Combining message framing and social distance to promote pro-social
health behaviors
Laurie Balbo
Professeur Assistant
Montpellier Business School
Montpellier Research in Management
[email protected]
Florence Jeannot
Professeur Assistant
INSEEC Business School
Laboratoire CERAG - Université de Grenoble
[email protected]
Justine Estarague
Doctorante – Assistante de Recherche
Montpellier Business School
Montpellier Research in Management
[email protected]
Combining message framing and social distance to promote pro-social health behaviors
Abstract
This research examines the interplay between message framing (gains vs. losses) and social
distance (proximal vs. distal) on intention to adopt two pro-social health behaviors.
Experiment 1 revealed that a gain-framed message (benefits of blood donation), associated
with the testimonial of a distal person (someone older than the respondent), and loss-framed
message (lack of benefits from not giving blood), associated with the testimonial of a
proximal person (someone of similar age as the respondent), are the most effective
combinations for promoting blood donation. Experiment 2 replicated these results with organ
donation and indicated that consumers’ comparative optimism moderates these effects.
Keywords: message framing, social distance, construal levels, health communication
Combiner le cadrage du message et la distance sociale pour promouvoir des
comportements pro-sociaux
Résumé
Cette recherche examine l’effet de l’interaction entre le cadrage du message (gains vs. pertes)
et la distance sociale (proximale vs. distale) sur l’intention d’adopter deux comportements
pro-sociaux liés à la santé. La première expérimentation montre qu’un message de gains (les
bénéfices du don du sang), associé au témoignage d’une personne distale (une personne plus
âgée que le répondent) ainsi qu’un message de pertes (la perte des bénéfices du don du sang),
associé au témoignage d’une personne proximale (une personne du même âge que le
répondent), sont les combinaisons les plus efficaces pour promouvoir le don du sang. La
seconde expérimentation met en exergue des résultats similaires pour le don d’organes et
souligne le rôle modérateur de l’optimisme comparatif du répondant.
Mots clés : cadrage du message, distance sociale, niveaux de représentation
1
Combining message framing and social distance to promote pro-social health behaviors
Considering the amount of energy and money that is spent by governments, associations and
firms to persuade individuals to encourage pro-social health behaviors (e.g., donate money,
become a volunteer, sign a petition), it is not surprising that researchers from social and
human sciences have started to focus attention and research on their antecedents. Because of
its potential impact on communication effectiveness, the message framing (Tversky and
Kahneman 1981) is particularly relevant. This technique, well-known by both marketing
researchers and practitioners, consists of evoking either the positive consequences (or gains)
associated with engaging in a particular behavior (e.g., Use of sunscreen reduces the risk of
having skin cancer) or the negative consequences (or losses) associated with failing to engage
in the same behavior (e.g., Not using sunscreen increases the risk of skin cancer). However,
from an empirical point of view, results of message framing studies are mixed regarding the
most effective frame to adopt. Some research concludes that messages evoking gains are more
efficient (Lee and Aaker 2004; Levin and Gaeth 1988; Rothman et al. 1993; Updegraff et al.
2011), while other shows that messages stressing losses are more influential (Keller et al.
2003; Meyerowitz and Chaiken 1987). These findings have lead researchers to identify
individual (e.g., Meyers-Levy and Maheswaran 2004) or contextual (e.g., Shiv et al. 1997)
variables likely to moderate the effects of message framing.
Based on prior research on construal level theory (Liberman and Trope 1998), we
propose that the influence of message framing differs according to the social distance
perceived by consumers between themselves and the individuals used in the message to which
they are exposed (e.g., the testimony of a person in a specific health domain). In particular, we
show that a loss-framed message is more persuasive when paired with a socially proximal
person. Indeed, a loss-framed message incites consumers to implement concrete actions to
avoid the undesirable consequences presented in the message (Taylor 1991). These actions
would fit the lower construal level induced by a proximal social distance (Liviatan et al.
