Combining Two Outcome Frames to Promote Support for Obesity-Related Policies

Abstract

Guided by construal level theory (CLT), this study investigates the interplay between two framing approaches that address outcomes of obesity-related policies. A randomized experiment (N = 299) was conducted with a 2 (gain- vs. loss-frame) X 2 (societal- vs. individual-frame) between-participants design. Consistent with CLT, frame combinations with consistent construal levels were more persuasive. Compared to a societal-loss frame, a societal-gain frame was perceived as a stronger argument, which in turn increased policy support. Participants were also more likely to engage in healthier diets and physical activity when messages highlighted societal-gain rather than societal-loss. This study offers important insights for combining multiple framing approaches in a persuasive message to improve policy support as well as individual health decisions.

Notes

1. Regulatory focus refers to the way an individual approaches pleasure but avoids pain. According to Higgins (1998), there are two separate and independent self-regulatry orientations: (1) prevention focus, referring to whether or not individuals are motivated to prevent undesirable outcomes, and (2) promotion focus, referring to whether or not individuals are motivated to pursue desirable outcomes. Cumulative evidence in prior research suggests that the message recipient’s self-regulation style moderates the framing effect by changing how messages are processed and interpreted (e.g. Cesario, Corker, & Jelinek, 2013; Covey, 2014; Yi & Baumgartner, 2009). Therefore, the present study accounts for regulatory focus in examining its hypotheses and research question.

2. We first checked the success of random assignment by comparing participant profiles between conditions. Using a series of analyses of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests, we found no significant difference in terms of demographic (age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income), political affiliation, and regulatory focus between message conditions; thus, randomization was deemed successful. Study results did not differ by political party affiliation and controlling this factor did not influence the results. However, regulatory focus did influence our study results such that the inclusion of regulatory focus improve our hypothesis testing. Thus, we report results controlling for regulatory focus, but without party affiliation.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Nanyang Technological University [Start-Up GrantM4081367.060].