Review of literature on framing and health PSA
| Study | Independent variables | Dependent variables | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fernandez-Lores et al. (2024) | Three health campaigns with different narrative frames and emotions in the messages | Persuasive effectiveness | Negative framing and high levels of emotional intensity worked effectively |
| Satybaldiyeva et al. (2024) | Nature of outcomes (gain versus loss) and for whom (individual versus collective) | Intention to vaccinate | Gain (vs loss) framed messages performed better with a collective appeal when promoting HAV vaccinations among populations with high perceived barriers |
| Luo et al. (2024) | Loss-versus-gain framing affects HPV vaccination among Chinese female college students | HPV vaccination intention | Gain framed message activated greater hope than the loss-framed one, with hope influencing vaccine intention |
| Davies et al. (2024) | Positively framed, negatively framed and ambiguous messages presented on alcohol labels | Drinking intentions | Positive and negative messages, in comparison to ambiguous responsible drinking messages were more likely to change behaviour |
| Barnes et al. (2023) | Framing and vaccine familiarity | COVID-19 booster vaccine intention | Positive (vs negative) framing of side effect information increased vaccine intent |
| Barbaros (2022) | Stages of change (contemplation or preparatory stage), perceived risk and vulnerability and perceived control | How people interpret message framing and their subsequent intentions regarding the behaviour of accepting or refusing anti-COVID-19 vaccination | Choice of gain-framed or loss-framed narratives was contingent on peoples’ stages of change (contemplation or preparatory stage), perceived risk and vulnerability and perceived control |
| Reinhardt et al. (2022) | Gain- or loss-framed messages, distraction vs non-distraction | Recognition, intention to seek further information | Gain-framed radio PSAs are an appropriate tool to raise awareness for a vaccination campaign and its contents, especially when recipients are concentrating |
| Pang et al. (2021) | Graphic health warnings using negative framing | Increasing quit intentions and perceptions of health risks | Graphic health warning increases quit intentions. Wear out effects were also observed for graphic health warnings |
| Timmons et al. (2021) | Negative vs positive framing, anonymity | Compliance with COVID-19 guidance | Compliance was reduced by negatively framing questions and increasing anonymity |
| Bertoni et al. (2020) | Informational content (restricted or enhanced information) and the framing (gain or loss framing) | Participation in breast cancer screening program | Providing enhanced loss-framed information about the risks of not having a mammography increases the take-up |
| D’Antoni et al. (2019) | Positive and negative framing, agency | Intentions to use the antivirals | Virus agency and positive framing increased response efficacy |
| Rosenblatt et al. (2018) | Negative vs positive framing, text vs graphic based | Dietary self-control | Negatively framed text health warnings and positively framed graphic health warnings promoted greater dietary self-control than positively framed text health warnings and control images |
| Notthoff and Carstensen (2017) | Positive vs negative framing, perceived walkability | Message effectiveness | Positively-framed messages promote walking in older adults better than negatively-framed messages, which was further contingent on perceived walkability |
| Nandakumar et al. (2017) | High efficacy and loss framed message | Attitudes and intentions | High efficacy public health messages in combination with high threat messages can significantly influence consumer attitudes and intentions |
| Haydarov and Gordon (2015) | Attribute and goal frame | Vaccination behaviour | Combination of the positive attribute frame and the negative goal frame was the only condition that was significantly more persuasive than the control condition |
| This study | Mortality salience and framing | Covid-19 health compliance and flu vaccine intention | Under mortality salience, negatively (vs positively) framed messages were found to be more effective in encouraging positive health compliant behaviours |
| Study | Independent variables | Dependent variables | Key findings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Three health campaigns with different narrative frames and emotions in the messages | Persuasive effectiveness | Negative framing and high levels of emotional intensity worked effectively | |
| Nature of outcomes (gain versus loss) and for whom (individual versus collective) | Intention to vaccinate | Gain (vs loss) framed messages performed better with a collective appeal when promoting HAV vaccinations among populations with high perceived barriers | |
| Loss-versus-gain framing affects HPV vaccination among Chinese female college students | HPV vaccination intention | Gain framed message activated greater hope than the loss-framed one, with hope influencing vaccine intention | |
| Positively framed, negatively framed and ambiguous messages presented on alcohol labels | Drinking intentions | Positive and negative messages, in comparison to ambiguous responsible drinking messages were more likely to change behaviour | |
| Framing and vaccine familiarity | COVID-19 booster vaccine intention | Positive (vs negative) framing of side effect information increased vaccine intent | |
| Stages of change (contemplation or preparatory stage), perceived risk and vulnerability and perceived control | How people interpret message framing and their subsequent intentions regarding the behaviour of accepting or refusing anti-COVID-19 vaccination | Choice of gain-framed or loss-framed narratives was contingent on peoples’ stages of change (contemplation or preparatory stage), perceived risk and vulnerability and perceived control | |
| Gain- or loss-framed messages, distraction vs non-distraction | Recognition, intention to seek further information | Gain-framed radio PSAs are an appropriate tool to raise awareness for a vaccination campaign and its contents, especially when recipients are concentrating | |
| Graphic health warnings using negative framing | Increasing quit intentions and perceptions of health risks | Graphic health warning increases quit intentions. Wear out effects were also observed for graphic health warnings | |
| Negative vs positive framing, anonymity | Compliance with COVID-19 guidance | Compliance was reduced by negatively framing questions and increasing anonymity | |
| Informational content (restricted or enhanced information) and the framing (gain or loss framing) | Participation in breast cancer screening program | Providing enhanced loss-framed information about the risks of not having a mammography increases the take-up | |
| Positive and negative framing, agency | Intentions to use the antivirals | Virus agency and positive framing increased response efficacy | |
| Negative vs positive framing, text vs graphic based | Dietary self-control | Negatively framed text health warnings and positively framed graphic health warnings promoted greater dietary self-control than positively framed text health warnings and control images | |
| Positive vs negative framing, perceived walkability | Message effectiveness | Positively-framed messages promote walking in older adults better than negatively-framed messages, which was further contingent on perceived walkability | |
| High efficacy and loss framed message | Attitudes and intentions | High efficacy public health messages in combination with high threat messages can significantly influence consumer attitudes and intentions | |
| Attribute and goal frame | Vaccination behaviour | Combination of the positive attribute frame and the negative goal frame was the only condition that was significantly more persuasive than the control condition | |
| This study | Mortality salience and framing | Covid-19 health compliance and flu vaccine intention | Under mortality salience, negatively (vs positively) framed messages were found to be more effective in encouraging positive health compliant behaviours |
Source(s): Authors’ own work
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.