2008). Conversely, a gain-framed message encourages the adoption of a higher construal level
(i.e., the benefits of a specific behavior) which matches the construal induced by a distal
social distance (Liviatan et al. 2008). Importantly, we examine a boundary condition of this
match-based effect and we propose that comparative optimism, the tendency to believe that
negative events are more likely to occur to others than oneself (Smits and Hoorens 2005),
moderates the interplay between message framing and social distance. Theoretically speaking,
this research sheds light on the mixed results regarding message framing and adds to the
2
growing literature on construal level theory and social distance (Baskin et al. 2014; Ein-Garn
and Levontin 2013; Kim et al. 2008; Kim et al. 2014; Zhao and Xie 2011). Practically
speaking, it will help in the design of pro-social health behaviors campaigns.
In the following sections, we review the literature on message framing, social distance,
and comparative optimism, and we present the rational for our predictions. We then discuss
two experiments in which we examined message framing and social distance by manipulating
them in health advertisements in the context of blood donation (Experiment 1) and organ
donation (Experiment 2). Finally, we conclude with a general discussion that emphasizes the
main contributions and limitations of the present research as well as directions for further
research.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1.
Message Framing and Health Behaviors
In the present research, we consider the wording of a health message using the framing effect
concept from Tversky and Kahneman’s (1981) prospect theory. The fundamental aspect of
this theory is that people respond differently to the same problem depending on whether it is
positively or negatively framed. Studies that examine the framing effect compare the effect of
a message that depicts the positive consequences (or “gains”) associated with engaging in a
given behavior with a message that depicts negative consequences (or “losses”) associated
with failing to engage in that same behavior. When the description of an event or an object is
presented in terms of gains or losses, this leads to different consumer responses.
Since the pioneering work of Tversky and Kahneman (1981), message framing has been
studied in several different contexts, such as in the description of a product’s attributes (Levin
and Gaeth 1988), cause-related marketing (Grau and Folse 2007), and the formulation of
preventive messages such as in Meyerowitz and Chaiken (1987): “You can gain (vs. lose)
several potential health benefits by spending (vs. failing to spend) only 5 minutes each month
doing a breast self-examination”. It is precisely in this health-message context that most
message framing studies have been conducted (Gallagher et al. 2011; Lee and Aaker 2004;
Rothman et al. 1993). Results of message framing studies are mixed and show no consensus.
Indeed, some works conclude that messages evoking gains are more efficient (Lee and Aaker
2004; Levin and Gaeth 1988; Rothman et al. 1993; Updegraff et al. 2011), while other works
show that messages stressing losses are more influential (Keller et al. 2003; Meyerowitz and
Chaiken 1987). These mixed results draw our attention to the presence of moderating
3
variables. In the present research, we propose to examine the interaction between message
framing and the construal level of the health message using a common operationalization of
construal level: social distance.
1.2.
Construal Levels and Social Distance
Different theories in psychology suggest that the same action can be interpreted in accordance
with various levels of representation. As specified by Liberman and Trope (1998), high-level
construals are abstract and general, focusing on the primary and superordinate characteristics
of an action. In contrast, low-level construals are more concrete and specific, focusing on the
secondary and subordinate features of an action. According to construal level theory (CLT),
psychological distance changes the level at which an action is mentally construed (and vice
versa). In particular, individuals’ representations of psychologically distant actions primarily
consist of high-level construals. As psychological distance decreases, low-level construals are
formed. Construal level theory was utilized initially to address the temporal perspective
(Liberman and Trope 1998), but recently it has been applied to other dimensions of
psychological distance, such as social distance. Liviatan et al. (2008) show that the actions of
dissimilar others, compared with the actions of similar others, are mentally represented at
higher levels (i.e., with superordinate and central features, rather than with subordinate and
secondary features). Bar-Anan et al. (2006) obtained similar findings using another
operationalization of social distance, namely, in-group versus out-group belongingness. This
influence of social distance on individuals’ construals has been applied successfully in various
marketing contexts. For example, Zhao and Xie (2011) found that in the case of a temporally
distant purchase, a recommendation issued by out-group consumers is more persuasive than a
recommendation issued by in-group consumers. In the persuasion literature, Nenkov (2012)
showed that consumers who are in the predecisional (vs. postdecisional) phase of decision
making are more likely to be persuaded by messages targeting a distant (vs. close) other.
