Persuading People to Eat Less Junk Food: A Cognitive Resource Match Between Attitudinal Ambivalence and Health Message Framing

REFERENCES

• Ajzen I. (1999). Dual-mode processing in the pursuit of insight is no vice. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 110–112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anand, P., & Sternthal, B. (1989). Strategies for designing persuasive messages: Deductions from the resource matching hypothesis. In P. Cafferata & A. M. Tybout (Eds.), Cognitive and affective responses to advertising (pp. 135–159). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
   Google Scholar
• Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence: A test of three key hypotheses. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1421–1432.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Block, L. G., & Keller, P. A. (1995). When to accentuate the negative: The effects of perceived efficacy and message framing on intentions to perform a health-related behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 32, 192–203.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brendl, C. M., Higgins, E. T., & Lemm, K. M. (1995). Sensitivity to varying gains and losses: The role of self-discrepancies and event framing. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 69, 1028–1051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broemer, P. (2002). Relative effectiveness of differently framed health messages: The influence of ambivalence. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 685–703. doi:10.1002/ejsp.116
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1997). Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: The case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 3–25.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2009). Behavior risk factor surveillance system. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retreived from http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/BRFSS/list.asp?cat=OB&yr=2008&qkey=4409&state=All
   Google Scholar
• Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 752–756.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S., & Chaiken, S. (1999). The heuristic-systematic model in its broader context. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social and cognitive psychology (pp. 73–96). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen E. L. (2010). The role of message frame, perceived risk, and ambivalence in individuals’ decisions to become organ donors. Health Communication, 25, 758–769.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooke, R., & Sheeran, P. (2004). Moderation of cognition-intention and cognition-behaviour relations: A meta-analysis of properties of variables from the theory of planned behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 159–186.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cox, A. D., Cox, D., & Zimet, G. (2006). Understanding consumer responses to product risk information. Journal of Marketing, 70, 79–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College.
   Google Scholar
• Erb, H. P., Kruglanski, A. W., Chun, Y. W., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Spiegel, S. (2003). Searching for commonalities in human judgment: The parametric unimodel and its dual-model alternatives. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 1–48). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fazio, R. H. (2007). Attitudes as object-evaluation associations of varying strength. Social Cognition, 25, 603–637.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greenwald, A. G. (1968). Cognitive learning, cognitive response to persuasion, and attitude change. In A. G. Greenwald, T. C. Brock, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Psychological foundations of attitudes (pp. 147–170). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, J. L., Bargh, J. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2009). Priming effects of television food advertising on eating behavior. Health Psychology, 28, 404–413.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2000). Distinguishing gains from nonlosses and losses from nongains: A regulatory focus perspective on hedonic intensity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 290–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, P. M, & Kenny, P. J. (2010) Dopamine D2 receptors in addiction-like reward dysfunction and compulsive eating in obese rats. Nature Neuroscience, 13, 635–641.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jonas, K., Diehl, M., & Bromer, P. (1997). Effects of attitudinal ambivalence on information processing and attitude-intention consistency. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 190–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Bulletin, 77, 361–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kessler, D. A. (2009). The end of overeating: Taking control of the insatiable American appetite. New York, NY: Rodale.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, H. (2012). Increasing the persuasiveness of gain vs. loss framing: The effects of gender on processing gain- vs. loss-framed breast cancer screening messages. Communication Research, 39, 385–412. doi:10.1177/0093650211427557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. A. (1993). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A meta-analysis of past research, part 2. Communication Research, 20, 331–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A., Chen, X., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H. P., & Spiegel, S. (2006). Persuasion according to the unimodel: Implications for cancer communication. Journal of Communication, 56, 105–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, W. Y., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal-systems. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 331–376). New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999a). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 83–109.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999b). The illusory second mode or, the cue is the message. Psychological Inquiry, 10, 182–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LeDoux, J. E. (1996). The emotional brain. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• MacDonald, A. W., Cohen, J. D., Stenger, V. A., & Carter, C. S. (2000). Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control. Science, 288, 1835–1838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low motivation settings: The effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361–367.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maio, G. R., Bell, D.W., & Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513–536.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mann, T., Sherman, D., & Updegraff, J. (2004). Dispositional motivations and message framing: A test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. Health Psychology, 23, 330–334.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when systematic, heuristic or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14, 159–167.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumers’ processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63, 45–60.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyers-Levy, J., & Peracchio, L. (1995). Understanding the effects of color: How the correspondence between available and required resources affects attitudes. Journal of Consumer Research, 22, 121–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G. R. (1980). On being persuaded: Some basic distinctions. In M. Roloff & G. R. Miller (Eds.), Persuasion: New directions in theory and research (pp. 11–28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J. (2013). The elaboration likelihood model. In J. P. Dillard & L. Shen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (2nd ed., pp. 137–149). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2006). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12, 623–644.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oya, H., Kawasaki, H., Howard, M. A., & Adolphs, R. (2002). Electrophysiological responses in the human amygdala discriminate emotion categories of complex visual stimuli. Journal of Neuroscience, 22, 9502–9512.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pelman v. McDonald’s Corp. (2003). 237 F. Supp. 2d 512 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
   Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1977). Forewarning, cognitive responding, and resistance to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 645–655.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 69–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
   Google Scholar
• Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Erb, H. P., Spiegel, S., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2005). Informational length and order of presentation as determinants of persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 458–469.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priester, J. R. (2002). Sex, drugs, and attitudinal ambivalence: How feelings of evaluative tension influence alcohol use and safe sex behaviors. In W. D. Crano & M. Burgoon (Eds.), Mass media and drug prevention: Classic and contemporary theories and research (pp. 145–162). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1983). Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 513–523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, L., & Dillard, J. P. (2007). The influence of behavioral inhibition/approach systems and message framing on the processing of persuasive health messages. Communication Research, 34, 433–467.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sobel, M. E., (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Sorensen, G., Hunt, M. K., Cohen, N., Stoddard, A., Stein, E., Phillips, F. B., … Palombo, R. (1998). Worksite and family education for dietary change: The Treatwell 5-A-Day program. Health Education Research, 13, 577–591.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The mobilization–minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67–85.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thompson, M. M., Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences, (pp. 361–386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Wegener, D. T., Petty, R. E., & Klein, D. J. (1994). Effects of mood on high elaboration attitude change: The mediating role of likelihood judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 25–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilson, D. K., Purdon, S. E., & Wallston, K. A. (1988) Compliance to health recommendations: A theoretical overview of message framing. Health Education Research, 3, 161–171.
   Google Scholar
• Yan, C., Dillard, J. P., & Shen, F. (2012). Emotion, motivation, and the persuasive effects of message framing. Journal of Communication, 62, 682–700.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yi, S., & Baumgartner, H. (2009). Regulatory focus and message framing: A test of three accounts. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 435–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zanna, M. P., & Rempel, J. K. (1988). Attitudes: A new look at an old concept. In D. Bar-Tal & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), The social psychology of knowledge (pp. 315–334). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., & Cai, X. (2009). Ambivalence amplifies college smokers’ negative emotional responses to anti-smoking information. Communication Studies, 60, 288–304.
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, X., Sayeed, S., Cappella, J., Fishbein, M., Hornik, R., & Ahern, R. K. (2006). Targeting norm-related beliefs about marijuana use in an adolescent population. Health Communication, 19, 187–196.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar