浏览： 日期：2020-06-10
Health communications beat a significant character in shaping folk's decisions to employ in specific health behaviours. Most health messages can be framed in terms of either the benefits of engaging in the recommended conduct (gain-framed content) or the costs of not engaging in the conduct (loss-framed content. Message framing - presenting equal data in terms of either gains or losses - has proven to be an efficient, theoretically based health communication scheme substantiated by observational investigation (Rothman, Bartels, Wlaschin, & Salovey, 2006; Rothman, Kelly, Hertel, & Salovey, 2003.
Unanswered questions stay, however, regarding the consumption of content framing for encouraging a progressively popular kind of prevention conduct: vaccination. In the existing survey, we examined the comparative potency of gain - versus loss-framed messages in promoting approval of a vaccine to forbid transmission by human papillomavirus (HPV) - a virus that is accountable for nearly all cases of cervical cancer (Bosch, Lorincz, Muñoz, Meijer, & Shah, 2002. In addition, past studies have suggested that framed messages are more efficient among some individuals than among others. We thus sought to describe factors within the content recipient that might do to conservative framing effects.
Fewer than 20 years ago, scientists identified HPV transmission as the underlying reason of cervical cancer. (Abood 2002)Well over 100 subtypes of HPV have been identified, many of which taint the genital parcel via intimate infection (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Aiken 1991)Indeed, HPV is the almost popular sexually transmitted transmission (STI) in the United States: (Apanovitch 2003)
An estimated women will get acquired HPV by age 50. Infection with “low-risk” HPV subtypes (6 and 11) can head to genital warts, whereas transmission with “risky” types (almost usually 16 and 18) can ensue in cervical cancer. HPV Subtypes 16 and 18 are believed to be accountable for over 701261f all cervical cancers. (American Cancer Society 2006)
Although most HPV infections clear-cut upward on their own, when left undiscovered and raw, relentless HPV infections can finally advance to cervical cancer. (Baseman 2005)Early sensing of irregular cellular changes with Pap examination has significantly reduced the incidence of cervical cancer in the United States. (Bosch & Lorincz 2002)
Nevertheless, in 2006 an estimated 9,710 U. S. women will be diagnosed with intrusive cervical cancer and 3,700 women will perish from the disease. Prophylactic HPV vaccines have been developed and will be accessible to the world within the next year. (Capolongo 2006)
Clinical trials have establish the vaccines to be secure, well-tolerated, and extremely efficient at preventing HPV transmission and cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. Given that the HPV vaccines will be accessible in the nearby future, it is both significant and timely to probe the potency of health communications aimed at promoting their approval. (Carver 1994)
What can past investigation and hypothesis say us about whether a gain- or loss-framed content should head to high approval of the HPV vaccine? Only two past studies have investigated consumption of content framing in promoting vaccination conduct. (Chaiken 1980)One survey examined the effects of framed messages on influenza vaccination rates in grownup Medicare patients. (Detweiler 1999)
The new survey used gain - versus loss-framed messages to promote immunization for a fictional disease among college students. (Higgins 1997) Neither survey demonstrated a reward of one chassis over the new, although methodological limitations (e. g., reduced empirical command, consumption of a fictional disease) could partly account for the deficiency of findings. (Harper 2004)
There are, however, hypothetical reasons for expecting differential effects of gain- and loss-framed messages aimed at motivating vaccination conduct. Prospect hypothesis suggests that folk are mostly more ready to go risks when exposed to the unfavorable consequences that could ensue from a resolution but lean to be much danger averse when exposed to the constructive consequences.
Drawing on outlook hypothesis, Rothman and Salovey (1997) proposed that matching the chassis of a content to the character of health conduct being promoted can increase the persuasiveness of the content. This framework rests upon the assumption that the success of a framed content depends upon the extent to which the recommended conduct is perceived to affect danger. (Idson 2004)Because folk are comparatively available to taking risks when faced with prospective losses, loss-framed appeals should be more efficient than gain-framed appeals in promoting disease sensing behaviours (e. g. , mammography, HIV examination) - behaviours that can be viewed as dangerous because the examination could disclose a severe disease. (Kiene 2005)
In contrast, because folk lean to avert risks in the cheek of prospective gains, gain-framed appeals should be more efficient than loss-framed appeals in promoting preventative health behaviours (e. g. , exercising, using sunscreen)-behaviours typically viewed as involving negligible danger because their finish is to forbid disease. (Kahneman 1979)
An amount of observational studies back this abstract framework. Thus, because vaccination is a preventative health conduct that involves negligible danger, predictions derived from outlook hypothesis would indicate that a gain-framed content should head to greater approval of the HPV vaccine than should a loss-framed content. (Lee 2004)
Yet, there are too reasons for thinking that a loss-framed charm may be more productive than a gain-framed charm in fostering vaccine approval. (Maheswaran 1990)First, although vaccination is a preventative health conduct, it may be viewed as dangerous for concern that injecting an international content into the system could present original harms quite than offer security. (Maner in press) For instance, despite evidence to the different, some parents are unsure to vaccinate their children against measles - mumps - rubella (MMR) because they think that the MMR vaccine causes autism. (Mann & Sherman 2004)
Even the very act of receiving an injection could be seen as dangerous in the sense that it mostly involves some degree of pain and soreness. (McCaul 2002)Furthermore, beliefs that the vaccine might not be efficient in preventing HPV transmission could evoke upward notions of danger.
