Message Framing

Health Message Framing for College Campuses

602199
University of California, Santa Barbara
Psych112L
Instructor: Heejuny Kim
TA: Lauren Winczewski

Message Framing

2
Winter 2015Abstract

Previous studies have examined the efficacy of message framing

in regards to changing health behaviors. In this study, we looked at
message framing in regards to a Meningitis B vaccine. Specifically, we
looked at communally framed messages and its relationship to prosocial behavior as a mediator . We hypothesized two things: a gainframed communal message would result in a higher likelihood of
obtaining the vaccine, and participants who scored higher in pro-social
behaviors would have a higher likelihood in obtaining the vaccine
compared to those who scored lower. Undergraduate men and women
(N=78) were randomly assigned to one of three messages, communal
grain-framed, communal loss framed, and a control frame. Participants
were then asked to answer questions to access levels of pro-social
behavior. We found no significant differences in likelihood of getting
the vaccine in the messages presented and no significance in
likelihood of getting the vaccine in regards to their levels of pro-social
behavior.

Message Framing

Health Message Framing for College Campuses

The influence of messages in regards to changing health
behaviors has been studied extensively. Message framing is a health
communication strategy that either emphasizes Often times, these
messages are characterized in terms of either engaging in a healthy
behavior for its positive outcomes (gain-framed message) or avoiding
unhealthy behaviors to avoid its negative consequences (loss-framed
message)(Rothamn & Salovey, 1997). Although the relationship
between many health behaviors and how message-framing influences
said behaviors has been studied extensively, there is a lack of
literature regarding messages encouraging the pro-health behavior of
meningitis vaccinations. More so, among the existing literature, there
is little explaining the proposed mechanism for the efficacy of certain
types of messages.
There are differences between the effectiveness of loss and gain
framed messages. According to past research on message framing,
loss-framed messages are more effective when targeting behaviors
that detect the presence of a disease (mammogram, HIV testing),
whereas gain-framed messages are more effective when targeting
behaviors that prevent the onset of a disease (flossing, dieting)
(Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey, Peter
2006). These principles derive from prospect theory, which suggests
that people are more inclined to take risks when exposed to the

Message Framing

negative consequences of said decision, whereas people are more

hesitant to make risks when they are told of the positive consequences
(Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). In relation to health message framing,
loss framed messages are more effective when targeting behaviors
that detect the presence of a disease because disease detecting
behaviors can be characterized as more risky due in part to the
potential to find life threatening diseases. Alternatively, gain-framed
messages are more effective in terms of targeting behaviors that
detect the presence of a disease because preventative health
behaviors are considered low risk in that they are done to prevent
disease (Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey,
Peter 2006). Therefore, assuming that a meningitis vaccination is
classified as a preventative health behavior, a gain-framed message
should be more viable than a loss-framed message in promoting the
acceptance of a meningitis vaccination.
Although the literature demonstrates the efficacy between gain
and loss framed messages, some studies suggest that framing effects
are more reliable when messages are perceived to be personally
relevant. In a 1999 study done by Rothman, Salovey, Antone, Keough,
& Martin, researchers found that gain-framed messaging discussing
sun protection led to greater interest in sunscreen use compared to a
loss-framed message, only among participants who were concerned
about skin cancer. Additionally, a 2007 study about message framing

Message Framing

relative to HPV vaccination done by Gerand & Shepherd found that a

loss-framed message led to greater HPV vaccination intentions that a
gain-framed message, but only among participants who infrequently
used condoms and had more sexual partners. In both studies,
researchers found that acceptance of health behaviors were mediated
by the message recipients characteristics.
In assessing the characteristics of the participants in our study,
we decided to focus on communal relationships. Communal
relationships are characterized by the idea that members within a
relationship feel an obligation to be concerned for the welfare of each
other. Additionally, members in a communal relationship feel the need
to give benefits in response to the needs of the other or the need to
simply please the other. Ultimately, members in communal
relationships display characteristics of altruism and pro-social behavior
(Clark, Mills, Powell 1986).
Consistent with the literature above, the assumption can be made that
rates of pro-social behavior can have an effect on certain health
behaviors that are relevant within the contexts of a close community.
During the fall of 2014, UCSB was hit with a Meningitis B
outbreak. Meningitis is the inflammation of protective membranes
covering the brain and spinal cord. This inflammation can be traced to
a host of sources, including viruses, bacteria, or other microorganisms.
Although UCSBs student health center offered vaccination clinics,