Further, Ein-Gar and Levontin (2013) demonstrated that people were more willing to
donate to a single-identified human victim (vs. an organization) when they were socially close
(vs. distant) to the donation target. More relevant to this research, Nan (2007) found that the
effectiveness of message framing depends on whether individuals were making judgments for
socially distant (e.g., others, out-group) versus proximal (e.g., selves, in-group) entities: gainframed messages were more persuasive when the participants were asked to make judgments
about hepatitis C tests from the perspective of an average undergraduate student (distal
condition) rather than from the perspective of their best friend (proximal condition). In the
4
context of promoting environmental protection behaviors, White et al. (2011) obtained similar
findings using temporal distance. As gain-framed messages focus on attaining a desirable
outcome (a high-level construal), they were more effective when matched with a mindset that
stimulates abstract thinking (long-term implications and “why” recycling); conversely, as
loss-framed messages emphasize the costs associated with not choosing a particular option (a
low-level construal), they were more persuasive when paired with a mindset that engages
concrete thinking (short-term implications and “how” recycling). Based on the
aforementioned findings (Nan 2007; White et al. 2011), we hypothesize a match-based effect
between message framing and social distance, such that a loss-framed (vs. gain-framed)
message elicits a higher intention to adopt a pro-social health behavior emphasized in the
message when it is associated with a socially proximal (vs. distal) other. We build on these
prior studies and extend them in several ways. Firstly, White et al. (2011) focused on
temporal distance but we examine the role of social distance, another form of psychological
distance (Trope and Liberman 2003; 2010). Secondly, compared to Nan (2007), this research
is interested in the direct manipulation of social distance within the message: first, by
manipulating the testimonial source of a blood donation (the same age range of the target vs.
older) and second, by manipulating the potential beneficiary of an organ donation (the
respondent vs. someone else). Based on the aforementioned results, we proposed the
following hypothesis:
H1: Message framing and social distance interact, such that a loss-framed (vs. gain-framed)
message elicits a higher intention to adopt the health behavior emphasized in the
advertisement when it is associated with a socially proximal (vs. distal) entity.
In addition, we examine a boundary condition and propose that comparative optimism
moderates the interaction between message framing and social distance.
1.3.
Moderating Role of Comparative Optimism
Different consumer segments are likely to respond differently to health-related messages.
Comparative optimism, or CO, refers to the tendency to believe that negative events are more
likely to occur to others than to oneself (Smits and Hoorens 2005). Indeed, several studies in
the health domain show that people believe that others will experience more negative health
events than they themselves will, referring to a self-positivity bias (Raghubir and Menon
1998, 2001). One such study is Weinstein (1980), where students reported they were less
5
likely than their peers to suffer a heart attack before the age of forty. Other research reveals
that CO is present in a wide range of health domains, including attempting a suicide, getting a
sexual transmitted disease or having a drinking problem (Brown and Morley 2007; Hoorens
1996; Klein and Weinstein 1997; Raghubir and Menon 1998, 2001). One major problem is
that underestimating one’s own health may result in fewer preventive and detecting behaviors.
This may be detrimental for that individual and society at large, because of a false sense of
security that may undermine the governments and associations communication efforts.
Indeed, relying on individual’s perceived risk literature (Rogers 1975, 1983; Witte 1998) it
seems adequate to think that generally speaking, people with a high comparative optimism
regarding health situations may be less sensitive to pro-social health messages.
Comparative optimism can be measured directly or indirectly (Klein and HelwegLarsen 2002 Weinstein and Klein 1996). When CO is assessed directly, respondents make a
single judgment of their likelihood of experiencing a future event relative to “an average
other” similar in gender and age (Kruger and Burrus 2004; Weinstein 1980). With the indirect
method, respondents makes two separate estimates, one for their likelihood and another one
for “an average other” and the difference between the two ratings is used as a measure of CO
(Raghubir and Menon 1998). Literature on CO suggests that the indirect method produces less
optimistic bias that the direct method (Klein and Helweg-Larsen 2002 but that optimistic bias
is present for both men and women (Weinstein 1980).