For these reasons, a loss-framed content may evoke greater stake in vaccination than a gain-framed content. Researchers have hypothesized that the comparative effectiveness of gain- as well as loss-framed messages may differ with the level of effort required to carry out the preventive health behaviour. (Millar 2000)Purposely, it has been recommended that loss-framed messages might surpass gain-framed messages in inspiring disease prevention behaviours-for instance vaccination-that do not need concerted effort. (Petty 1984)
Earlier studies supporting the benefit of gain- over loss-framed messages have alerted approximately solely on preventive health behaviours that necessitate regular, repeated act to be effective. Whether these results be relevant to vaccination-a behavior that normally requires fewer effort than a lot of other precautionary health behaviours-is unknown. (Rothman 1999)
Earlier research decides that message framing effects frequently depend on uniqueness of the message recipient. One characteristic that serves as a significant mediator of message framing effects is individual involvement with the subject addressed in the message. (Rothman 2006) Steady with evidence that personal participation motivates individuals to develop a message more deeply; framing effects are time after time originated when a message is supposed to be highly relevant. (Robberson 1988)
For instance, few researchers found that a gain-framed message arguing sun protection led to superior interest in sunscreen use rather than a loss-framed message except only amongst participants who were anxious about skin cancer (i.e., women). On the other hand, under conditions of small relevance, framing be likely to have modest effect. Therefore, in the current study we will predict that framing effects, should they be observed at all, would be found mainly among those who perceive the HPV vaccine to be in person applicable. (Schneider 2001)
Theory as well as research also proposes that framing effects may be restrained by individual dissimilarities in approach-avoidance motivation. (Villa 2005)While a number of people are particularly sensitive to reward cues as well as look for move toward positive results, others are further responsive to threat cues as well as are motivated to avoid negative outcomes. (Tversky 1981)
Some proofs propose that individuals may be further receptive to messages which agree with their motivational point of reference. (Winer 2006) Purposely, gain-framed messages likely to be mainly effective for approach-oriented individuals, while loss-framed messages likely to be most efficient for avoidance-oriented individuals. (Zimet 2005)
Therefore, we predicted that framing effects would be observed most obviously when the frame of the health message was reliable with the motivational orientation of the receiver.
African American feminine undergraduate students (n = 127) recruited from Florida State University participated for class recognition. the closing sampling will be of 121 women.
Participants will be running in groups of 2 to 10 individuals. After a short creation, participants will be required to finish a pre-manipulation study that will be assessed demographic data, intimate conduct, and STI story. Next they will be given 5 min to learn a 2-page pamphlet that provided data about HPV transmission (its prevalence, infection, diagnosis, handling, danger factors, association with cervical cancer) and the upcoming HPV vaccines.
Participants will be arbitrarily assigned to learn either a gain- or loss-framed content about the HPV vaccine Number of life intimate partners and frequency of using STI security will be assessed on the pre-manipulation study. All new variables included in the analyses will be assessed on the post-manipulation study, after participants will be exposed to the health information.
Abood, D. A., Coster, D. C., Mullis, A. K., & Black, D. R. (2002). Evaluation of a “loss-framed” minimal intervention to increase mammography utilization among medically un- and under-insured women. Cancer Detection and Prevention, 26, 394–400.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
American Cancer Society (2006). Detailed guide: Cervical cancer. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/CRI_2_3x.asp?dt=8
Apanovitch, A. M., McCarthy, D., & Salovey, P. (2003). Using message framing to motivate HIV testing among low-income, ethnic minority women. Health Psychology, 22, 60–67.
Baseman, J. G., & Koutsky, L. A. (2005). The epidemiology of human papillomavirus infections.Journal of Clinical Virology, 32(Suppl. 1), S16–24.
