IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v14y2017i12p1507-d121512.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Does Health-Related Advertising with a Regulatory Focus and Goal Framing Affect Attitudes toward Ads and Healthy Behavior Intentions?

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Yen Lin

    (Department of Public Administration and Management, National University of Tainan, 33, Section 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan 700, Taiwan)

  • Wei-Ju Yeh

    (Department of Public Administration and Management, National University of Tainan, 33, Section 2, Shu-Lin St., Tainan 700, Taiwan)

Abstract

The health costs of colorectal cancer have increased over the years in Taiwan. The National Health Insurance Administration (NHI) and the Health Promotion Administration of the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MOHW) in Taiwan advocate that people have to change their unhealthy behaviors; however, the number of patients of colorectal cancer is increasing annually. This research discussed the effects of healthy diet advocacy advertisements (ads) on healthy diet behavior intentions as influenced by the interactions between regulatory focus theory (RFT) and message framing effects. Both regulatory focus theory and message framing effect were discussed for the relationship between advertisement and behavior change in many fields, such as health-related behavior, pro-environmental behavior, consumer choice, etc. We executed an experiment with four different types of public health advocacy ads. A 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) × 2 (message framing: gain framing vs. loss framing) two-factor experiment was adopted, and 201 valid participants responded to the questionnaire. Results indicated that if the ad’s regulatory focus is promotion focus, viewers’ attitudes toward the ad and their behavior intentions are more positive when the slogan of the ad is gain framing rather than loss framing via the multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA), and vice versa. Respondents found the communication easier to comprehend when the ads evoked the respondents’ regulatory focus and applied the appropriate message framing, thus improving the efficacy of health-related advertising. We offer suggestions regarding the future use of health-related advertising for the MOHW.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Yen Lin & Wei-Ju Yeh, 2017. "How Does Health-Related Advertising with a Regulatory Focus and Goal Framing Affect Attitudes toward Ads and Healthy Behavior Intentions?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1507-:d:121512
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1507/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/14/12/1507/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bettman, James R & Sujan, Mita, 1987. "Effects of Framing on Evaluation of Comparable and Noncomparable Alternatives by Expert and Novice Consumers," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 14(2), pages 141-154, September.
    2. Pechmann, C. & Reibling, E.T., 2006. "Antismoking advertisements for youths: An independent evaluation of health, counter-industry, and industry approaches," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 96(5), pages 906-913.
    3. Mario Pandelaere & Barbara Briers & Christophe Lembregts, 2011. "How to Make a 29% Increase Look Bigger: The Unit Effect in Option Comparisons," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 38(2), pages 308-322.
    4. Westaby, James D., 2005. "Behavioral reasoning theory: Identifying new linkages underlying intentions and behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 98(2), pages 97-120, November.
    5. Levin, Irwin P. & Schneider, Sandra L. & Gaeth, Gary J., 1998. "All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 149-188, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yanfei Zhu & Yuli Wang & Ying Li & Xiaoxi Du & Qi Guo & Mo Chen & Yun Lin, 2022. "The Construction of Image Reference Points and Text Appeals Information Tailoring in Promoting Diners’ Public Environment Maintenance Behavior Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(21), pages 1-18, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pleshcheva, Vlada, 2019. "Metric and Scale Effects in Consumer Preferences for Environmental Benefits," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 147, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    2. Chia-Yen Lin, 2015. "Promote Health or Prevent Disease? The Effects of Health-Related Advertising on Eating Behavior Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-18, March.
    3. Matthew Fisher & Milica Mormann, 2022. "The Off by 100% Bias: The Effects of Percentage Changes Greater than 100% on Magnitude Judgments and Consumer Choice [Numerosity and Consumer Behavior]," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 49(4), pages 561-573.
    4. Huang, Youlin & Qian, Lixian, 2021. "Consumer adoption of electric vehicles in alternative business models," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    5. Laure Kuhfuss & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer & Nick Hanley & Philippe Le Coent & Mathieu Désolé, 2016. "Nudges, Social Norms, and Permanence in Agri-environmental Schemes," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 92(4), pages 641-655.
    6. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Yadav, Rambalak & Giri, Arunangshu & Chatterjee, Satakshi, 2022. "Understanding the users' motivation and barriers in adopting healthcare apps: A mixed-method approach using behavioral reasoning theory," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    8. Jing-Yi Chen & Ming-Hui Wang, 2023. "A Study on Real Estate Purchase Decisions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-21, March.
    9. Cubitt, Robin P. & Drouvelis, Michalis & Gächter, Simon & Kabalin, Ruslan, 2011. "Moral judgments in social dilemmas: How bad is free riding?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 253-264.
    10. Anna Fielder & Riina Vuorikari & Nuria Rodriguez-Priego & Yves Punie, 2016. "Background Review for Developing the Digital Competence Framework for Consumers: A snapshot of hot-button issues and recent literature," JRC Research Reports JRC103332, Joint Research Centre.
    11. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    12. Hajiheydari, Nastaran & Delgosha, Mohammad Soltani & Olya, Hossein, 2021. "Scepticism and resistance to IoMT in healthcare: Application of behavioural reasoning theory with configurational perspective," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    13. Todd McElroy & David L. Dickinson & Irwin P. Levin, 2019. "Thinking About Decisions: An Integrative Approach of Person and Task Factors," Working Papers 19-04, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    14. Gold, Natalie & List, Christian, 2004. "Framing as Path Dependence," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 253-277, October.
    15. Hilary Byerly Flint & Paul Cada & Patricia A. Champ & Jamie Gomez & Danny Margoles & James R. Meldrum & Hannah Brenkert-Smith, 2022. "You vs. us: framing adaptation behavior in terms of private or social benefits," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 174(1), pages 1-17, September.
    16. Wardley, Marcus & Alberhasky, Max, 2021. "Framing zero: Why losing nothing is better than gaining nothing," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    17. Sanghoon Lee & Eunil Park & Sang Jib Kwon & Angel P. Del Pobil, 2015. "Antecedents of Behavioral Intention to Use Mobile Telecommunication Services: Effects of Corporate Social Responsibility and Technology Acceptance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(8), pages 1-15, August.
    18. Hazel Bateman & Christine Eckert & Fedor Iskhakov & Jordan Louviere & Stephen Satchell & Susan Thorp, 2017. "Default and naive diversification heuristics in annuity choice," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 42(1), pages 32-57, February.
    19. Jain, Gaurav & Gaeth, Gary J. & Nayakankuppam, Dhananjay & Levin, Irwin P., 2020. "Revisiting attribute framing: The impact of number roundedness on framing," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 109-119.
    20. Marianna Baggio & Luigi Mittone, 2016. "Experience and History: An Experimental Approach to Generational Heterogeneity," International Journal of Applied Behavioral Economics (IJABE), IGI Global, vol. 5(4), pages 1-23, October.
    21. Van de Velde, Liesbeth & Verbeke, Wim & Popp, Michael & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido, 2010. "The importance of message framing for providing information about sustainability and environmental aspects of energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 5541-5549, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:14:y:2017:i:12:p:1507-:d:121512. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.