In this research, we propose that the match-based effect between message framing and
social distance may be contingent on an individual’s comparative optimism. Our objective is
to point up that the beneficial effect resulting from the fit between message framing (gains vs.
losses) and social distance (proximal vs. distal) is contingent on individuals’ CO (low vs.
high). Some research highlights that probabilities (low vs. high) activate different levels of
construals: improbable events are represented at a higher-level compared to probable events
which are construed at a lower-level (Bar-Anan et al. 2006; Wakslak et al. 2006; Wakslak and
Trope 2009). Thus, individuals who estimate that their perception of health risk is lower than
the perceived risk of an average other (high comparative optimism) are likely to have an
abstract, a high-level construal of the health situation and of the persons in need. For them, a
pro-social health message constructed with the combination of a gain-framed message that
uses a socially distant other would be more impactful as it also elicits a high-construal level.
On the other hand, people that have a high perception of a health risk (low CO) may have a
low-level construal of the same situation and think in terms of themselves or a similar other
when exposed to the same health situation. In this case, the loss-framed message that embeds
6
a proximal social distance should be more efficient. More formally, we formulated the
following hypothesis:
H2: Comparative optimism moderates the interaction between message framing and social
distance such that:
H2a: When comparative optimism is low, a loss-framed (vs. gain-framed) message
leads to a higher (vs. lower) intention to adopt the health behavior emphasized in the
advertisement when it is associated with a socially proximal entity; however, message
framing has reduced or no effect when it is associated with a socially distal entity.
H2b: When comparative optimism is high, a gain-framed (vs. loss-framed) message
leads to a higher (vs. lower) intention to adopt the health behavior emphasized in the
advertisement when it is associated with a socially distal entity; however, message
framing has reduced or no effect when it is associated with a socially proximal entity.
2. Effect of message framing and social distance on intention to give blood
2.1.
Procedure and Participants
A total of 99 French undergraduate students participated in a 2 (message framing: gains vs.
losses) × 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distal) between-subjects experiment (Mage = 20.60;
SDage = 2.38; 43,4 % male). Participants volunteered to participate in this online experiment
and were randomly assigned to one of the four conditions created by the manipulations of
message framing and social distance. All messages were equal in the length and contained the
same arguments. In the gain-framed condition, the message stated the positive consequences
of giving blood (e.g., Giving blood does save lives), while in the loss-framed condition, the
message mentioned the negatives consequences of not giving blood (e.g., Not giving does not
save lives). The social distance was manipulated by presenting a testimonial from someone
who had received blood; this testimonial came from either someone who fit the age range of
the participant (proximal source) or someone who did not (distal source). The stimuli
resulting from our experimental manipulations were declined across gender: male participants
were randomly assigned to one of the four messages created by the manipulation of message
framing and social distance, and the message depicted the testimonial as coming from a man.
A corresponding process was followed for female participants.
Immediately after reading the message, participants completed an online questionnaire
that assessed their intention to give blood (I intend to give blood) from a scale of 1 (strongly
7
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The manipulation of message framing was pretested with 72
French students (Mage = 18.81; SDage = 1.05; 54,2 % male), who provided their answer on an
item (The message states) from a scale of 1 (what we have to win giving blood) to 5 (what we
have to lose not giving blood). Results revealed that the message framing manipulation was
successful (t (70) = 4.479; p = .000; Mlosses= 4.67; Mgains= 2.33).The manipulation of social
distance was pretested with 45 French students (Mage = 22.47; SDage = 3.90; 33.3 % male),
who completed the Inclusion of Others in the Self (IOS) scale developed by Aron et al.
(1992). Results revealed that the social distance manipulation was successful; in particular,
the perceived distance was shorter if the source was proximal rather than distal
(t (43) = 7.827; p = .000; MProximal source = 4.08; MDistal source = 2.13).
2.2.
