Does perceived risk influence the effects of message framing? A new investigation of a widely held notion

Abstract

Health-promoting messages can be framed in terms of the beneficial consequences of healthy behaviour (gain-framed messages) or the detrimental consequences of unhealthy behaviour (loss-framed messages). An influential notion holds that the perceived risk associated with the recommended behaviour determines the relative persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed messages. This ‘risk-framing hypothesis’, as we call it, was derived from prospect theory, has been central to health message framing research for the last two decades, and does not cease to appeal to researchers. The present paper examines the validity of the risk-framing hypothesis. We performed six empirical studies on the interaction between perceived risk and message framing. These studies were conducted in two different countries and employed framed messages targeting skin cancer prevention and detection, physical activity, breast self-examination and vaccination behaviour. Behavioural intention served as the outcome measure. None of these studies found evidence in support of the risk-framing hypothesis. We conclude that the empirical evidence in favour of the hypothesis is weak and discuss the ramifications of this for future message framing research.

Keywords:

• message framing
• persuasion
• health behaviour
• risk perceptions

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Moniek Buijzen for her comments on a draft version of the manuscript.

Funding

Study 2 was funded by a National Institute of Health Grant [research grant R01 AI49644, Gregory D. Zimet, PI]. Studies 3–7 were financed by the Dutch Cancer Society [research grant UM 2005-3218].

Notes

1. The wide age ranges in Studies 3 and 4 prompted an anonymous reviewer to ask whether age moderated the message framing effects. Additional analyses revealed that in Study 3 (physical activity), age was not significantly correlated with risk perception, r = .03, p = .48, and did not significantly moderate the effects of message framing, F(1,647) = 0.57, p = .45, η_p² = .00, nor was there a significant three-way interaction between framing, risk and age, F(1,639) = 1.07, p = .30, η_p² = .00. In Study 4 (breast self-examination), the results of our analyses showed a significant correlation between age and risk perception, r = .13, p = .001. However, age did not moderate the effects of message framing, F(1,676) = 0.50, p = .48, η_p² = .00, nor was there a significant three-way interaction between framing, risk and age, F(1,668) = 0.02, p = .89, η_p² = .00.

2. Across our six studies, we made use of outcome measures with different scale ranges (5-, 7- and 9-points scales). It is unlikely, however, that the differing scale ranges could have significantly affected the results of our statistical tests (see Finstad, 2010; Nunally & Bernstein, 1978 for comparisons of different scale ranges).