Message Framing

many students declined to receive the vaccine. Therefore,

understanding the efficacy of certain messages is vital. Additionally, in
response to the above literature regarding the factor personal
characteristics of the message recipient, we decided to study the
influence of pro-social behavior relative to communally based
messages.
In designing our messages, we focused on messages that
appealed to the community as apposed to messages that appealed to
the individual. Within the tight knit university setting of UCSB, students
feel a sense of community amongst each other. Because those in
communal relationships are more aware of the well-being of others, we
believe that those who are more pro-social will be more influenced by
communally based health messages. Therefore, we predicted that
UCSB students who scored higher in pro-social behavior would be more
influenced by communally based messages compared to those who
score lower in pro-social behaviors. Additionally, consistent with
traditional gain and loss framed messaging principles, we believe those
exposed to gain-framed messages will result in higher rates of
likelihood of getting the vaccine compared to those who saw the lossframed message because the Meningitis B vaccine is characterized as
a preventative health measure.
Method
Participants

Message Framing

78 undergraduate students recruited from UCSB participated in the

study. Participants ages ranged from 17-29 (M=19.75) 34 were male
and 43 were female. 53 were Caucasian, 4 were African-American, 4
were Latino, 8 were Asian, 3 were Middle Eastern, and 4 were other.
Participation was voluntary and there was no compensation.
Measures/Materials
Messages Framing: Participants were randomly assigned to
one of the three messages. The gain-framed message highlighted the
benefits the community would receive from getting the Meningitis B
shot, while also informing students that the Meningitis B shot was
being offered on campus. The loss-framed message highlighted the
negative consequences the community would face from abstaining
from the Meningitis B shot, while also informing students that the
Meningitis B shot was being offered on campus. The neutral message
only informed students of the fact that the Meningitis B vaccine was
being offered on campus (See Apendix A).
Likelihood: Participants were asked, on a scale from 1-7, how
likely they were to get the vaccine. The scale ranged from very
unlikely to very likely.
Prosocial Personality Battery PSB) (Penner, L.A., 2002):
Participants completed two of the seven Prosocial Personality
categories for a total of 13 questions. The first category, Social
Responsibility, contained 7 statements. Participants were then asked to

Message Framing

rate, on a 7-point Likert scale from strongly disagree (1) to strongly

agree (7). A composite measure of pro-social behavior was then
calculated by averaging across all 13 items to access whether
participants scored in the high or low levels of pro-social behavior.
Health Behavior: Likelihood of getting the Meningitis B vaccine
was measured on a 7-point Likert scale from extremely unlikely (1) to
extremely likely (7).
Procedure
Participants were given access to the survey on Qualtrics through a
direct URL. Participants were randomly assigned to the three different
messages. After viewing the message, participants were asked how
likely they were to get the Meningitis B vaccine. After, participants
were asked to complete the Social Responsibility and Moral Reasoning
scales from the Prosocial Personality Battery. The directions read: The
following statements may or may not describe you, your feelings, or
your behavior. Please reach each statement carefully, and then choose
the answer that corresponds to the degree to which you agree that
each situation reflects how you would generally feel or act.
Participants then answered questions about their demographic. Lastly,
participants were debriefed and told the purpose of the study.
Results
A two-way, between-subjects analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
utilized in analyzing participants likelihood of getting the Meningitis B

Message Framing

vaccine from student health. We first predicted that students who saw
the gain-framed message would be more likely to obtain the Meningitis
B vaccine compared to students who saw the loss-framed message.
However, there was no significant effect on message type and
participants likelihood of getting the vaccine, F(2,72)=1.562, p=.217.
We also predicted that UCSB students who scored high on the prosocial inventory would be more likely to be persuaded to get the
Meningitis B vaccine compared to UCSB students who scored low on
the pro-social behavior inventory. There was also no significant effect
of participant level of pro-social behavior on likelihood of getting the
Meningitis B vaccine, F(1, 72)=1.69, p=.824, and the interaction was
non-significant, F(2,72)=.169, p=.845. Ultimately, the results show
that different types of messages (gain, loss, or control) were neither
more or less effective in persuading participants to obtain the
Meningits B vaccine. Additionally, participants levels of pro-social
behavior (high, low) did not influence the likelihood of getting the
Meningitis B vaccine from student health. Lastly, pro-social behavior
was not a moderator between message framing and participants
likelihood of getting vaccine.

Message Framing

10
Discussion

Because there was a Meningits B outbreak on the UCSB campus,

we had hoped to find out what specific message would be most
effective in persuading pro-health behaviors. Consistent with the
literature, we predicted a higher likelihood of obtaining the vaccine
with participants in the gain framed messaging compared to the lossframed messaging. However, we were unable to reject the first the null
hypothesis. Theories that were previously mentioned refereed to the
idea that using gain-framed messages were more effective in
prompting preventative health measures. However, because we did not
find significant results between the gain and loss framed messages, we
must target efforts towards characteristics pertaining to message
recipient (Rothman, Alexander, Bartels, Roger, Wlschin, Jhon, Salovey,
Peter 2006).
Consistent with the idea that those who identify with communally
based relationships would display higher levels of pro-social behavior,
we also predicted that students at UCSB who scored highly on a prosocial behavior inventory would be more likely to get the Meningitis B
vaccine compared to students who scored lower on the pro-social
behavior inventory. Similarly to our first hypothesis, we were unable to
reject the second null hypothesis. Stating both the gain and loss
messages in terms of the community did not lead to a significant
interaction between the types of messages participants read and their

