![Sample our Communication Studies journals, sign in here to start your access, 2013 & 2014 volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5927/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Information-Science2.jpg"})
Abstract
The effects of message framing on reactions to campaign messages promoting organ donation were examined in three experiments. It was predicted that gain-framed messages would produce more positive reactions toward organ and tissue donation. In Study 1, students (N=189) responded to either a gain-framed or loss-framed message about organ donation. Study 2 (N=318) and Study 3 (N=433) examined the role of psychological reactance as a mediator between framing and reactions. Results indicated an effect for framing across the three studies—specifically, students reading a gain-framed message reported more favorable reactions toward the scripted message and lower psychological reactance. Psychological reactance and perceived manipulative intent were found to mediate the relationship between framing and message reactions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Allan Sillars and two anonymous reviewers of Communication Monographs for their incisive comments on earlier versions of this paper.
Notes
1. There was initially a third condition (labeled neutral) included in the set of message manipulations. However, the neutral condition did not perform as a neutral condition and was regarded as more of a weak gain-frame by participants, so it was dropped from the analyses (N=88). This allowed for a clear analysis of the relationship between framing condition and message reactions to be analyzed. Anyone interested in information about this condition can contact the first author.
2. Concurrent with Study 1, the authors collected material for a separate study on involvement and health behaviors. Measures collected were: social desirability, altruism, anxiety, attitudes, and behaviors regarding six specific health behaviors, and value, outcome-, and impression-involvement. A separate paper on those six health behaviors and involvement has also been written. Anyone interested in the above mentioned scales or the involvement paper may contact the first author for the materials.
3. Message reaction items included: “Organ and tissue donation messages could influence my decision to become a donor”; “Reading an organ and tissue donation message like this makes me want to sign an organ donor card”; “Reading this message has not influenced my feelings about organ and tissue donation” (reverse-coded); “Communication campaigns are a good way to increase the number of organ and tissue donors in the United States”; “I believe this message would make other people want to become an organ and tissue donor”; “After reading this message, I would like to obtain further information on how to become an organ and tissue donor”; “Reading this message makes me think organ and tissue donation is an important issue”; “Communication campaigns could not influence my feelings toward becoming an organ and tissue donor” (reverse-coded); “My feelings about organ and tissue donation have changed as a result of reading this message”; and “I do not think this message would influence other peoples’ feelings about organ and tissue donation” (reverse-coded).
4. As previously discussed, students filled out measures for an involvement study and the framing study during the same experimental session. Since the materials for the two studies were counterbalanced to avoid order effects, some students did not reach the framing manipulation until later in the experiment (∼20 minutes into the experiment) and may not have paid as close attention to the message.
5. Readers may contact first author for all scale items. Other measures were collected including altruism, student knowledge and beliefs, and self-efficacy—these measures are not reported and were found to be unrelated to message framing.
6. Participants’ thoughts were segmented into thought units, equivalent to the acts of Bales (Citation1950). Each thought unit consisted of a simple, complete thought with an implicit or explicit subject and an implicit or explicit predicate. Compound sentences, expressing two or more thoughts, were divided into their component parts, and whenever a single subject had multiple predicates, multiple units were defined. For example, the thought, “Organ donation is moral, saves lives, and is something every person should do,” would be unitized into three segments: “Organ donation is moral,” “Organ donation … saves lives,” and “Organ donation … is something every person should do.”
7. Message reaction items included: “This message is realistic to me”; “After reading the message I can see that donating my organs will help to save others’ lives”; “The message is believable”; “I can identify to the message”; “I can relate to the message”; “I felt apprehensive when I read the message” (reverse-coded); “I felt afraid when I read this message” (reverse-coded); “I felt the message was appropriate”; “I felt the message was credible”; and “I felt the message was effective”.
8. Reactance items included: “I am uncomfortable being told how to feel about organ and tissue donation”; “I do not like that I am being told how to feel about organ and tissue donation”;” It irritates me that the message told me how to feel about organ and tissue donation”; and “I dislike that I am being told how to feel about organ and tissue donation”.
9. Analyses use a list-wise deletion when reporting on each variable, so cases that did not have data entered for a particular variable are not included in the analysis. As a result, not all degrees of freedom are consistent with the overall N.
10. Measures of self and response efficacy and altruism were also collected, but not found to be related to message framing. Anyone interested in the results of these measures may contact the first author.
11. The e-mail links given to the study participants included a link to the New York State Online OTD Registry (http://nyhealth.gov/nysdoh/donor/agreement.htm) and another link to the NYS Online OTD website where students could learn more about the process of becoming an organ and tissue donor and get some answers to frequently asked questions (http://nyhealth.gov/nysdoh/donor/main.htm).
12. A second measure of reactance (adapted from Hong, Citation1992; Hong, & Faedda, Citation1996) was collected for Study 3. However, since it was not strongly correlated with the first measure of reactance, it was omitted from Study 3 analyses. Readers may contact the first author for more information on this measure.
13. Perceived manipulative intent items included: “The way this ad tries to persuade people seems acceptable to me” (reverse-coded); “I didn't mind this message”; “The creator of the message tried to be persuasive without being excessively manipulative” (reverse-coded); “The creator of the message tried to manipulate me in ways I did not like”; “I was annoyed by this message because the creator of the message seemed to be trying to inappropriately manage or control the audience”; and “The writing of the message was fair” (reverse-coded).
14. Follow-up items included: “Have you signed an organ donor card or enrolled in the NYS Organ and Tissue Donor Online Registry as an indication of your intent to be an organ donor?”; “If you have not, do you intend to do so?” (intent measure); “Has the message that you read in the original study influenced whether or not you intend to become an organ and tissue donor?” (influence measure); “Have you spoken with anyone regarding your feelings, attitudes, or interest in organ donation in the last four weeks?” (spoken measure); “If so, who have you spoken to?” (check all that apply—friends, family members, significant other [boyfriend/girlfriend], other); “Have you thought about becoming an organ and tissue donor since you participated in the original study?” (thoughts measure); “Did you receive the e-mail message with the link to the NYS online organ and tissue registry and FAQ about organ and tissue donation?”; “Did you click on the link and visit the registry?”; “Did you look at the link that provided extra information regarding organ and tissue donation?”; “Any additional comments about becoming an organ and tissue donor or the messages that you read for the study that you would like to share?” (open-ended question).
15. One-way ANOVAs were run for each of the dependent measures (preattitudes, message reactions, psychological reactance, and perceived manipulative intent) and the independent variable of participation in the follow-up study. None of the tests were significant at the .05 level. Readers may contact first author for details of these tests.