Results
The means for participants’ ratings of intention were subject to a 2 × 2 ANOVA. The message
framing (F (1,95) = 0.398, p = NS; Mgains = 3.93; Mlosses = 3.77) and social distance (F (1,95) =
1.237, p = NS; Mproximal = 4.00; Mdistal = 3.71) did not have a significant main effect on
intention to give blood. More importantly, the predicted interaction between message framing
and social distance was significant (F (1,95) = 18.332, p < .001). We analyzed the simple
main effect of message framing within each of the two conditions of social distance. When
social distance was proximal (i.e., the testimonial was by someone who fit the age range of
the participant), message framing had a significant effect on intention to give blood (t (48) =
2.815, p < 0.005). Participants who read the loss-framed message reported greater intention to
give their blood than participants who read the gain-framed message (Mlosses = 4.36; Mgains =
3.61). When social distance was distal (i.e., the testimonial was by someone who did not fit
the age range of the participant), message framing had a significant effect on intention to give
blood (t (49) = -3.255, p < .005). In this condition, participants who read the gain-framed
message reported greater intention to give their blood than participants who read the lossframed message (Mgains = 4.26; Mlosses = 3.25). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
3. The moderating role of comparative optimism on intention to donate organs
In Experiment 2, we tested the moderating role of CO on the pattern of results demonstrated
in Experiment 1. To increase the generalizability of our results, we selected organ donation as
the public health behavior emphasized in this experiment.
3.1.
Procedure and Participants
8
One hundred and seventy seven participants (Mage = 29.40; SDage = 10.57; 43.5% male) took
part in a 2 (message framing: gains vs. losses) × 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distal)
between-subjects design with two levels of CO (high vs. low) used as a measured independent
variable. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions
resulting from the manipulations of message framing and social distance. The participants
first answered some questions measuring their CO. An indirect procedure was selected to
measure this individual tendency. A list of five negative situations related to health was
presented: 1) being infected with a sexually transmitted disease; 2) being in a situation
requiring organ donation; 3) suffering from cancer; 4) being a victim of a traffic accident;
and 5) suffering from a heart attack. Participants had to evaluate the probability of “someday
being personally affected by any of these situations” as well as the probability that “a person
their age may someday be personally affected by any of these situations” on a scale ranging
from 0% (no chance) to 100% (100% chance). The order of presentation of the two lists of
five questions was counterbalanced, and participants performed a distraction task (reading and
commenting on a funny comic strip about candy and children's health) between the first and
second sets of questions. Subsequently, all participants were randomly exposed to one of the
four experimental conditions.
Similar to those in Experiment 1, the manipulation of message framing either highlighted
a gained-framed (“We all gain by donating organs”) or a loss-framed (“We all lose by not
donating organs”) message. Unlike in Experiment 1, social distance was not manipulated by
the testimony of a person more or less socially distant, but rather by changing the tagline on
the flyer. In the proximal condition, the message reads, “You may need an organ donation
someday”, while in the distal condition, it reads, “Someone may need an organ donation
someday”. Indeed, inciting participants to imagine a situation about themselves versus another
person is a well-established operationalization of social distance (Hamilton and Thompson
2007; Trope et al. 2007; Zhao and Xie 2011). As in Experiment 1, the success of the socialdistance manipulation was assessed in a pretest conducted on 88 French undergraduate
students (Mage = 22.05; SDage = 2.40; 42.0 % male), during which Aron et al. (1992) IOS Scale
was administrated. Analysis demonstrated that the perception of social distance between the
participants and the target person featured in the stimulus was lower in the proximal condition
than in the distal condition (t (86) = 6.009; p =.000; MProximal source = 4.50; MDistal source = 2.71).
We measured intention to donate organs (I intend to donate my organs) on a scale of 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants also completed manipulation checks
using a semantic differential scale, both for message framing (“To what extent did the
9
advertisement focus on 1 = what we would gain if we donate organs to 5 = what we would
lose if we don’t donate organs”) and social distance (“To what extent did the advertisement
state that 1 = you might need to receive organs to 5 = someone might need to receive
organs”).
3.2.
Intention to Donate Organs
For the five health situations, we calculated participants’ comparative optimism score by
subtracting their ratings of another person’s probability of being affected by these situations
from their ratings of their own probability. Higher scores indicated greater comparative
optimism (i.e., participants thought they were less likely than similar others to have health
problems), and lower scores reflected lesser comparative optimism (i.e., participants believed
they were more likely than similar others to have health problems). A global CO index was
obtained by averaging the CO scores for each situation (with a range from –100 to +100). The
sample was split into two groups of similar size (Nlow comparative optimism = 87; Nhigh comparative
optimism
= 90). A 2 (message framing: gains vs. losses) × 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distal)
× 2 (CO: low vs. high) ANOVA demonstrated a three-way interaction (F (1,176) = 3.79; p =
.053) on intention to donate organs, showing that the effect of gain-framed and loss-framed
messages under proximal and distal social distances was different for participants with high
versus low levels of CO. For participants with a low CO (i.e., participants who thought they
were more likely than similar others to have health problems), a 2 (message framing: gains vs.