Message Framing

11

levels of pro-social behavior on the likelihood that they would get the
vaccine.
There were many limitations that contributed to the outcomes of
our study. The most significant limitation we faced was the fact that
many of our participants had already received the Meningitis B
vaccine. This could have skewed our results in the sense that even
though some participants scored high on pro-social behavior, they may
have reported that they were extremely unlikely to receive the
Meningitis B vaccine. To remedy this, we would have to pool from a
sample where no one received the Meningitis B vaccine. Ultimately,
future research should pool from a larger sample size of individuals
who have not received the Meningitis B vaccine along with
compensation. Additionally measures of participant behavior need to
be more accurate. Future research should also consider adding more
conditions that include individual based messages alongside
communally based messages. By doing so, there could potentially be a
distinction between the efficacy of messages characterized towards
the individual versus messages characterized by the community.
Additionally, we pooled our participants from a convenient
sample. Therefore, results from our study ultimately cannot be
generalized to the larger public. To remedy this issue, we would have
to take larger strides in collecting a larger and more representative
sample. Additionally, because there was no monetary compensation

Message Framing

12

for our study, those who participated were probably more pro-social to
begin with. This results in our median split of high and low social
behavior to be less significant. To fix this, we would have to provide
some sort form of compensation for our participants.
Lastly, because our participants responses were self-reported,
their results were less accurate than if we had recorded each
individuals pro-social behavior ourselves. In the same manner, we
were also unable to see if participants got the Meningitis B vaccine or
not upon completion of the survey.
Ultimately, there is continuing growth in the literature for
the efficacy of message framing. Although this study does not point to
any conclusive evidence as pro-social behavior being a significant
mediator, previous studies have shown other dominant factors in
mediating the relationship between message framing and the
enactment of pro-health behaviors. With a more stringent design,
future researchers may be able to find observable and measurable
results.

Message Framing

13
References

Clark, M.S., Mills, J., & Powell, M. C. (1986). Keeping track of needs in
communal and
and exchange relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 51(2), 333-338. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.333
Gerend, M. A., & Shepherd, J. E. (2007). Using message framing to
promote acceptance of the human papillomavirus vaccine.
Health Psychology, 26(6), 745-752.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.6.745
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1990). Prospect theory: An analysis of
decision under risk Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/617870011?
accountid=14522
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate
healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological
Bulletin, 121(1), 3-19. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00332909.121.1.3
Rothman, A. J., Martino, S. C., Bedell, B. T., Detweiler, J. B., & Salovey,
P. (1999). The systematic influence of gain- and loss-framed
messages on interest in and use of different types of health
behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1355
1369. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0324-5234.142.2.4

Message Framing

14

Rothman, A. J., Bartels, R. D., Wlaschin, J., & Salovey, P. (2006). The
strategic use of gain- and loss-framed messages to promote
healthy behavior: How theory can inform practice. Journal of
Communication, 56, S202220.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037.0562.5234.142.4.2

Appendix A
Gain-Framed Message

There are many benefits to getting the Meningitis B

Vaccine.
First, if you decide to get the Meningitis B Vaccine, it will
increase the chances of protecting against the contraction
and spread of Meningitis B to your housemates, peers, and

friends.
Second, getting the Meningitis B Vaccine will help keep
those around you in good health. Student Health is offering
the Meningitis B Vaccine.

Loss-Framed Message

There are many risks to not getting the Meningitis B

Vaccine.
First, if you decide not to get the Meningitis B Vaccine, you
run the risk of contracting and spreading Meningitis B to
your housemates, peers, and friends.

Message Framing

15

Second, not getting the vaccine might put the health of

those around you at risk. Student Health is offering the
Meningitis B Vaccine.

Control Message

Student Health is offering the Meningitis B Vaccine.

Appendix B
Social Responsibility Questions:
1.

When people are nasty to me, I feel very little

2.

responsibility to treat them well.

I would feel less bothered about leaving litter in a dirty

3.

park than in a clean one.

No matter what a person has done to us, there is no

4.

excuse for taking advantage of them.

With the pressure for grades and the widespread
cheating in school nowadays, the individual who cheats

5.

occasionally is not really as much at fault.

It doesnt make much sense to be very concerned about

6.

how we act when we are sick and feeling miserable.

If I broke a machine through mishandling, I would feel
less guilty if it was already damaged before I used it.

Message Framing
7.

16

When you have a job to do, it is impossible to look out for

everybody's best interest.

Moral Reasoning Questions:

1. My decisions are usually based on my concern for other
people.
2. My decisions are usually based on what is the most fair and
just way to act.
3. I choose alternatives that are intended to meet everybody's
needs.
4. I choose a course of action that maximizes the help other
people receive.
5. I choose a course of action that considers the rights of all
people involved.
6. My decisions are usually based on concern for the welfare of others.