frames Social comparison frame produced lower perceived risk for less at-risk group (blacks) compared with impact (black risk only) and non-comparative frames | ||
| Skin cancer (survival) | Black, white | Study 3: | Risk perceptions | |
|
Impact (white risk only) and non-comparative frames produced higher perceived risk for less at-risk group (whites) compared with the social comparison frame Social comparison frame produced higher perceived risk for the higher-risk group (blacks) compared with impact (white risk only) and non-comparative frames |
|||
| Dunham et al. (2016) | HIV/AIDS Diabetes | Black, white |
|
Risk perceptions |
| Among blacks: | ||||
| No difference in risk perceptions between social comparison and non-comparative frames (HIV and diabetes) Risk perceptions were higher in combined social comparison and individual responsibility frame than control (diabetes) | ||||
| Among whites: | ||||
| Risk perceptions were lower in individual responsibility frame than control (HIV) Risk perceptions were higher in individual responsibility frame and combined social comparison/individual responsibility frame conditions than control (diabetes) | ||||
| Perceived credibility | ||||
| Among blacks: | ||||
| Lower level of trust in information for individual responsibility frame compared with control (HIV) | ||||
| Among whites: | ||||
| Higher level of trust in information in social comparison frame than control (HIV and diabetes) Lower level of trust in information in individual responsibility frame than control (HIV) | ||||
| Frederick et al. (2016) | Overweight and obesity | Consisted of university students and participants recruited from Mechanical Turk |
|
Risk perceptions Individual responsibility frame increased perceptions of the risks of being overweight/obese compared with other frame Other effects Individual responsibility frame produced greater belief that weight is controllable, more support for charging obese people more for health insurance, more prejudice against overweight people, more willingness to discriminate against overweight people, and less willingness to celebrate body size diversity compared with other frame |
| Jones et al. (2016) | Cardiovascular disease risk | Black |
|
Behavior Social comparison frame reduced task persistence (completing a health self-assessment) |
| Landrine and Corral (2015) | Colon cancer | Black |
|
Risk perceptions No difference in perceived cancer risk Behavioral intentions/behavior No difference in intention to get screened for colon cancer or to recommend screening for family Emotional reactions Social comparison frame produced more negative response (insulted, discouraged, angry, suspicious) compared with non-comparative frame |
| Langford et al. (2017) | Diabetes | Black |
|
Behavioral intentions No difference in intention to participate in diabetes prevention study |
| Lee et al.(2017) | General health problems, HIV, and smoking | LGBT |
|
Emotional reactions More negative responses (discouraged, insulted, and angry) to social comparison frame than progress and impact frames More positive responses (hopeful, feel good, proud, inspired and encouraged) to progress frame than social comparison or impact frames Perceived credibility Higher perceptions of message credibility in progress condition than social comparison or impact conditions |
| Nicholson et al. (2008) | Colorectal Cancer | Black |
|
Behavioral intentions Progress frame produced increased desire to be screened compared with impact or social comparison frames Emotional reactions Progress frame produced more positive response compared with impact or social comparison frames Social comparison frame produced more negative response compared with impact or progress frames |
| Skurka (2019) | Obesity | Recruited through Mechanical Turk (82% white, 10% black) |
|
Emotional reactions No difference in responses (sympathy, anger) between the racial comparison frame or geographic comparison frame and the control Perceived credibility Higher acceptance of the accuracy of the information in the racial comparison compared with the control condition. No difference between the racial comparison frame and control on other measures of believability (agreement that the message is credible, counterarguing the message), attributions of responsibility, or policy support Lower perceived credibility of the message and increased message counterarguing in geographic comparison compared with control condition |
| Uhrig et al. (2013) | STD (gonorrhea) | Black |
|
Risk perceptions Social comparison and impact frames generated greater agreement with the statement “Gonorrhea rates are high among African Americans” than the progress frame Behavioral intentions/behavior Impact frame more likely than other frames to motivate participants to want to get tested for STDs and to talk to family and friends about getting tested Emotional reactions Progress frame less upsetting and more encouraging than other frames Perceived credibility Trust in information higher in impact than social comparison condition |