IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v9y2012i6p2121-2133d18131.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel J. O’Keefe

    (Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, 2040 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, USA)

  • Daisy Wu

    (Department of Communication Studies, Northwestern University, 2040 Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208, USA)

Abstract

Persuading people to undertake actions to prevent skin cancer is an important public health challenge. A number of studies have compared the effectiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed appeals in this domain, often expecting gain-framed appeals to be more persuasive. A meta-analytic review ( k = 33, N = 4,168), however, finds no significant difference in the persuasiveness of gain- and loss-framed appeals for encouraging skin cancer prevention. This conclusion is unaffected by differences in the specific protective action advocated or by differences in the kind of outcomes invoked. But the results offer an intimation that men might be more susceptible to framing variations in this domain—with loss-framed appeals potentially having a persuasive advantage.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel J. O’Keefe & Daisy Wu, 2012. "Gain-Framed Messages Do Not Motivate Sun Protection: A Meta-Analytic Review of Randomized Trials Comparing Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Appeals for Promoting Skin Cancer Prevention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-13, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:9:y:2012:i:6:p:2121-2133:d:18131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/9/6/2121/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/9/6/2121/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Daniela Haluza & Markus Schwab & Stana Simic & Renate Cervinka & Hanns Moshammer, 2015. "Perceived Relevance of Educative Information on Public (Skin) Health: Results of a Representative, Population-Based Telephone Survey," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-15, November.
    2. Daniela Haluza & Stana Simic & Hanns Moshammer, 2014. "Temporal and Spatial Melanoma Trends in Austria: An Ecological Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-15, January.
    3. Pokharel, Manusheela & Jensen, Jakob D. & Taylor-Burton, Sophia & King, Andy J. & John, Kevin K. & Upshaw, Sean, 2023. "Temporal frames, temporal focus, and behavioral expectations: The persuasive impact of near and distant threats," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 328(C).

    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:9:y:2012:i:6:p:2121-2133:d:18131. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.