losses) × 2 (social distance: proximal vs. distal) ANOVA performed on intention to donate
organs revealed no significant main effect, but the predicted two-way interaction between
message framing and social distance was found (F (1,89) = 3.98; p < .05). Specifically, in the
proximal condition (i.e., You may need an organ donation), participants exposed to the lossframed message reported significantly greater intentions to donate their organs than those
exposed to the gain-framed message (F (1,33) = 4.66; p < .05; Mlosses = 4.13; Mgains = 3.50).
However, message framing had no effect on intention to donate in the distal condition (i.e,
Someone may need an organ donation; F (1,55) = 0.85; p = NS; Mlosses = 3.71; Mgains = 4.00).
For participants with a high CO (i.e., participants who thought they were less likely than
similar others to have health problems) results of a 2 (message framing: gains vs. losses) × 2
(social distance: proximal vs. distal) ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of message
framing (F (1,86) = 4.48; p < .05). Participants that read the gain-framed message reported
greater intentions to give their organs than those who read the loss-framed message (Mgains =
4.05; Mlosses = 3.49). More importantly, we observed the significant predicted two-way
10
interaction between message framing and social distance (F (1,86) = 18.34; p = .000). In the
distal condition, intention to donate organs was significantly higher when the participants read
a gain-framed message than when they read a loss-framed message (F (1,27) = 16.31; p =
.000; Mgains = 4.40; Mlosses = 2.69). Message framing had no effect on intention to donate
organs in the proximal condition (F (1,58) = 3.46; p = NS; Mlosses = 4.29; Mgains = 3.71). These
results provide support for Hypothesis 2.
4. General discussion
4.1.
Contributions
Findings from our two studies offer theoretical implications that shed light on specific
conditions in which the message framing of a pro-social health communications may be
effective in influencing people’s responses. Results highlight the moderating role of construal
level (low vs. high) that was manipulated through social distance (proximal vs. distal). Unlike
some previous studies (e.g., Nan 2007; Pennington and Roese 2003), the first experiment
found that message framing has a different simple main effect for both modalities of social
distance.
This research adds to the Construal Level Theory literature (Liberman and Trope
1998), a theory described as “one of the most successful and generative theories in social
psychology, with wide influence on consumer research” (William et al. 2014, p. 1123). It
specifically enriches the existing social distance literature. This form of psychological
distance has already given rise to some studies in marketing contexts, such as peer
recommendations (Zhao and Xie 2011), humanitarian causes (Ein-Garn and Levontin 2013),
and gift-giving (Baskin et al. 2014). These studies have shown that consumers react
differently to a marketing stimulus depending on the level of representation induced by the
social distance they perceived between themselves and the individuals presented in the
stimulus. Our research extends the scope of these findings to pro-social health
communications. Finally, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to consider
consumers’ comparative optimism as a moderator of the interplay between message framing
and social distance. This individual variable is considered to be of major interest in public
health studies (e.g., Brown and Morley 2007; Hoorens 1996).
From a practical standpoint, this research has implications for health practitioners, policy
makers and associations and contributes to the identification of a set of rules under which
message framing improves persuasion. Given the increasing number of organ transplants
11
performed annually in the United States and all over the world, and the need to satisfy a
chronic demand for blood donations, it is important to identify efficient ways of promoting
donation behaviors. The interplay between message framing and social distance contributes
toward achieving this goal. First, the results show that health communication that seeks to
increase intention to give blood or organs can be both loss- and gain-framed, if the social
distance represented in the message is adapted (i.e., proximal for a loss-framed message and
distal for a gain-framed message). Additionally, this research provides examples of successful
operationalizations of social distance, using either pictures (Experiment 1) or text
(Experiment 2). Finally, this research highlights that an individual’s comparative optimism –
the tendency to believe that negative events are more likely to occur to others than to oneself
(Smits and Hoorens 2005) – is an interesting trait variable that strengthens the results
presented above.
4.2.
Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
Although the findings generalize across two different pro-social health behaviors in the
laboratory, the external validity would be enhanced if these could be validated with field
studies. An important limitation that remains to be explored is the underlying process
responsible for the results obtained in this research. One possible explanation that needs to be
explored may be in the literature investigating the congruency – or “fit” – between message
framing and the construal level induced by a psychological distance. In particular, White et al.
(2011) show that the fit between message framing and the construal level induced by temporal
distance (“gains or long-term” and “losses or short-term”) facilitates the processing of
information, and consequently, increases the intention to adopt the behavior suggested by the
message.
The current research investigated the moderating role of comparative optimism (Smits
and Hoorens 2005). One’s self-view, defined as whether an individual responds to a message
from a “me” perspective, compared with an “us” or “others” perspective (Kareklas et al.
2012; Spassova and Lee 2013), may also moderate the relationship between message framing
and social distance. In their research, Spassova and Lee (2013) showed that the two distinct
self-views identified in the literature were associated with different levels of construal. More
specifically, individuals with an independent self-view (i.e., those who respond to a message
from a “me” perspective) are more likely to process a message at high-level construals, as
opposed to individuals with an interdependent self-view (i.e., those who respond to a message
from an “us” or “others” perspective), who are more likely to process a message at low-level
12
construals. In addition, according to Kareklas et al. (2012), individuals with independent selfviews are more sensitive to promotion-focused messages that present the attainment of
positive outcomes, whereas those with interdependent self-views are more sensitive to
prevention-focused messages that highlight the avoidance of negative outcomes.
13
References
Aron, A.,Aron, E. N. & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self-scale and the
structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63
(4), 596-612.
Bar-Anan, Y., Liberman, N., & Trope Y. (2006). The association between psychological
distance and construal level: evidence from an implicit association test. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 609-622.
Baskin, E., Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., & Novemsky, N. (2014). Why feasibility matters more
to gift receivers than givers: a construal-level approach to gift giving, Journal of
Consumer Research, 41(1), 169-182.
Brown, S. L., & Morley, A. M. (2007). Risk perception, fuzzy representations and
comparative optimism. British Journal of Psychology, 98(4), 575-587.
Ein-Gar, D., & Levontin, L. (2013). Giving from a distance: putting the charitable
organization at the center of the donation appeal. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
23(2), 197-211.
Gallagher, K. M., Updegraff, J. A., Rothman, A. J., & Sims, L. (2011). Perceived
susceptibility to breast cancer moderates the effect of gain- and loss-framed messages
on use of screening mammography. Health Psychology, 30(2), 145-152.
Grau, S. L., & Folse J. A. G. (2007). Cause-Related Marketing (CRM): The influence of
donation proximity and message-framing cues on the less-involved consumer. Journal
of Advertising, 36(4), 19-33.
Hamilton, R. W., & Thompson, D. V. (2007). Is there a substitute for direct experience.
comparing consumers’ preferences after direct and indirect product experiences.
Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 546-555.
Hoorens, V. (1996). Self-favouring biases for positive and negative characteristics:
independent phenomena? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1): 53 -67.
Kareklas, I., Carlson, J. R., & Muehling, D. D. (2012). The role of regulatory focus and selfview in “Green” advertising message framing. Journal of Advertising, 41(4), 25-39.
Keller, P. A., Lipkus, I. M., & Rimer B. K. (2003). Affect framing and persuasion. Journal of
Marketing Research, 40(1), 54-64..
Kim, J.Y., Kaufmann, K., & Stegemann, M. (2014). The impact of buyer-seller relationships
and reference prices on the effectiveness of the pay what you want pricing mechanism.
Marketing Letters, 24(4): 409-423.
14
Kim, K., Zhang, M., & Li, X. (2008). Effects of temporal and social distance on consumer
evaluations. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(4), 706-713.
Klein, C. T. F., & Helweg-Larsen, M. (2002). Perceived Control and the Optimistic Bias: A
Meta-Analytic Review. Psychology and Health, 17(4): 437-446.
Klein, W. M., & Weinstein, N. D. (1997). Social comparison and unrealistic optimism about
personal risk. In: Buunk B. P. and Gibbons F. X. (ed) Health, coping, and well-being:
Perspectives from social comparison theory, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp 2561.