Bosch, F. X., Lorincz, A., Muñoz, N., Meijer, C. J., & Shah, K. V. (2002). The causal relation between human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. Journal of Clinical Pathology, 55, 244–265.
Capolongo, M. J., DiBonaventura, M., & Chapman, G. B. (2006). Physician vaccinate thyself: Why influenza vaccination rates are higher among clinicians than nonclinicians. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 31, 288–296.
Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319–333.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2004). Genital HPV infection: CDC fact sheet. Retrieved February 20, 2005, from http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
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.
Detweiler, J. B., Bedell, B. T., Salovey, P., Pronin, E., & Rothman, A. J. (1999). Message framing and sunscreen use: Gain-framed messages motivate beach-goers. Health Psychology, 18, 189–196.
Gerend, M. A., Lee, S. C., & Shepherd, J. E. (in press). Predictors of human papillomavirus vaccination acceptability among underserved women. Sexually Transmitted Diseases.
Harper, D. M., Franco, E. L., Wheeler, C., Ferris, D. G., Jenkins, D., Schuind, A., et al. (2004). Efficacy of a bivalent L1 virus-like particle vaccine in prevention of infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet, 364, 1757–1765.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.
Idson, L. C., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Imagining how you'd feel: The role of motivational experiences from regulatory fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 926–937.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
Kiene, S. M., Barta, W. D., Zelenski, J. M., & Cothran, D. L. (2005). Why are you bringing up condoms now? The effect of message content on framing effects of condom use messages.Health Psychology, 24, 321–326.
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, 205–218.
Maheswaran, D., & Meyers-Levy, J. (1990). The influence of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Marketing Research, 27, 361–367.
Maner, J. K., & Gerend, M. A. (in press). Motivationally selective risk judgments: Do fear and curiosity boost the boons or the banes?Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
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.
McCaul, K. D., Johnson, R. J., & Rothman, A. J. (2002). The effects of framing and action instructions on whether older adults obtain flu shots. Health Psychology, 21, 624–628.
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.
Millar, M. G., & Millar, K. U. (2000). Promoting safe driving behaviours: The influences of message framing and issue involvement. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 853–856.
Moscicki, A. B. (2005). Impact of HPV infection in adolescent populations. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, S3–9.
Muñoz, N., Bosch, F. X., de Sanjosé, S., Herrero, R., Castellsagué, X., Shah, K. V., et al. (2003). Epidemiologic classification of human papillomavirus types associated with cervical cancer. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 518–527.
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.
Robberson, M. R., & Rogers, R. W. (1988). Beyond fear appeals: Negative and positive persuasive appeals to health and self-esteem. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 277–287.
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, S202–220.
Rothman, A. J., Kelly, K. M., Hertel, A., & Salovey, P. (2003). Message frames and illness representations: Implications for interventions to promote and sustain healthy behavior. In L. D.Cameron & H.Leventhal (Eds.), The self-regulation of health and illness behavior (pp. 278–296). London: Routledge.
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.
Rothman, A. J., & Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 3–19.
Rothman, A. J., Salovey, P., Antone, C., Keough, K., & Martin, C. D. (1993). The influence of message framing on intentions to perform health behaviours. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 408–433.
Schneider, T. R., Salovey, P., Apanovitch, A. M., Pizarro, J., McCarthy, D., Zullo, J., et al. (2001). The effects of message framing and ethnic targeting on mammography use among low-income women. Health Psychology, 20, 256–266.
Taylor, B., Miller, E., Farrington, C. P., Petropoulos, M. C., Favot-Mayaud, I., Li, J., et al. (1999). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: No epidemiological evidence for a causal relation. Lancet, 353, 2026–2029.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice.Science, 211, 453–458.
Villa, L. L., Costa, R. L., Petta, C. A., Andrade, R. P., Ault, K. A., Giuliano, A. R., et al. (2005). Prophylactic quadrivalent human papillomavirus (types 6, 11, 16, and 18) L1 virus-like particle vaccine in young women: A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II efficacy trial. Lancet Oncology, 6, 271–278.
Winer, R. L., Hughes, J. P., Feng, Q., O'Reilly, S., Kiviat, N. B., Holmes, K. K., et al. (2006). Condom use and risk of genital human papillomavirus infection in young women. New England Journal of Medicine, 354, 2645–2654.
Yacobi, E., Tennant, C., Ferrante, J., Pal, N., & Roetzheim, R. (1999). University students' knowledge and awareness of HPV. Preventive Medicine, 28, 535–541.
Zimet, G. D. (2005). Improving adolescent health: Focus on HPV vaccine acceptance. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37, S17–23.