Kruger, J., & Burrus, J. (2004). Egocentrism and focalism in unrealistic optimism (and
pessimism). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 332-340.
Lee, A. Y., & Aaker, J. L. (2004). Bringing the frame into focus: the influence of regulatory
fit on processing fluency and persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86(2), 205-218.
Levin, I. P., & Gaeth, G. J. (1988). How consumers are affected by the framing of attribute
information before and after consuming the product. Journal of Consumer Research,
15(3), 374-378..
Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in
near and distant future decisions: a test of temporal construal theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75(1), 5-18.
Liviatan, I., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2008). Interpersonal similarity as a social distance
dimension: implications for perception of others’ actions. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 44(5), 1266-1269.
Meyers-Levy, J. & Maheswaran, D. (2004). Exploring message framing outcomes when
systematic heuristic or both types of processing occur. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 14(1), 159-167.
Meyerowitz, B. E., & Chaiken, S. (1987). The effect of message framing on breast selfexamination attitudes intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 52(3), 500-510.
Nan, X. (2007). Social distance framing and judgment: a construal level perspective. Human
Communication Research, 33(4), 489-514.
Nenkov, G. (2012). It's all in the mindset: effects of varying psychological distance in
persuasive messages. Marketing Letters, 23(3), 615-628.
Pennington, G. L., & Roese, N. J. (2003). Regulatory focus and temporal distance. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 39(6), 563–576.
15
Raghubir, P. & Menon, G. (1998). AIDS and me, never the twain shall meet: the effects of
information accessibility on judgments of risk and advertising effectiveness. Journal
of Consumer Research, 25(1), 52-63.
Raghubir, P. & Menon, G. (2001). Framing effects in risk perceptions of AIDS. Marketing
Letters, 12(2), 145-155.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The
Journal of Psychology, 91(1), 93-114.
Rogers, R.W. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear appeals and attitude
change: A Revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (ed),
Social Psychophysiology. New York: Guilford Press.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence
of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviors. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 29(5), 408-433.
Shiv, B., Edell Britton, J. A., & Payne J. W. (1997). Factors affecting the impact of negatively
and positively framed ad messages. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(3), 285-294.
Smits, T., & Hoorens, V. (2005). How probable is probably? It depends on whom you’re
telling about. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 18(2), 83-96.
Spassova, G., & Lee, A. Y. (2013). Looking into the future: a match between self-view and
temporal distance. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(1), 159-171.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: the mobilizationminimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110(1), 67-85.
Trope, Y. & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403421.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance.
Psychological Review, 117(2), 440-463.
Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance:
effects on representation prediction evaluation and behavior. Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 17(2), 83-95.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.
Science, 211(4481), 453-458.
Updegraff, J. A., Emanuel, A. S., Gallagher, K. M., & Steinman, C. T. (2011). Framing flu
prevention: an experimental field test of signs promoting hand hygiene during the 2009–
2010 H1N1 pandemic. Health Psychology, 30(3), 295-299.
16
Wakslak, C., J., & Trope, Y. (2009). Cognitive consequences of affirming the self: The
relationship between self-affirmation and object construal. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology. 45(4), 927-932.
Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Aloni, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is
unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 135(4), 641-653.
Weinstein, N. D. (1980). Unrealistic optimism about future life events. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 39, 906-920.
Weinstein, N. D., & Klein, W. M. (1996). Unrealistic optimism: Present and future. Journal
of Social and Clinical Psychology, 15(1): 1–8.
White, K., MacDonnell, R., & Dahl, D. W. (2011). It's the mindset that matters: the role of
construal level and message framing in influencing consumer efficacy and conservation
behaviors over the long-term. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 472-485.
Williams, L. E., Stein, R. & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of
psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40(6),
1123-1138.
Witte, K. (1998). Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: using the extended Parallel Process
Model to explain fear appeal successes and failures. In Andersen P. A. & Guerrero L.
K. (ed) The Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory,
Applications, and Contexts. San Diego, CA, Academic Press, pp 423-450.
Zhao, M., and Xie, J. (2011). Effects of social and temporal distance on consumers' responses
to peer recommendations. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 486-496.
17